whoops. my fault i misheard my father when he mentioned that last night.

that's even more fucking ridiculous then, eh?

Those two statements don't add up.

Can I get facts. Please explain the connection between Obama and Acorn, please. The whole "guilty by loose association: is pretty lame. A "community of homeless people and ex-cons?" That's fucking insane.

I'm pretty sure that if you eliminate every political figure that associates with 3 people you don't like, you're going to get rid of every member of Congress.

SI

First the Drudge Report and now Michelle Malkin.

Heh. You guys are funny.

I'd go to DailyKos to find a good article to quote, but it's blocked here at work. Fucking conservatives.

Clearly she's for smaller government.

Well, yeah- in a perfect world, all places would get the same per capita if they had the same needs so Boise and, uh, W-- Wa-- Whatever, AK, would get roughly the same.

SI

Anchorage Press | Home

I say so what? Like others have said it is her show and she is free to have on it who she wants. She isn't a news media source like Fox, CNN, etc so she has no obligation to have her on. Everyone knows Oprah is a supporter of Obama. Is Dennis Miller getting Obama on his show.....ah oh that's right he doesn't have a show anymore.

Since everyone is getting so partisan, I thought I'd join.

http://abcnews.go.com/images/Polling...ePalinPick.pdf

That's probably a good thing, seeing how Obama excruciatingly parsed every response to the questions on the O'Reilly Factor and the Saddleback Forum. He would probably have a brain aneurysm trying to parse his responses to Miller.

Is that what you think or what Michelle Malkin thinks?

That's above my pay grade.

Wow. He thinks too much?

Exactly.

He thinks too much about how to give a non-committal response to a question.

So you'd rather have a president that just spurts the first unintelligent thing that comes from his mouth, than a president that actually thinks about what he's going to say before saying it?

Wouldn't surprise me if this has been up here before, but I am just now seeing it. If he said what this video says he does, then it's a combo of f*****g hilarious and a bit..........not hilarious.

The actual breakdown of the Wasilla earmarks appears to be this:

Project	Amount	Bill	Fiscal Year
Wasilla intermodal facility	$1,000,000	Transportation	FY2000
Kids are People, Inc. for a transitional living program for homeless youth and an emergency shelter in Wasilla, Alaska	$500,000	VA-HUD	FY2001
Life Quest Community Mental Health Center in Wasilla, Alaska	$500,000	Omnibus	FY2001
Girdwood to Wasilla, Alaska, commuter rail project	$15,000,000	Transportation	FY2001
Wasilla Regional Dispatch Center in Alaska for technology and communications upgrades	$1,000,000	CJS	FY2002
Federal lands: Mat-Su Borough/Wasilla, Alaska	$500,000	Transportation	FY2002
Bus and bus facilities: City of Wasilla bus facility	$600,000	Transportation	FY2002
New starts: Wasilla, Alaska, alternative route project	$2,500,000	Transportation	FY2002
Wasilla, Alaska water and sewer improvements	$1,500,000	VA-HUD	FY2002
City of Wasilla, Alaska for a regional dispatch center	$750,000	Omnibus	FY2003
Wasilla Airport, AK	$800,000	Omnibus	FY2003
Wasilla Intermodal Facility	$900,000	Omnibus	FY2003
Mananuska-Susitna Borough for an agricultural processing facility in Wasilla, Alaska	$450,000	Omnibus	FY2003
Wasilla, Alaska for water and sewer improvements	$900,000	Omnibus	FY2003
Total	$26,900,000

Even without the $15 mil chunk that went to the Railroad (not Wasilla), it still looks like a hefty amount. But I get the impression that it's par for the course in Alaska, though.

By the way, here's a neat spreadsheet that contains all the approved earmarks for the 2008 fiscal year. It's pretty interesting.

http://www.fof-ihof.com/upload/VPI97/bigkahuna.xls

- I'd rather have an intelligent president that can spurt what he believes from his mouth.

- I'd rather have a president that tells me what he believes is right as opposed to a president that tells me what a group of consultants have briefed him as to what is right.

- I'd rather have a president that tells me what he wants me to hear as opposed to a president that tells me what he thinks I want to hear.

Alaska is as close to a socialist shangri-la as it comes. They survive on oil taxes and taking money from the federal government.

it doesnt sound like there was space enough in McCains sentences to fit an F-bomb in there, Im not buying.

So you want a President that couldn't possibly win an election.

Which is why I said "if this is real" or whatever disclaimer I threw in there. Some of those don't fit IMO.

This is some fine UIC here. I'd give great props to ace if I thought he was intentionally mis-parsing the arguments he is responding to.

Just call me a young, black, independent, good-looking version of Bill O'Rieilly. Being an ass everyday...why? Just because.

The bottom line is this.

If you want 4 more years of Bush and his policies, you vote for McCain. If you want something else, you vote for Obama. Those are the choices.

-Cork

I agree with you 100%. We need to declare war. Congress should get of their asses and declare war. I have no problem with debate. I really don't. But once we have our boys in there it puts them in harms way and does affect morale when people are questioning why they are there, etc., etc.


Its not ridiculous at all. You have the debate before you go in. If you did that, you wouldn't have all this crap about fighting wars in a political manner. That is when we get in trouble. We didn't lose Vietnam in the field, we lost Vietnam on the home front. We fought with a hand behind our back, and we wound up losing. Kind of funny that everytime we fought with both hands, we brought North Vietnam to the table. When we left, North Vietnam supported by Russia violated the cease fire, and all we did was protest. The result was a North Vietnam take over of the South.

Right now in Iraq, we are very close to achieving our goals to leave. The one thing that made that possible was the surge. Good thing we didn't leave that up to the people because it never would have happened. As it is, when we leave, we will be giving Iraq the best opportunity to stand on their own, with no one holding a gun to the head of their government.

What is in the best interest of our military is that whenever we go to war, we have the generals fight the damn war rather than the politicians and the public. When we have done that, we tend to win, and win with fewer casualties.


This is all stuff that should take place when we are deciding whether or not to use force. At what point is military policy disastrous? When do we challenge? Is it the first body, or the second? Or is it the 32nd?

Do you know and understand military strategy? Do the people you are protesting with understand it? If no, how do we know our strategy is disastrous?

In World War II, we invaded Iwo Jima, primarily to provide an emergency airfield for damaged bombers returning from Japan. We lost 6,821 men in little over a month. The sacrifice of those men potentially saved over 20,000 bomber pilots that used the emergency facilities there over the rest of the war. Is that enough of a return?

Prior to World War II, Hitler reoccupied the Rhineland. He later called it one of the most anxious times in his life. He knew that if the French resisted he career was finished politically. The German Army at the time was no match for the French. But, the British would not back up the French, and the French were afraid to fight themselves without British support. Rather than sacrifice maybe 1,000 men, Europe was set on the course to WWII and the loss of over 20 million lives.

I ask the questions, because when everything is on the table we are opening it up to every person that thinks they know a better way. Many times, it that is a path to greater destruction. Plus, there are times when a population does not see the greater ends that are accomplished with the use of force. But, there are times when it is the only thing that will suffice and solve a situation.

The one thing I do know, is that I am not qualified to make these decisions, and that is why I try my best to elect those that are qualified and best prepared to make them.

Not sure I like very many people in Congress either.

EDIT: Not saying that it is a 3 people I don't like and you're out either. But, when I look at the decisions he's made, and he has not much of a prior record to run on either, I use what I know to base my decisions upon. In the case of the people he has surrounded himself with, I do not like any of them. Its just one factor in the whole decision making process.

Unfortunately, Ron Paul didn't win the nomination.

I don't think she's going to vote for him. :D

Dammit man, thanks for that sparkling new pair of obvious glasses.

well Ron Paul seemed a bit krazy to me. maybe honest, which is good....David Duke was honest for a while...

The video for that McCain cursing thing even says it isn't real in the info for it.

"Proof of John McCain's temper and him cursing at a Senate hearing. This video is so true... since you can't find video evidence ANY place else on YouTube to dispute it. So just so the idiots are happy, its satire. THIS IS A JOKE PEOPLE! "

Pretty good job though.

He wasn't going to be too popular with that non-interventionism crap.

Did you run John Kerry's campaign?

He made the Republican debates highly entertaining though. I kept thinking - what the hell is this guy doing up there?

McCain-The Illusionist?

For my friend Vegas Vic. We all can find articles that prove one thing or the other. Just some of them are actually based on facts and not complete opinion or "guilty by association" techniques.

Or not.

Are you telling me that John McCain has a treasure trove full of unique ideas that are completely different from those used by the Bush whitehouse? Are you saying that John McCain in no way supports the Republican/Bush policies?

If so, then by all means lets hear them. I was under the impression that John McCain does what the far right tells him to do.

-Cork

Yeah, the far right were the spearheads behind the McCain/Feingold reform act and the McCain/Kennedy Immigration Reform Act. :crazy:

No, I think he means that's the same method Mr. Congeniality used in 04.

That Immigration bill didn't pass, did it?

John Kerry's slogan was basically, "I'm someone else!" That doesn't really get people fired up.

Certainly they've at least learned THAT lesson this time around.

Lotta anger in this thread. Mind if I pose a question to both sides? If, on Election Day, your candidate loses in a close race, what will your reaction be? I just got back from the convention in St. Paul and was talking with a left-leaning blogger about this, and what was interesting to me is that we both predicted some violence if Obama loses in a close election.

Also, I'm curious to know how many folks participating in this thread are A) actively volunteering for their candidate of choice and B) have donated money to their campaign. Maybe I'll start a poll on that one.

1. I predict no violence
2. I'd say complaints about disenfranchised this and that
3. Crestfalleness

A. no
B. yes

Violence? I doubt that. Now if he gets assassinated, that's a different story.

A. No.
B. Yes.

If Obama loses closely, there will be allegations that things weren't on the level, and that will spark some general rowdiness from the likes of those we saw on the that Denver Fox News clips a few pages back. It wouldn't really be motivated by politics, just people that would revel in an excuse to destory property.

The news will cover it as if it's real political unrest, and that will convince others across the country that burning shit in the street is a good idea.

I predict that there won't be any violence if McCain loses in a close election.

I think in some inner cities there would be violence if Obama loses in a close election, but it won't be that bad.

A. No
B. No, but I think I'm about to.

I wonder if any of the Obama supporters has a good feeling on what that "else" will be. I think they'll find it's going to be very close to "4 more years of Bush and his policies" on most major issues (war, health care, education, taxes, social security, energy).