Obama's Open Letter to the LGBT Community

[oxydolfan1]

"Doesn't Obama think bringing Bin Laden to justice is important to our national security??"

I don't know about Obama, but I believe the so-called "Islamofascist" threat is wildly overstated and misunderstood, not to mention a useful (and ruiniously expensive) way to prop up the military-industrial complex this nation is now built upon,, much to our detriment.

This spirit of fear is used to keep us in line, respectful and compliant to our true enemy at home, America's greatest threat from within, the same bullies and the same lessons we should have learned from as children.

I would rather be killed by a bomb blast then be saved by torture.

"Hillary's big mistake is she viewed herself, as did her campaign, as inevitable."

I agree, and what a God-awful campaign...

She tried to use Bill's message and rockstar persona without realizing that, as many Americans liked Bill, the Clinton presidency had its own pitfalls that, on reflection, led us to the nightmare that soon followed. I can't blame people for looking for an alternative to the same old, same old...

On the other hand, does Obama really represent that, after the smoke and mirrors clear and the complexities of the issues assert themselves? I've been impressed by Obama's recent statements and performances in the latest debates, but these are ultimately just performances. I no longer see him as utterly devoid of substance as I did a month ago, but his overriding message of "reaching across the aisle" is far too reminiscent of Pelosi's and Reid's policies of appeasement and capitulation.

What to do? I actually decided to vote Clinton in the primary on Super Tuesday because I didn't want the state to go for Obama, but I'm not sure I shouldn't have abstained after all, given some of Hillary's disappointing statements and tactics since then. Despite my reservations, I might vote Obama in the general if the election is close, just to vote against McCain and not feel so helpless about doing my best to keep them out, but am I not setting myself up for buyer's remorse myself?

So, you see, a lot of my own ego is wrapped up in this myself.

"Prediction for 2008? John McCain will be elected the 44th President of the United States."

Yeah, I think so too...but I also think the vice-presidential choices may have more of an effect than anyone realizes.

Very good thread, panthera. Thanks, everybody! You've all given me a lot to think about...

Apologies for the double post above.

 

[panthera]

Well, it has been up

on his official Website's blogs and fora for over 24 hours now. I would think that they would have noticed and pulled it if it weren't genuine...see link below.
Google is returning over 800,000 hits on the two open letters (the first was on that McClurkin or what ever that monster is named) but I can't find any retractions.
Again, before we discount it as fake, has anyone in the US talked to the Obama folks?

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/alexokrent/gGggJS/group_list

 

[andrewinorlando]

I do think that John McCain is going to pull it off. Hillary has run a dreadful campaign, and who really knows if Obama can win against McCain....I don't think he can. Quite honestly, riding the coattails of her husband (or anyone else, for that matter) is a foolish campaign strategy. Yeah, Bill did some great things that he can be very proud of. But if anyone doubts for a second that his moral shortcomings are not responsible for what we have running this country today, they're dead wrong. That same "change of pace" that people sought when electing this idiot in 2000, is the same change of pace people are looking for today, as they try to get this idiot out of the white house and move someone in who is actually competent. While I don't doubt Hillary can do the job, and probably do it well (??), she has derailed her own campaign, showing herself all too often to be a true politician. It's really a shame, because it would certainly be a major change of pace to elect a qualified woman to the white house. I just don't hold out ANY hope that gay people will benefit at all from the election of ANY of these candidates...it's all talk and rhetoric, just like we got from Bill Clinton. Defense of Marriage Act my ass!!

 

[petek]

Here's my take on who I would vote for if I was in the US. It would be for Obama. I would NEVER vote for Hilary Clinton after her support for an illegal war in Iraq. That was such a major mistake in both terms of cost and livves, by someone you think would have known better how on earth so many people can either give her a pass on it or discount it is unbelievable. She can promise all the universal healthcare she wants now but it would never erase that gaffe in my mind always wondering what she might do the next time something as dire comes up.
Now she's railing about NAFTA (so is Obama) but she was for it when Bill was president and it came into being. Besides that she's pandering to "fears" again. What does she think Canada is going to do if she wants to reopen NAFTA when Canada is the USA's largest source of energy. NAFTA guarantees that America and Americans get Canadas oil and natural gas at fair prices to what Canadians pay and can't be cut off from the supply if shortages exist elsewhere in the world.

 

[~sudsshane]

PeteK~

Let's clarify something here. When Obama said he opposed the Iraq War, he wasn't even elected to Congress yet. He had no access to Intelligence reports from the CIA, which Congress and The White House did. The reports from the CIA claimed that Iraq was in possession of weapons of mass destruction. I also now believe the Bush Administration manipulated those reports and lied to Congress. So what was Hillary Clinton supposed to do? We all wanted to believe in our President in the aftermath of 9/11. Most Americans also believed those reports and supported the war initially. Don't get me wrong, this war was not worth it. It was not worth the billions of dollars spent and the thousands of American and Iraqi lives lost. I think it is easy to cast blame on the Senators who voted for the War. The question is not what we shouldn't have done, but what we will do now? How will we ensure Iraq becomes a democracy and our men and women return home safely? I think an immediate pullout is not the way to go.

As for Obama claiming the "holier than thou high road", if you research his voting record on funding the Iraq War,his voting record is identical to Hillary Clinton's.

Obama beleives his own hot air and rhetoric. I hope Americans wake up before it is too late.

 

[~sudsshane]

also..

as far as NAFTA is concerned, Canada benefits greatly from free trade with the US, as does Mexico. NAFTA is a double edged sword in my opinion and needs to be renegotiated.

 

[rp2813]

Shane, your posts have really nailed it. I've been saying since 2004 that the 2008 election is the Democrats' to lose and they appear to be doing a great job of possibly pulling it off and giving us at least four more years of OUR money being feverishly crammed down the Iraqi rathole and also into the pockets of oil producers and refiners.

There was an article in the LA Times recently about how Jeb Bush was supposed to be the one who ended up in the White House, not W. It went into some detail about how W has always been the screw-up kid obsessed over receiving recognition from his dad. For those who still need to be hit over the head with it, that should explain why he went after Saddam. The writer also advised that both mom and pop Bush were quite dismayed when W won his first elective office. So what we're seeing is "East of Eden" being played out at the expense of our economy and national security.

As much as I want a Democrat in there next year, ANY regime change, even if it's McCain, will be more competent and I dare say less corrupt than that of Bush II, clearly the runaway winner for the title of absolute worst president in U.S. history.

 

[gyrafoam]

Yea Shane!

You go!

And I agree that Hillary was also one of many victims fed erroneous information from our intelligence gathering community at the direction of the Bush Administration. So she had no other information to go on. Also, Hillary, unlike her husband, is a military "Hawk" to begin with, so she would naturally lean towards a tougher stance when dealing with threats to our national security.

Now this Bin Laden stuff bothers me.

How can anyone think that the U.S. Government can EVER capture and prosecute Bin Laden?
If we did such a thing the whole world of Islam at large would come unglued.
So in my mind, if and when he is ever "captured" it will be Islamic's who nab him, possibly under direction of the White House or CIA. As long as they show his head being chopped-off and stuck on the ass-end of a pig, it matters not to me. (Do you suppose Al-Jazeera would have the genitalia to broadcast that----NOT!)

Do ya'll remember when McCain was this kind of free-spirited "maverick" that shot from the hip and spoke his mind?
Where is that guy?
He dissagreed with Bush in public almost two years ago, got a bad 'whippin from the GOP powers that be, and he has been goose-steppin' with the Bush brown-shirts, towing the "party-line" ever since.

Therefore:
How can we think that McCain will end up being anything other than an extension of the Bush Administration?

Just some thoughts to stir the pot a bit---------------

 

[petek]

The erroneous info wasn't all the info that was out there at the time that fateful decision was made. The UN inspectors had already been saying that they couldn't find any and with probably not much more time could have completed and wrapped it all up. But that wasn't good enough.

As for NAFTA. I'm no more expert on NAFTA than the vast majority of citzenry in the US, Canada or Mexico and believe me there are plenty of Canadians who want it scrapped as well because under NAFTA we have to pay supply and demand costs which include the US market. If the US opts out of NAFTA and the demand drops, we can sell all that oil and natural gas worldwide at world prices and not keep the domestic price artificially high like we do now under NAFTA.By not knowing what the real benefits of NAFTA are to Americans it's complete and utter foolishness to make a decision without the facts and both Hilary and Obama are cherry picking only some of the negatives and lying by omission the benefits. Most Americans have no clue where there energy comes from other than thinking from the middle east which isn't true. The biggest percentage of energy imp9orts to the USA come from Canada and a big chunk of oil also from Mexico. If the USA opted out of NAFTA you would end up paying world prices and have absolutely no guarantee of supply which you do now. How's that gonna sit with the crowd in Peoria when their home heating bill exceeds their mortgage and gasoline prices skyrocket much higher. By about 2030 or so oil exports from Canada to the US are projected to exceed all middle east oil. Be very careful what you wish for.

Just how important is all this oil etc.. Well there has been a dispute going on between Canada and the USA for years and years on softwood lumber exports from Canada into the USA..The USA went ahead and put duties on all imported Canadian wood products against NAFTA rules. The WTO ruled against the USA saying they were illegal but the USA wouldn't remove them. Well about a year ago the Chinese government came sniffing around Canada looking to buy into the biggest nickel mining company and were also sniffing around the Alberta oil scene. Before their plane to leave had barely got out of sight the illustrious Dick Cheney was in his plane heading up to Canada for probably the first time, check in hand, and ended the softwood trade dispute finally and paying back the billions of dollars the US govt had collected over all the years. So for someone like Hilary and Obama to just be running from town to town saying they are going to opt out or re-open negotiations people better be asking some tough questions as to what they stand to lose.

 

[petek]

One of the other anti-Nafta campaigners, I can't remember which one it was now had the most idiotic, written for morons radio blurb awhile back. He was railing again this so called NAFTA super-hiway that is proposed to be built between Mexico thru the US up to Canada. Basically all he was saying to the morons was to scrap NAFTA because they're gonna build this big humongous hiway and people are going to lose their land? As if no one ever loses or has lost their land for every inch of Interstate built or being built over the last 50 years? Besides the proposed super-highway isn't a single dedicated all by itself freeway, it's part and parcel of the current interstate system using current portions already in existance and new parts added on where needed for a more direct approach, nothing that the US probably wouldn't be building some time in the future anyways..but tag NAFTA to it and suddenly it's a huge bogeyman. And to top if off if it is being built to expedite traffic between Canada and the US under NAFTA then both Canada and Mexico will probably be paying for some of the construction costs as well.

 

[maggie~hamilton]

Some of us with a little mileage on us bitterly remember how readily politicians say one thing and conveniently do another thing after being elected. Especially regarding gay rights.

When campaigning before his successful election in 1991, California Governor Pete Wilson garnered a lot of attention from his pledge to support a broad-reaching gay rights bill. He was widely lauded in the gay and progressive press for his courageous stance.

However, after his election, when it came time to "put the pedal to the metal," he VETOED the bill.

I clearly remember that evening in 1991 when I was in West Hollywood attending a meeting, when news came out that Governor Wilson had reneged on his campaign promise.

An impromptu but, thankfully, civilized protest broke out in West Hollywood. People were literally standing out on the sidewalk bawling bitter tears of rejection and abandonment; others were bellowing their frustration and outrage. Gays and lesbians began marching down the sidewalk chanting protests. Which all got about 10 seconds of air time on the nightly news, of course, and then it was blithely forgotten by the public and the mass media who moved on to other issues.

Frankly, I smell the same scent in the wind with Obama and all his promises to support gay rights.

A politician is a politician is a politician.

 

[panthera]

A politician is a politician is...

I lived in San Francisco at the beginning of the Aids epidemic, I lost nearly everyone I knew to the disease. I don't need a lecture on how politicians are, I need a clear plan to prevent four more years of what we have gone through since 2000.
The luxury of turning up one's nose and sneering at politics and politicians is how the world ended up with the current mess.
I submit that we no longer enjoy this luxury.
We aren't voting for somebody, we are voting against a really bad group of people. Principles and high values are wonderful, but while some of us rest upon them, the christianists are out voting.
Hold your nose when you vote, if you must, but remember: The wingnuts and whackjobs always vote. If the last seven years have taught us anything, it is that there is a difference.

 

[buffster]

Panthera

Though I may not agree with your point of view, I appreciate your thoughtfulness. I'm also curious. You list your homes as Colorado and Germany. Are you a U.S. citizen and are you eligible to vote here in the U.S.?

 

[panthera]

Mike,

I'm curious as to where we disagree - do write more, please.
My parents are US citizens, I grew up in the US. My citizenship is German. I am fortunate in being able to occasionally spend time in the US to visit family.
Like all interested Europeans - perhaps more so, because I know and like the US so well - I am following the current political discourse closely.

 

[oxydolfan1]

Clinton, Obama Tussle Over Blackwater (Updated)
By Noah Shachtman EmailFebruary 29, 2008 | 10:42:00 AMCategories: Mercs, Politricks

Just as Blackwater had finally fallen from the headlines and the boys in Moyock thought their State Department contract would be quietly renewed, their worst nightmare has hit: Blackwater is a campaign issue. In an ironic twist of politics, Blackwater head honcho Erik Prince is now on the same side of the contractor issue as Senator Barack Obama -- more or less.

Senator Hillary Clinton broke her longstanding silence on private security contractors in Iraq. Her senate office announced late Thursday that she is co-sponsoring a bill to ban "Blackwater and other private mercenary firms in Iraq."

The timing of the announcement is particularly curious. It comes less than a day after the investigative journalist and Blackwater critic Jeremy Scahill published a piece in The Nation reporting that, if elected, "Obama will not 'rule out' using private security companies like Blackwater Worldwide in Iraq." The campaign also informed Scahill that Obama would not be signing on to legislation banning the use of contractors in war zones by 2009. [Obama previously pushed in the Senate a bill to force some transparency into the private military contractor business -- ed.]

The campaign also informed Scahill that Obama would increase State Department funding so that State could build their own ranks and eventually replace contractors. Scahill noted the difficulty of the position:

The senior adviser acknowledged that Obama could find himself in a situation where, as President, he continues using forces he himself has identified as "unaccountable." The Obama campaign, in other words, may have painted itself into a corner.

It appears that Clinton's campaign realized the risk Obama was taking and picked up the issue in an attempt to outflank Obama on the left and pick up the vote of Blackwater opponents.

I spoke with Scahill about the coincidental timing. "For over a week I tried to get Hillary Clinton's campaign and Senate staff to issue a policy statement reflecting her position on her potential future use of PMCs in Iraq if she won the presidency. Silence. Then, the day after my story comes out revealing that Obama will not "rule out" using them, all of a sudden Hillary Clinton becomes the most important political figure in the US to call for a "ban" on Blackwater et al." Scahill said. "Where was her call for a ban after [Blackwater's controversial shooting of civilians at] Nisour Square?"

Maybe somewhere underneath the Oval Office drapery measurements?

Senator Clinton targeted what has become America's most hated company with unusually strong rhetoric, clearly intended for emotional appeal, something her campaign has sorely lacked:

"From this war's very beginning, this administration has permitted thousands of heavily-armed military contractors to march through Iraq without any law or court to rein them in or hold them accountable. These private security contractors have been reckless and have compromised our mission in Iraq. The time to show these contractors the door is long past due. We need to stop filling the coffers of contractors in Iraq, and make sure that armed personnel in Iraq are fully accountable to the U.S. government and follow the chain of command," said Senator Clinton.

Clinton, Obama Tussle Over Blackwater (Updated)
By Noah Shachtman EmailFebruary 29, 2008 | 10:42:00 AMCategories: Mercs, Politricks

Just as Blackwater had finally fallen from the headlines and the boys in Moyock thought their State Department contract would be quietly renewed, their worst nightmare has hit: Blackwater is a campaign issue. In an ironic twist of politics, Blackwater head honcho Erik Prince is now on the same side of the contractor issue as Senator Barack Obama -- more or less.

Senator Hillary Clinton broke her longstanding silence on private security contractors in Iraq. Her senate office announced late Thursday that she is co-sponsoring a bill to ban "Blackwater and other private mercenary firms in Iraq."

The timing of the announcement is particularly curious. It comes less than a day after the investigative journalist and Blackwater critic Jeremy Scahill published a piece in The Nation reporting that, if elected, "Obama will not 'rule out' using private security companies like Blackwater Worldwide in Iraq." The campaign also informed Scahill that Obama would not be signing on to legislation banning the use of contractors in war zones by 2009. [Obama previously pushed in the Senate a bill to force some transparency into the private military contractor business -- ed.]

The campaign also informed Scahill that Obama would increase State Department funding so that State could build their own ranks and eventually replace contractors. Scahill noted the difficulty of the position:

The senior adviser acknowledged that Obama could find himself in a situation where, as President, he continues using forces he himself has identified as "unaccountable." The Obama campaign, in other words, may have painted itself into a corner.

It appears that Clinton's campaign realized the risk Obama was taking and picked up the issue in an attempt to outflank Obama on the left and pick up the vote of Blackwater opponents.

I spoke with Scahill about the coincidental timing. "For over a week I tried to get Hillary Clinton's campaign and Senate staff to issue a policy statement reflecting her position on her potential future use of PMCs in Iraq if she won the presidency. Silence. Then, the day after my story comes out revealing that Obama will not "rule out" using them, all of a sudden Hillary Clinton becomes the most important political figure in the US to call for a "ban" on Blackwater et al." Scahill said. "Where was her call for a ban after [Blackwater's controversial shooting of civilians at] Nisour Square?"

Maybe somewhere underneath the Oval Office drapery measurements?

Senator Clinton targeted what has become America's most hated company with unusually strong rhetoric, clearly intended for emotional appeal, something her campaign has sorely lacked:

"From this war's very beginning, this administration has permitted thousands of heavily-armed military contractors to march through Iraq without any law or court to rein them in or hold them accountable. These private security contractors have been reckless and have compromised our mission in Iraq. The time to show these contractors the door is long past due. We need to stop filling the coffers of contractors in Iraq, and make sure that armed personnel in Iraq are fully accountable to the U.S. government and follow the chain of command," said Senator Clinton.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/02/just-as-blackwa.html

 

[petek]

It's not like there wasn't any opposition to extending gay rights and real gay marriage in Canada. There was plenty of Bible-thumpers, Christian orgs etc all against it. It didn't all happen in one fell swoop either. Individual provinces started legislating equality into their own charters much as some states have done which began to put pressure on the holdouts. The federal govt also began extending benefits but was nervous about doing anything to amend the marriage act to include same-sex couples. It actually was the Supreme Court of Canada that made the decision for them when they told the Federal Govt that the Canadian Charter of Rights while not explicitly stating against discrimination on the basis of sexual-orientation (only the word "sex" is written) that it must be "read into it" as including "sexual orientiation". That was the end of the matter and everyone ran off to church to get married LOL I'm glad that we got the real marriage deal and not a phony "civil union" type like in the UK which in itself is discriminatory still.
My partner and I have been together 25 years but we have no plans on getting married, that would probably jinx it.

 

[brettsomers]

interesting thread. ive learned from it.

play nice!

 

[gyrafoam]

The Blackwater issue is extremely tawdry------

there is much we civilians have not been privy to. Very dark and very very nasty secrets of the worst kind of abuses------all in the name of the US. Stuff the government will NEVER allow us to know.Stuff the government never even knew about, and can now claim to be innocent of such knowledge.

Out of necessity they became just as dark and nasty as some of the other groups in the middle east. Hizbollah, Hamas, etc.
When you get down and dirty over there you have to play the game like everyone else to survive.

Both Hillary and Obama are well aware of what has been going on. They will take the tid-bits of information that are allowed to be fed to us public and try to turn as much of the stuff into their advantage. McCain, of course, will say very little on the topic.

All the contestants are part of the system of feeding us "public" just certain parts of the puzzle. The internet and other media are so fast and powerful no they can "spin" a story 'round the world in seconds and people will believe it.

The hotbed story in the Middle East for weeks concerns the tiny town of Sderot in Israel. For months now the Palestinians in Gaza have been lobbing HUNDREDS of rockets at the Israeli village----day and night, day after day. They indescriminatly hit schools, hospitals, shopping areas, homes, etc. (Mind you, the Bush administration has donated over $50M of our tax money this year alone for "aid" to the Palestianians.)

Can you imagine what Texans would do if day after day, night after night,week after week, rockets launched from Mexico kept raining down on the citizens of Houston?!!!!!!!

Well, as usual, the citizens of Israel have had enough!
Any moment now Israel is going to attack the Palestinians and "clean out the threat from within".Just like the Palestinian terrorists know they will have to do.

The Petro-Oil Dollar funded Palestinian Propaganda Machine will be front and center showing their women holding their bloody babies and slapping their heads in grief for the world to see and sympathize with.

BUT WHERE IS THE MEDIA SHOWING ALL OF THE BLOODY JEWISH BABIES????????? The media NEVER, EVER shows the world the horrors that the Palestinians have incurred on the simple, hardworking folks in Israel. NEVER, EVER, EVER!
Start paying attention to it and you will see----Israel is ALWAYS portrayed at the "evil agressor". NBC, The N.Y.Times, The London Daily Telegraph, doesn't matter what you read Israel is ALWAYS the "evil one".

Instead when Israel responds to the constant terrorizing of their citizens, the Palestinian sympathizers scream bloody murder about what a monstorous "killing machine" Israel is, and all kinds propaganda about the Israeli military, etc.

Last night there was an article in the London Daily Telegraph about the Israeli army preparing to take action to clear out the terrorists who have been sending all those hundreds of rockets into Sderot.
Sure enough----there was the standard propaganda photo showing the Palestinian women in black chador holding up a bloody child and wailing at the heavens.
No where was the first mention of all the hundreds of Israeli citizens who have been injured or killed in the last year or so by those constant rocket attacks.
The Petro-Dollar funded Palestinian Propaganda Machine is VERY powerful and spred-our 'round the world. Especially helped by their friends "Al-Jazeera" the Islamic equivalent to the US's Fox News, (who ironically can be sympathetic towards Israel when it suits them!)

So from this you can imagine what a vicious little web our government can "spin" for us with events we are allowed to know about concerning those private security firms in Iraq.
Nevermind the gazillions of our tax dollars that have passed through those companies----I'm sure all their owners live in Texas and drive Hummers to and from from their ranch's on the way to W's Bar-B-Ques.

Our tax dollars have poured through this Iraqi invasion like water through a sieve. It is still pouring and ALL of our potential Presidential wanabees are clearly aware of it----amongs other things.

Why don't they answer some real questions:

Who will their cabinet be?
What do they propose to do to begin turning around the damage the Bush administration has inflicted on Washington and the World at large-----both militarily and economically?
Just how do they propose to do it.

What will they do to reign in "big business" and try to re-instate some of the safeguards meant to protect "We the People" from their ravages of greed? Capitalism is good with proper controls in place. We have seen what happens when it is allowed to run amok as it has the last seven years.

If Bush's Medicare "Part D" Supplement program is not "socialism" than I don't know what is. So all the GOP anti-socialists out there wailing about the Democrats health plans being the devil in disguise--need to just shut up.
We do need a comprehensive national health system. Period, end. It won't be perfect, but we must start somewhere.
The trillions of our tax monies spent pouring through the sieve of Iraq would do much for the citizens of the US.

What policies are they going to either keep or modify concerning our National Security?
And if the don't get control of our borders, how will they ever know who is really crossing them and invading our country?

What will they do about the many millions of Illegal Mexican Invaders. The statistics are out----1 in every 36 Mexicans are in our jails right now---costing us even more tax money----and we don't even know who they really are! No ID whatsoever. Whatever name they "tell" the courts clerk is what they have to go by. Ridiculous! Can't even do a back-ground check on them!
What about the rampant level of crime sweeping the US?
When I left the south-side of Atlanta last fall our neighborhood jails were overflowing with thousands of Illegal Mexican Invaders. Clogging the judicial system and grinding the process to a halt. No one even knows the names of most of them.
Crime in our major cities is out of control and going "over the top". Every day we hear about some terrible crime more horrendous then the last. Its awful!
We better get a grip and fast! Our jails are full of millions of criminals and once inside THEY run the system. They completely overwhelm the people who are trying to run the prisons. Scary, scary, scary! A disaster waiting to happen!
The politicains never mention a word of it but know how bad a threat it is getting to be.

Oh, there are many questions
"We the People" deserve to have answered by these Presidential hopefuls. But they will always take the easy way out. If the want my vote they better get some meat on the bone. I don't want to even hear about their Gay-Baiting.
Neither their laws nor being Gay EVER stopped me from doing what I wanted to do. So they need to stick to the real issues that effect us all in this country to get my vote.

Anything less that talk about "We the People" will do nothing more than anger me further.
Doesn't it anger you?

O.K. I'm off my soapbox now------wow, I must have had the caffienated tea this morning.........

 

[oxydolfan1]

"...he sounds like the "teacher" to Charlie Brown on a Peanuts cartoon - "WauWa Wau WauWa Wau Wau"..."

Too funny, Bob!

Although, Hillary is no slouch either, when she gets into that whole caterwauling thing she lapses into on occasion...OY!

I still think McCain's limited mobility works against him. It may well be that he sustained the injuries from torture, but it still makes him seem vulnerable and aged in the camera's eye.

I guess the main thing is the words they speak are at least coherent and in recognizable English, which is a far cry from what we have right now....

 

[oxydolfan1]

"The Petro-Dollar funded Palestinian Propaganda Machine is VERY powerful and spred-our 'round the world."

And the corresponding Israeli propaganda machine and AIPAC isn't?

Gyrafoam, I'm aware of the Sderot situation, but painting the Palestinian people as the aggressors in their own rape and Israel as the pristine snowflake strains credulity.