Something I discovered on Obama

[frigilux]

I'm far more concerned about who will be in office to choose the next members of the Supreme Court. If McCain were to push it firmly conservative, we would lose any hope of establishing meaningful gay rights until most of us are dead and gone.

PLEASE think about the larger picture, conservative/Republican gays, before you cast your vote for McCain. Your vote will probably determine whether gays will be able to adopt children, marry (or at the very least have some sort of legal civil union), or experience fairness in employment, etc.

All this back-and-forth about Palin will seem ridiculous when we find ourselves knocked back into the dark ages, legally speaking.

 

[petek]

I just sitting here taking a break from the monotonous RNC on CNN. It just seems to me that they are fixated on all things military and troops. Every video, every speaker, every montage of pictures, 9 out 10 of them has something military about it.
McCain seems to be all but a one maybe two trick pony,, his POW ordeal and his pushing for the surge...is there nothing else in there?

 

[mattl]

The other issue in this election we need to focus on, as a back up measure, is to get a veto proof Senate. That way is the worst happens and McPAlin is elected we would be able to block much of the McPalin crap. I've always felt a divided govt. was best, the were counterbalances, but things are so far out of whack now I want all in Dem hands for at least 2 years, optimally 4.

So, Petek tell us about Canadian politics, is it anywhere as bad as here? How are things going in Canada now?

 

[pushtorelease]

At least you guys have some drama going on! Canadian politics these days are a dull, dull state of affairs. A minority government headed by Prime Minister (yawn)Harper, the opposition equally boring. We're probably heading for an election this fall but the only issue that's talked about is carbon taxes. Even the conservative Harper gave up on fighting gay marriage - it's law, it's done. I kind of miss the fight.....

 

[jeffg]

The real reason Obama is going to win

This story sounds like something from the front page of the National Enquirer. Except it's true:

Rupert Murdoch is a Barack Obama fan.

It sure explains the lack of Neocon 527's this election cycle.

Loading…

www.huffingtonpost.com

 

[runematic]

Ok, don't kill me, just roll with me. Since I've been labeled as a "parrot" and since it seems that the Huffington Post passes for journalism, I though I'd post this link. I REALIZE THE SOURCE. DON'T SHOOT ME. This is why alot of people just get an unease about Obama. The MSM gives Obama way too much leeway and refuses to investigate him as much as they are destroying the Palin family.

Loading…

www.newsmax.com

 

[runematic]

By the way, I hate blogs too. RIGHT OR LEFT. Just a lot of BS coming from the fingers of wanna-be reporters.

 

[panthera]

Rune,

Can you think of another political family with close ties to the Saudis? I'll give you a hint: Their name rhymes with shrub.
For crying out loud, not one word from you conservatives on the fact - proved, not disputable, that Palin was a member and active in a group which seeks secession from the Union, but you dig up every trivial connection between Obama as a child and people I wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole.
Yes, living in Europe I have had the pleasant opportunity to observe first hand how horrible Islam is. But, come on - you can't keep attacking our candidate and not admit that yours has some scary ties.
Or is the US Constitution really so horrible that you want to replace it with 'Biblical Law'?
Now, to be fair, Obama was not my first or second choice for president. I don't think he is as heavy weight an intellectual as Hillary and the US really, truly has had enough of the good 'ole boy dum-de-dum-dumbs. If the republicans had anyone (left) who was intellectually fit and OK with the US constitution, I would gladly give them a look over.
I know you hate it when I compare thing here to Europe, but for heaven's sake, everyone who travels or does business abroad is saying the same thing: The US is in serious danger of slipping behind the rest of the West in energy, infra-structure, profitability (ROI), education, personal safety...not to mention that absolutely zero of the conservative values you (and I) treasure such as fiscal responsibility and security have been competently addressed by the republicans over the last eight years. Ben Laden and the other god damned terrorists are still at large. Do you realize that the only reason the US has been able to avoid compulsory service (the draft!) is because we, your NATO partners have jumped in - as is our responsibility - to help you, despite being insulted and castigated at every turn? Hell, if we hadn't stopped Bush a few months ago, Georgia would have been a NATO partner and we would now be in a hot war with Russia. Yup, the day the US was attacked by those mother fcuking bastards, we declared war and entered the fray on your side to help you...but keep it up, destroy NATO and then what will you have? And that's the way the republicans are going.

 

[runematic]

Keven,
Platform and Goal
of the
Alaskan Independence Party

Preamble
We affirm that all political power is inherent in the people; that all government originates with the people, is founded on their will only, is instituted to protect the rights of the individual; that all persons have a natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the enjoyment of the rewards of their own industry; that all persons are equal and entitled to equal protection under the law. We stand on a firm constitutional foundation.
Platform
We pledge to exert our best efforts to accomplish the following:

To effect full compliance with the constitutions of the United States of America and the State of Alaska.

To support and defend States' Rights, Individual Rights, Property Rights, and the Equal Footing Doctrine as guaranteed by the constitutions of the United States of America and the state of Alaska.

To advocate the convening of a State Constitutional Convention at the constitutionally designated 10 year interval.

To reinforce the unalienable rights endowed by our Creator to Alaska law, by eliminating the use of the word "privilege" in the Alaska statutes.

To amend the Constitution of the State of Alaska so as to re-establish the rights of all Alaskan residents to entry upon all public lands within the state, and to acquire private property interest there in, under fair and reasonable conditions. Such property interest shall include surface and sub-surface patent.

To foster a constitutional amendment abolishing and prohibiting all property taxes.

To seek the complete repatriation of the public lands, held by the federal government, to the state and people of Alaska in conformance with Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17, of the federal constitution.

To prohibit all bureaucratic regulations and judicial rulings purporting to have the effect of law, except that which shall be approved by the elected legislature.

To preserve and protect the Alaska Permanent Fund, Permanent fund earnings, earnings reserve fund and individual Permanent Fund Dividends.

To provide for the direct popular election of the attorney general, all judges, and magistrates.

To provide for the development of unrestricted, statewide, surface transportation and utility corridors as needed by the public or any individual.

To affirm and assert every possible right-of-way established under R.S. 2477 of July 26, 1866, before its repeal by the Federal Land Management Policy Act of October 21, 1976.

To support the right of the individual to keep and bear arms.

To support the complete abolition of the concept of sovereign or governmental immunity, so as to restore accountability for public servants.

To support the rights of parents to privately or home school their children.

To support the privatization of government services.

To oppose the borrowing of money by government for any purposes other than for capital improvements.

To strengthen the traditional family and support individual accountability without government interference or regulation.

To support the right of jurors to judge the law as well as the facts, according to their conscience.

To support "Jobs for Alaskans...First!"


Confirmed by Statewide Convention
Fairbanks, Alaska 2008
All other copies are void

Where does it say they want to seceed? The founder wanted a vote, just a vote, on the secession. If you read the background, many Alaskans felt the vote was rigged back in 1958. They merely wanted a fair process. Of course, the leftist bloggers would rather not check the platform and create a mountain out of a molehill by leaving out some of these issues of their rantings.
I'll reqoute platform issue #1 just in case it was missed:
To effect full compliance with the constitutions of the United States of America and the State of Alaska

Now, I'm not saying that the founder wasn't a wackjob, because it looks like he was.

 

[panthera]

Well,

You ask the question, here is the answer:
quote begin:
To effect full compliance with the constitutions of the United States of America and the State of Alaska.

To support and defend States' Rights, Individual Rights, Property Rights, and the Equal Footing Doctrine as guaranteed by the constitutions of the United States of America and the state of Alaska.

To advocate the convening of a State Constitutional Convention at the constitutionally designated 10 year interval.

To reinforce the unalienable rights endowed by our Creator to Alaska law, by eliminating the use of the word "privilege" in the Alaska statutes.

To amend the Constitution of the State of Alaska so as to re-establish the rights of all Alaskan residents to entry upon all public lands within the state, and to acquire private property interest there in, under fair and reasonable conditions. Such property interest shall include surface and sub-surface patent.
end-quote
That's a clear call to secession.
Alaska's admittance to the Union was accepted as fair and legal by everyone except a few nut-jobs, and yes, you are quite right, Joe Vogler is a serious whack-job. Here's his quoted opinion on the US, from an interview:
Joe Vogler, told an interviewer in 1991: "The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government. ... And I won't be buried under their damn flag."

Now, I know we don't see eye to eye on many things, but we are both convinced that the US Constitution is the very bedrock of the US. Now, as I see it, anyone who supports a man who makes such statements is ineligible to support her oath of office, which is to uphold the Constitution.

The US deserves better. Tell you what, let's figure out a way to clone Dwight Eisenhower and Harry S. Truman. You chose whichever for president you like, the other vice-president. Together, they might just restore sanity to this country.

 

[jeffg]

> since it seems that the Huffington Post passes for journalism

The Huffington Post piece I referenced is an excerpt from a much longer Vanity Fair article. This meeting between Obama, Murdoch and Roger Aisles was widely publicized (outside of Fox News and other News Corp. outlets, obviously) and so far I've not seen where anyone denied it happened:

---------

Fox has been his alter ego. For a long time he was in love with the Fox chief,
Roger Ailes, because he was even more Murdoch than Murdoch. And yet now
the embarrassment can't be missed-he mumbles even more than usual when
called on to justify it; he barely pretends to hide the way he feels about Bill
O'Reilly. And while it is not possible that he would give Fox up-because the
money is the money; success trumps all-in the larger sense of who he is, he
seems to want to hedge his bets.

Just before the New York Democratic primary, when I found myself undecided
between Clinton and Obama, I said to Murdoch (a little flirtation, like a little
gossip, softens him), "Rupert, I don't know who to vote for-so I'm going to
give you my vote. You choose."

He paused, considered, nodded his head slowly: "Obama-he'll sell more papers."

Even though his daughter Elisabeth and her husband, high-flying P.R. man
Matthew Freud, have been raising money for Obama in Notting Hill, in London,
where they live, and his wife has been attending fund-raisers for Obama in Los
Angeles with David Geffen, this is a leap for Murdoch. Murdoch has traditionally
liked politicians to come to him. His historic shift in the 1990s to Tony Blair
came after Blair made a pilgrimage to Australia.

Obama, on the other hand, was snubbing Murdoch. Every time he reached out
(Murdoch executives tried to get the Kennedys to help smooth the way to an
introduction), nothing. The Fox stain was on Murdoch.

It wasn't until early in the summer that Obama relented and a secret courtesy
meeting was arranged. The meeting began with Murdoch sitting down, knee to
knee with Obama, at the Waldorf-Astoria. The younger man was deferential-
and interested in his story. Obama pursued: What was Murdoch's relationship
with his father? How had he gotten from Adelaide to the top of the world?

Murdoch, for his part, had a simple thought to share with Obama. He had
known possibly as many heads of state as anyone living today-had met every
American president from Harry Truman on-and this is what he understood:
nobody got much time to make an impression. Leadership was about what you
did in the first six months.

Then, after he said his piece, Murdoch switched places and let his special guest,
Roger Ailes, sit knee to knee with Obama.

Obama lit into Ailes. He said that he didn't want to waste his time talking to
Ailes if Fox was just going to continue to abuse him and his wife, that Fox had
relentlessly portrayed him as suspicious, foreign, fearsome-just short of a
terrorist.

Ailes, unruffled, said it might not have been this way if Obama had more
willingly come on the air instead of so often giving Fox the back of his hand.

A tentative truce, which may or may not have vast historical significance, was
at that moment agreed upon.

Loading…

www.vanityfair.com

 

[electron800]

Well one thing I can't understand here is

Why would it matter if he were a muslim? Would that mean he is not capable of running a country as well as a christian?

Just because he dosent blindly follow what the Bible says does not make him wrong or incapable of being president.

Personally I'm not even the slightest bit religious but I have no problem whatsoever with people who are, as long as

1)They can accept that there are some people who are simply not religious or whose faith differs from theirs and that this is not a bad thing.

2)They have thought long and hard about their beliefs and questioned them to make sure they are really rules by which they wish to live their lives. It annoys me when people follow religion blindly just becasue thats what they were brought up to do or feel thats what they should do. We are all individuals and we all have the right to our own beleifs and our own thoughts.

So just because Obama isnt a complete God-botherer who does exactly what the Bible says does not in any way mean he would be a bad president.

I don't mean to cause any offence to anyone by this post, it is just my peronal views on the matter and I felt the need to post it as I am having issues at the moment over religion with a very close friend.

 

[rocketwarrior]

Secession?

Keven,
At risk of seeming to be in bed with an Alaskan nut job, and not at all meant to disagree, how does what was presented amount to a "clear call to secession"? What I mean is that it seems like fairly (yawn) "independent party" stuff designed to get some discussion going. Which, as a practical matter, is the point of an independent party.

And, at risk of seeming to be trying to get in bed with an attractive candidate for VP, how is it fair to try to ascribe all of the Alaska Independent Party platform to her. My point being that in order to be a part of change, one tries to use one's vote effectively. With only two (or three) parties to choose from, a sensitive person is inevitably stuck with a plank here or there that isn't one you would fight for.

For example, many moderate Catholic Republicans are not going to put a lot of energy into taking apart Roe v. Wade and are going to continue to use birth control.

There are a lot of compromises we have to make in order to be players at all.

 

[panthera]

I'm not a constitutional lawyer,

and I bet Oldhouseman could explain it enormously better, but especially these two passages:

To reinforce the unalienable rights endowed by our Creator to Alaska law, by eliminating the use of the word "privilege" in the Alaska statutes.

To amend the Constitution of the State of Alaska so as to re-establish the rights of all Alaskan residents to entry upon all public lands within the state, and to acquire private property interest there in, under fair and reasonable conditions. Such property interest shall include surface and sub-surface patent.

(end quote)

are clear statements of withdrawal from the Union. As an example, part of what so upset Vogler was that native Americans were granted human rights (more than we homosexuals have under the republicans, by the by) under the conditions of admittance to the Union. This meant that non-natives could no longer exploit their property/lands.
I admit, the whole thing is cleverly worded, but as a whole, it admits of no other possibility but a constitutional convention, called to secede.

I very much agree with you that the lack of a choice in politics here in the US is frustrating. Just because I am displeased at the choice of Obama over Hillary or Edwards (yes, still - I am as faithful in my choices as the courses of the stars), that does not mean that I am going to run out and join the most extremest, hate-filled anti-constitutional party available to me. It simply means that I help my mom put out the Obama signs on the lawn, put the "Yes we can!" bumper stickers on the cars (oh, and as a side note, since I have driven my mom's car this summer, I have been verbally attacked twice and rammed four times in the parking lot by those all so patriotic Americans who support McCain. That's democracy and freedom of speech for you - at least from the republican viewpoint.)
Sorry 'bout the run-on sentence, they are jack hammering the sewer lines, again, across the street and it is hard to focus.

Anyway, the point is, if Palin didn't like the way things were being done in her party, she was free to work to change it. I daresay a governor has a moderate amount of influence, no? After all, she was already banning books and firing non-fundamentalist Christians left and right as a mayor. She didn't need to join a party avowed to succession, much less one closely allied to a group determined to overthrow constitutional rule in the US.
You know, I'm not making these things up - they are matters of record. It is incredible, I know - but she really is this way.

 

[mattl]

The MSM really needs to start digging into Palin's history and beliefs and I think it's happening. We simply can't keep going on about her family and her hockey mom status.

To that end, today on the radio there was discussion about her academic carer. She attended 5 different colleges in 6 years to get her degree in Communication. Of course none of the colleges would release any personal info, but she did graduate from Iowa. That topic is fair game. Why move around so much. And, as an aside, one of the schools was in Hawaii, for what ever that's worth.

 

[rocketwarrior]

Secession

I don't find the language to be a call for secession.

Legally: I see it as a desire to look at some of the terms of admittance to the Union. Heck, if I looked at the whole deal between Nebraska and the U.S. I would probably want to redo some of the terms - but then I like to disturb complacency.

Politically: As indicated above, it is just "Independent Party" noise to get people's attention and the blood flowing. I like that.

And if that language about the terms of admittance lights your fire and fuels your passion to go after her, well, okay.

But if I were going to take on Gov. Palin, I wouldn't bother with the secessionist theory - it is kind of out there and least likely to enhance my credibility. I would select a handful of the other concerns that are sitting there on a platter.

 

[rp2813]

I'm Voting Republican

And here's why

 

[rocketwarrior]

Oh, cool, from photoshop to satire.

Truly a think piece. I'll be up all night. Do you think it would be possible for anyone to do a satire piece about Democrats? Christians? Independants? Lawyers?

 

[rocketwarrior]

BTW, Welcome back Ralph

Ref. post 300381 - No sweat, the guys won't hold you to your promise to ignore this thread, that it wasn't worth the key strokes. Sometimes the cake helps - gives ya energy to keep stroking. Take care.

 

[rp2813]

I'm surprised I've done as well as I have but I had a weak moment. I just don't want to get into personal attacks over this. I wish they'd stop. There are too many good people on this board and a hot-button thread can inflict lasting damage and polarization onto an otherwise cooperative and supportive group of guys (and gals).