OBAMA MAMA wrote on Sep 13, 2008 1:04 AM:Palin-tology

For 20 months Sarah Palin has been governor of Alaska, which has a population of 670,000. This is almost as big as Charlotte, North Carolina, which in 2008 has a population estimated at 671,588.

Alaska does have more mooses than Charlotte, however. There is a raging discussion about whether the plural of moose is just moose, or mooses, mice, meese (as in “Edwin Meese III”), but it is important to learn these things now, with the exploding popularity of Moose burgers, soon to be available at Trader Joe’s, made from freshly ground mooses field dressed by Sara Palin herself, a well known connoisseur of moose burgers. Each frozen package will include a small recipe book by Palin.
Trader Joe's also stocks chocolate Mousse as a complimentary dessert.

Not to be outdone -
Shortly after her inauguration as governor, Palin learned that officials in northern Sweden have just given the all-clear for the construction of the world's largest moose.

Perched on top of a mountain, the 45-metre (148-foot) elk doubles as a restaurant and concert hall that can seat up to 350 guests. From its antlers, more than 500 metres above, on top of Vithatten mountain visitors will be able to enjoy the spectacular view over the valleys below.

The Ancorage Daily News announced that Palin has submitted an earmark through Senator Ted Stevens for $75 million to build an even larger Moose-torium in Fairbanks, with a seating capacity of 500, but with the pending resignation of Stevens over corruption charges, the earmark appears likely to be on hold. Palin and her husband, Todd, have been collecting moose antlers for the past year to use as chandeliers in the elegant new hall. Sarah has her own custom Austrian hunting rifle. She has been known to kill 40 caribou at a clip. She has shot hundreds of wolves from the air.


Palin has confided that once she takes over from Dick Cheney, she will revive her pet earmark project, and invite Cheney on a moose hunting party. Judge Harry Whittington has declined an invitation, so Sarah has invited President McCain. She promised to loan her Austrian rifle to Cheney.

SOLON wrote on Sep 13, 2008 1:32 AM:Palin proposed a book ban

Yesterday Paul (8:19 AM) denied Palin asked “the Wasilla librarian to pull any books off the shelf.” Today Letter writer John Gilson contradicts Paul. Let’s look at the truth:

Posted on snopes ... we find that the following:

QUOTE "According to the Anchorage Daily News, around the time Sarah Palin first assumed the mayorship of Wasilla back in 1996, she initiated some speculative discussions with the city's librarian about the possibility of removing some 'objectionable' books from the public library: In December 1996, [city librarian Mary Ellen] Emmons told her hometown newspaper, the Frontiersman, that Palin three times asked her — starting before she was sworn in — about possibly removing objectionable books from the library if the need arose.

When the matter came up for the second time in October 1996, during a City Council meeting, Anne Kilkenny, a Wasilla housewife who often attends council meetings, was there.

Like many Alaskans, Kilkenny calls the governor by her first name.

"Sarah said to Mary Ellen, 'What would your response be if I asked you to remove some books from the collection?' Kilkenny said.

"I was shocked. Mary Ellen sat up straight and said something along the line of, 'The books in the Wasilla Library collection were selected on the basis of national selection criteria for libraries of this size, and I would absolutely resist all efforts to ban books.'" END of QUOTE Ancorage Daily News.

Clearly blogger Paul is misinformed and letter writer Gilson did his research.

Definition wrote on Sep 13, 2008 4:06 AM:Bob Shuster writes about the Escondido parking ordinance, “A comment was made that "the goal is not to punish ordinary families (not sure just what an ordinary family is)…”
Allow me to interpret. It appears that in the view of a majority on the Escondido City Council an ordinary family consists of a white, Protestant, Anglo-Saxon heterosexual married couple with 2.5 kids, a dog and a cat.

Bill wrote on Sep 13, 2008 4:15 AM:Check out Teddy Roosevelts qualifications before becoming President.

They mirror Palins.

But I cant believe the nutty stuff coming from the left about her.

Cuckoo! Cuckoo!

Some feel that, in order to prevent an (allegedly) unqualified vice president from becoming President, we need to elect an unqualified President.

Yeah, lets elect an unqualified president to prevent that.

Cuckoo!

Cuckoo!

Good luck with that ones liberals.

Thats a tough sell.

Here comes tommorow wrote on Sep 13, 2008 4:38 AM:Let’s assume that Darrell Beck is right that global warming is a natural occurrence that man has no power to alter. If the projections are anywhere near correct, our descendants are still in for some trouble down the road. But what if he’s wrong and we do nothing?
We look back on our ancestors with pride, the Founding Fathers, the Greatest Generation, etc. How will future generations judge us if it turns out we had an opportunity to stop it but chose instead to simply ignore the problem?

Light summer reading wrote on Sep 13, 2008 5:03 AM:I find it rather amusing that only after reading ‘Obama Nation’ does Brian Melonakos now think that Obama is not a Muslim. Good research, Brian.
Does Mr. Melonakos realize that “the federal government is nearly bankrupt now” because Bush and the Republicans “massively increase(d) federal spending on virtually everything” while cutting taxes for “the rich.”
Lastly Mr. Melonakos says that Obama’s opposition to new drilling “means the price of gasoline will continue to soar.” Has he been to the pumps lately?

NO DRILLING, PAY LESS

Book burning optional wrote on Sep 13, 2008 5:12 AM:As John Gilson points out, Sarah Palin is the embodiment of an agent of intolerance that John McCain denounced in his 2000 presidential bid.
You can put lipstick on an agent of intolerance, but it’s still an agent of intolerance.

Table for two wrote on Sep 13, 2008 5:23 AM:It seems that Nora La Corte, “My previous predictions, which have all happened,” is trying to horn in on the territory of our own resident Prophet.
Is one enough, or one too many?

Alf wrote on Sep 13, 2008 5:24 AM:The letter from Annie Welnick is wrong.
It is punishment to force a teenager to carry a fetus to term, especially if that teenager does not want to.
Annie Welnick says "If a young girl keeps the baby", I ask why should a "young GIRL" carry a fetus to term?
She says "The happiness the baby will bring to others...." and shows NO CONCERN for the "young GIRL".
Annie Welnick makes no mention of pregnancies that arise out of rape and incest.
Where is the concern for the "young GIRL" and the health issues faced by the "young GIRL"?
It seems that Annie Welnick is more concerned with the product of an "oops" or a rape or incest than with the "young GIRL",
but, then again, I have yet to see or read ANY concern for the person with an unintended (for any reason) pregnancy from the "pro-life" people, only concern for a fetus.
Placing importance of a potential life over that of a living, breathing REAL person is about as wrong as it gets.
Regards, Alf.

DD Wiz wrote on Sep 13, 2008 5:31 AM:The published letter from Darrell Beck errs in accusing an earlier letter writer of having failed to document the peer-reviewed scientific research that confirms human contribution to climate change or the role of Big Oil in bankrolling the anti-science deniers.
Evidence for both has been provided in past letters.
First, he misrepresents the position of the writer by repeatedly using the term "man-made global warming." No one claims that humans are solely responsible for natural cycles of cooling and warming, but there is substantial evidence of human contribution to increasing global mean temperatures that far exceeds the normal upper control limits of natural cycles.
Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol 108 (2003) "Can solar variability explain global warming since 1970?" by S.K. Solanki and N.A. Krivova (Max Planck Institute for Aeronomy) confirm that the influence of solar cycles can not explain more than 30% of temperature increases, as widespread human production of greenhouse gases can. A "Google Scholar" search (which restricts results to peer-reviewed scientific research finds over a thousand such references and none opposed, but space in letters is severely restricted.
Further, when specific non-peer-reviewed popular media has been cited, specific identification of funding from Big Oil has been provided.
While it is true that new breakthroughs sometimes run counter to prior established consensus (as in discoveries of plate tectonics or that ulcers are caused by infectious agents), it has to be based on science, not the rantings of amateurs. For example, Beck makes the rather silly statement that CO2 can't be harmful because it is necessary and beneficial. Well, CO2 is a necessary component for life, but so is salt, but too much will still kill you.
If Beck and others want to argue against serious science, they have to show why they are qualified to do so.
Peace (and sunshine) to all, DD Wiz

Tyranny of the minority wrote on Sep 13, 2008 5:32 AM:What really “defies democracy” Sarah and Daniel Turitto, is the super minority Republicans in the state legislature holding up the budget expressed as the will of the people through the majority of their elected representatives.

A simple answer wrote on Sep 13, 2008 6:05 AM:Henry Sanford is a little off on his history. Truman wasn't elected AND re-elected during WWII. But that aside, here goes.
To be elected:
An artillery officer during WWI.
A county judge.
Missouri's director for the Federal Re-Employment program during the Depression.
Two term U.S. Senator.
Chairman of the Truman Committee that exposed waste, fraud and mismanagement in the military during WWII.
To be re-elected:
Incumbent POTUS.
The guts to drop the bomb.
The United Nations.
The Truman Doctrine.
The Marshall Plan.
The National Security Act of 1947.
The recognition of Israel.
The Berlin Airlift.
Integrating the Armed Forces.
The formation of NATO came after re-election but should be included.

Marlowe wrote on Sep 13, 2008 6:08 AM:When I hear about Sarah Palin's career decisions and then hear her speak, I think of only one person: George W Bush. Same ignorance of the world sold as an asset. Same contempt for the processes of the law as she dodges "troopergate" subpoenas. Same intense requirement of personal loyalty to her, as those who've crossed her in Alaska have learned. Same sense that gut feelings, not blinking, and commitment easily trump knowledge and thought. Same belief that God directs American foreign policy. Same sneering contempt for her opponents. Same skepticism of science and rationality. Same pre-election nonsense about bringing a fresh view to Washington, even as her running mate is Washington personified (as was Cheney). Same reliance on "handlers" to rehearse the few lines, focus group tested, that she can repeat endlessly while dodging genuine discussion of the complex issues we face. But I have nothing against Ms Palin personally. She was appointed by John McCain. McCain the cheerleader for the policies of Bush (even as he avoids mentioning Bush's name as a candidate) decides to appoint another George W Bush as his running mate. Folks, as you see Palin in action, close your eyes and listen. It's Bush again in a new costume. Is a McCain/Bush ticket your idea of change for the better?

In good company wrote on Sep 13, 2008 6:32 AM:If Henry Sanford is looking for a true historical comparison for Sarah Palin's experience and qualifications to be Vice President he need look no further back than to Spiro Agnew (a crook) and Dan Quayle (an idiot, well, at least a really bad speller).

Chuck wrote on Sep 13, 2008 7:00 AM:The news is reporting that 432 babies sick from contaminated Chinese milk product.
Gee, what a surprise. Anyone who doesn't look at labels is a moron, or maybe they went to public school and simply can't read the label

Chuck wrote on Sep 13, 2008 7:05 AM:The news is reporting Hussein promoted bills that would teach sex-education classes to kindergarteners, (and in the small print "without signed parental consent". Included in the 5 year olds cirriculum was an introduction to homosexuality. LOL, and you thought all they wanted was same-sex marriage!!!. It's progressed to where, by the 3rd grade, SB777 says you may select your own gender, no matter what it looks like between your legs. These racketeers are more powerful than the global warming racketeers

Chuck wrote on Sep 13, 2008 7:07 AM:>>>>but when I arrived before official opening of 7 a.m., ballots were already cast and the box locked >>> If you werent so lazy, you'd have been there at 5am and 6am because people vote as they go to work. People want to vote on their time, not your alarm clock's time

Chuck wrote on Sep 13, 2008 7:11 AM:>>>Prop. 2 will prohibit abuse at factory farms>>> oink, oink. You greener wackos have already bankrupted the gar companies with your demands. You have driven up the price of gas in state by 60 cents over other states, and now you morons are going to cause enormous inflation at the farm level. You ought to be orange jumpsuits and chains

Chuck wrote on Sep 13, 2008 7:16 AM:Palin scares the liberals. She is heterosexual, she is smart, she hunts, fishes and skins her game. She was a mayor and a governor. Contrast that to Hussein, who has a Muslim background and hangs around with racist preachers. He refers to terrorists as his friends and has been involved in shady real estate deals. His richest experience is staling flyers on telephone polls as a community organizer.

He Said wrote on Sep 13, 2008 7:40 AM:Way to go Darrell Beck!! The new Farmer's Almanac has not only confirmed the Global Warming myth but is also predicting a global cooling era due to sun spot activity. Now that's a source we can believe. Go for it, DD and Greenergy, you won't be able to pass up this opportunity.

What a beautiful morning wrote on Sep 13, 2008 7:48 AM:Yes, another fine day arrives, and we can look forward to yet another day's stream of fabrications, lies, half-truths from the McCain/Palin campaign. Even as these two are called on their lies to their face, they don't blink, they just repeat the lies. And because of this, as you'd expect, their poll numbers are going up daily. O, beautiful for specious lies...

TFB wrote on Sep 13, 2008 8:04 AM:Annie Welnick's letter show the domineering bullyism that is the hallmarks of conservatives who think they are the ones who know best how you should run your personal life.
She speaks of the "beautiful options" for a young girl who "keeps the baby" but what she is actually doing is trying to take away options, such as whether or not to even have the baby at all.
Those who are pro-CHOICE support the full range of CHOICES: having and keeping the baby, having the baby and surrendering it for adoption, or not having the baby.
Choosing to keep a baby or give it up for adoption are fine choices, and we need to have support in place to ensure these choices are viable, but Annie doesn't give a single reason why she should be the one to require others to make the same choices that she would.
She finishes with: "You can never have too many loved ones. It's called a family."
That is not her choice to make for others.
And actually, you can have too many people. It's called overpopulation.

Campaign reform wrote on Sep 13, 2008 8:07 AM:I have an idea. Let's initiate legislation that shows how we respect and hold almost sacred our democratic electoral processes. Let's require candidates for Congress and the Executive branch to take an oath, with their hands on the Bible, with the same force as in a court of law, to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth for the duration of the campaign. This ritual would be enacted at the party conventions, with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in charge, just as in the inauguration. There would be a bipartisan judicial panel meeting weekly and in pubic reviewing speeches and advertisements, and if it were agreed that the oath had been violated, it would be deemed a crime equivalent to perjury. Naturally, the campaign "team" would be sure to vet all ads and speeches in advance to avoid this. Don't the candidates owe the people truth? Don't the people deserve nothing less as they contemplate their most important political decisions?

Oh Bill Oh raoul wrote on Sep 13, 2008 8:11 AM:Raoul has already told us how FDR had hardly met Harry Truman before appointing him vp. Now Bill chimes in, having found that TR had similar credentials to Palin. Both send forth an utterly illogical argument. In effect, they say, because there was a case where McCain-like behavior turned out well, McCain's behavior is ducky. This makes absolutely no sense. Boys, why do you think your examples are so RARE? Is it because every other president felt this was a boneheaded possibility? Too boneheaded to even propose it? (Analogy: Someone says, "Why the other day, I was drunk as a skunk and drove home at rush hour and nothing bad happened. What's the big deal about drinking and driving? Drunks are fine drivers!)

Marlowe wrote on Sep 13, 2008 8:16 AM:Yes, Bill, all that nutty stuff from the left about Palin. That she's under investigation for abuse of power. That she's trying to squelch subpoenas until after the election. That she accepted per diem travel money while living at home. That she took earmark after earmark, then claimed to be the anti-earmark reformer. That she opposes the woman's right to choose even if she was raped brutally by her father. That she knows nearly nothing about the world. That she says the Iraq war is God's will. Yeah, Bill, we just keep tossing out the nuttiest things about your heroine. She is, as far as I can tell, George W Bush in drag, and we know how Bill feels about George W Bush. LOL

OBAMACAN wrote on Sep 13, 2008 8:17 AM:Brian Melonakos' letter shows how gullible some people can be. Just because something is printed in a book doesn't make it true. The author of the anti-Obama hit piece that he cites was the well-known liar who also wrote a Swift Boat book against Kerry in 2004 that was later fully discredited.
As for being "well-referenced," it is obvious that Brian has not actually checked the references. Many statements in the book are outright lies, and numerous facts have been changed for the second printing. Many others will take a brief statement from something Obama wrote out of context to give a completely false impression of his actual point.
But that is how conservatives are. They can't run on issues, so they simply lie.
McCain lies about Obama's positions on taxes, saying he wants to raise them on everyone, while experts agree he will reduce them three times as much as McCain on most people.
McCain lies about his reform program, when his campaign is run by lobbyists and he lies about Palin's record on earmarks. He has repeatedly insisted that she asked for none as governor, and both the Los Angeles Times and San Diego Union-Tribune had first-page stories today calling out McCain for these misrepresentations, noting that Palin actually requiested more than 200 MILLION for her small-population state in each of her two years as governor, more than any other state on a per capita basis and more than 20 times the amount per capita as Sen. Barack Obama did for his diverse, midwestern state.

McCain promises to root out earmarks and pork-barrel spending, but if he can't find these huge mountains of it in his own VP pick, how is he going to find it in the rest of the country?

A real buzzkill wrote on Sep 13, 2008 8:23 AM:Annie Welnick has never heard about a woman being punished with a baby, sounds like some angry wrath of a God that does not belong to any Christian faith she knows.
How about a woman being punished for just performing the precursor to making a baby? Here’s an angry wrath of God from a Christian faith I’m sure she knows well:
“If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.”
Deuteronomy 22:23-24

Why are they waiting wrote on Sep 13, 2008 8:29 AM:I don't understand something. Sarah Palin's daughter is 5-6 months pregnant, right? The family crowed about how she is marrying the fine young man who is her partner. Why did this not happen already? One might be suspicious that they are putting the wedding day off until after the election. Why? So that the Palins retain a choice (and the young man retains a choice) about this wedding going through. I'm of the opinion that if these two were in love and/or duty-bound to give the child the kind of monogamous, heterosexual, loving home that Christians insist upon, they'd have been married a couple of months ago. Something smells, and it ain't moosemeat.

HARRY TRUMAN wrote on Sep 13, 2008 8:38 AM:Henry Sanford's letter asks an excellent question: "What qualifications and experience did Harry Truman have to be elected and re-elected during the critical time of World War II?"
Actually, Harry Truman did not get elected or re-elected during World War II. As VP, he assumed office on the death of the elected president, and only a few months of his presidency overlapped with World War II. When he ran for re-election, his qualifications were almost four years experience as president of the United States.
But I digress.
Back to the real question: FDR's justifications for choosing him.
I would agree that, based on his qualifications, it would be hard to argue that this was the best available choice for that time and situation. Fortunately for America, Truman rose to the occasion. But how many times do you think we can get away with dodging that bullet?
Or, perhaps there is another lesson: dealing with NATIONAL and INTERNATIONAL ISSUES as a Senator does prepare you for the Presidency.
Maybe "executive experience" over small, provincial jurisdictions dealing only with local issues is not nearly as important as intense involvement in the actual issues a President would be dealing with.

TOVR wrote on Sep 13, 2008 8:45 AM:The Republicans are spinning so many lies that soon their followers begin to believe them. Palin is the wrong person, regardless if she is a female, for the job. Abstinance only sex ed--but her daughter at 17 is pregnant (after claiming she was home with mono-but was really doing the wild thing with a boy). Bridge to Nowhere which she supported then says no but still takes the money. Goes back to work only 3 days after having a special child. Love the fetus, forget the child. Fires people because they don't follow her. Wants to pray away the gay. The list of truths go on and on but you won't hear the Republicans mention any of that because they are truths.

Predator Eliminator wrote on Sep 13, 2008 8:48 AM:Chuck at 7:05 a.m. joins in the most vicious lie of the McCain/Palin smear campaign, accusing Obama of supporting "comprehensive sex education" for kindergarteners.
In actuality, the education for small children focused on helping them to say "NO" to the advances of sexual predators.
What is McCain's position on this bill?
Does he oppose protecting our small children from sexual predators?
If so, does that mean McCain is pro-child molester?
Clarification please!
And Chuck's opposition to this bill protecting children from predators goes a long way towards explaining his bizarre fixation on issues of child sexual identity.

Surely you jest wrote on Sep 13, 2008 9:00 AM:Teddy Roosevelt:
Graduated Phi Beta Kappa and magna cum laude from Harvard.
Attended Columbia Law School.
New York Assemblyman.
Served on the United States Civil Service Commission.
President of the board of New York City Police Commissioners.
Assistant Secretary of the Navy.
Commamnded the Rough Riders in the Spanish-American War.
Nominated for the Medal of Honor.
Governor of the most important state in the union at the time.

And this mirrors Sarah Palin how, Bill?

Oh Chuck wrote on Sep 13, 2008 9:03 AM:Chuck is so homophobic that he thinks that mentioning that homosexuals exist is part of some agenda for taking over the youth of the nation. He is so homophobic that despite being told that two decades of research on children adopted by gay parents shows that these kids are NO more likely than kids raised in straight homes to be gay themselves, and even being given the peer-reviewed source of this research, he will not budge from his obviously erroneous beliefs. He will continue to harrass, lampoon, mock, and ridicule those whom he hates. Republicans and conservatives here, let me ask you: is Chuck representative of your views on homosexuality and truth? If you agree with Chuck, please say so, in order for us to get a better sense of how widespread this is. If you disagree, please says so, in order that Chuck see he is an outlier (out-liar) even among his own tribe.

Class assignment wrote on Sep 13, 2008 9:08 AM:All right, class. Today's assignment is simple. Read the letters and postings today, every one. Put them in three piles: obviously conservative, obviously liberal, and can't tell. Throw the can't tell pile out. Now go through the other piles, one by one, and every time there is a statement claimed to be fact, investigate its truth on your own. Keep score. Then compare the number of lies in each group. Report back to us.

Focal Point wrote on Sep 13, 2008 9:12 AM:Bill
[-] wrote on Sep 13, 2008 4:15 AM: I do not know about that,Bill. McCain is 72. He has had cancer. McCains mom is 94 but his Dad died at age 70. So, there is a legitimate reason for concern about who is Vice President. Teddy was more qualified when he ran for President than Palin. If McCain buys the farm. I will take Teddy. What is this deal with libeals. You and Chuck interchange

Pred Elim is right wrote on Sep 13, 2008 9:18 AM:You know, Predator Eliminator is right on the button. I'm beginning to think that conservatives' approach to child sexual abuse is to do nothing to prevent it whatsoever, but then, when it happens, to scream for the torture and execution of the perpetrator. Notice that this entire approach focuses on the perp and on satisfying the desire for revenge of the family and the society. Hmmm, who is left out of this? Oh, yes! The victim! Who cares about her? No one on the right, it seems. This is remarkably similar to their view of abortion, isn't it? I'm beginning to think that conservatives don't really have that much care or respect for women, and even less for girls.

Alf wrote on Sep 13, 2008 9:18 AM:Well, "Chuck" at 7:16AM,
it isn't just "liberals" who should fear Palin, it's ALL sane, rational, thinking people,
Unless they want 4 more years of GWB, OR WORSE, in the form of McGWB and Palin.
What scares me is that someone who knows less than several of the people who comment right here and seemingly has religious-right, book-banning, anti-choice totalitarianism as an end-goal could be "one heart-beat away" from being president.
She almost makes GWB look tame by comparison.
Now THAT'S a scary thought!
Close your eyes and imagine yourself in "the world according to Palin".
That's scarier than your worst mightmare and anything that I've ever faced, almost.
Regards, Alf.

chuck wrote on Sep 13, 2008 9:26 AM:>>Chuck is so homophobic that he thinks that mentioning that homosexuals exist is part of some agenda for taking over the youth of the nation>>> If not, why do you sue when you can't infiltrate the Boy Scouts, Why did you pass SB777?, why are you so desperate to indoctrinate the 5 year olds, behind the backs of the parents? etc, etc, etc, etc, etc. You people are constantly on the indoctrination agenda and continue to deny it

Chuck wrote on Sep 13, 2008 9:29 AM:>>>Close your eyes and imagine yourself in "the world according to Palin".
That's scarier than your worst mightmare and anything that I've ever faced, almost.>>>> Let me dare say that everyone in this nation knows more about Palin in the last 2 weeks, than they know about Hussein after 2 years of campaigning

Marlowe wrote on Sep 13, 2008 9:33 AM:IMHO, the souls of Americans are on trial this year. For whatever reason, John McCain has chosen to run what has to be among the most dishonest, lie-filled campaigns in our history. When you read the transcript from his appearance on The View, you are, if you are honest, shocked at the pure, unadulterated lies he spewed. He said that it was true that Obama promotes sex education for 5 year olds. He said it was true that Sarah Palin did not seek or spend earmark money while she was Governor of Alaska. These are, plain and simply, flat out lies. Now I get pop culture, and understand how Sarahmania has the religious right in an ecstatic trance. But then I think about the huge middle, the undecideds, the independents, that will probably determine who our next President will be. Does that huge bloc believe McCain/Palin's flat out lies? Or do they read the easy rebuttals of each campaign statement that McCain and Palin make? Will they resent being lied to with such consistency and malice? Will they, in essence, reward or punish those who would base the winning of the White House on lies? Our national soul hangs in the balance.

On further review wrote on Sep 13, 2008 9:34 AM:Sarah Palin:
High school basketball player.
T.V. newsreader.
P.T.A. member.
Mayor of town of 7,000.
Governor of state of 600,000.

Oh, I see the similarities now, Bill.

Homophobic Chuck wrote on Sep 13, 2008 9:39 AM:Chuck at 9:26 continues to wallow in his irrational belief system. Did he read the post? Solid research has told us that "indoctrination" into sexual orientation doesn't work. I'm straight and have not the slightest interest in there being "more homosexuals". You ask why people like me are in favor of admitting to even 5 year olds that homosexuals exist? Or why we favor gay marriage? Simple: we oppose discrimination under the law. We oppose irrational hatred and oppression and violence against people who don't deserve it. The values I'm expressing are those of the Constitution and of Christ. My theory: Chuck is gay, and Chuck was molested as a child, and Chuck despises himself for his orientation and is hell-bent on blaming the molester for his orientation. Out of this tragic story, he would base public policy. Instead of seeking therapy, Chuck would attack others to prove, at least to himself, that he is no pantywaist. Chuck, don't worry, you aren't a pantywaist. You're just a deeply hurt human being.

On further review wrote on Sep 13, 2008 9:40 AM:I forgot Palin's most important qualification. Beauty Queen. But that was also in a town of 7,000 so you have to grade that one on a curve.

Chuck wrote on Sep 13, 2008 9:44 AM:>>>Chuck is gay, and Chuck was molested as a child, and Chuck despises himself for his orientation and is hell-bent on blaming the molester for his orientation.>>> This response is right out of the gay agenda's bible in how to respond to those who dont bow to the gay racketeers

chuck wrote on Sep 13, 2008 9:47 AM:>>>I forgot Palin's most important qualification. Beauty Queen>>> At least the beauty queen is female. In San Francisco and Sacramento they are generally males, prancing around on the parade floats

Alf wrote on Sep 13, 2008 9:49 AM:Well, "Chuck" at 9:29AM,
I will not be voting for either McGWB or Obama.
I know that McGWB and Palin has "raised the bar" on how to offend rational people.
I know that Obama seeks not to "stay the course" that GWB has set.
I know that this "mission from God" balderdash belongs on "Blues Brothers",
NOT from a presidential or vice presidential candidate.
I know that I will write in Ron Paul.
Regards, Alf.

Nick wrote on Sep 13, 2008 9:52 AM:I love this man, everytime he opens his mouth something pretty darn funny comes out:

On a recent edition of the C-SPAN series "Road to the White House," the Delaware senator is shown shaking hands with a man and boasting about his support among Indian-Americans.

"I've had a great relationship. In Delaware, the largest growth in population is Indian-Americans moving from India. You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I'm not joking," Biden said.
[AP Fri., July. 7, 2006]

And please lets not forget his speech back in 1987 when he fully plagarized a speech by Neil Kinnock, a leader in Britain's Labour Party, and regurgitated it word for word....LOL.

Oh yeah, and then there was this golden gem from his campaign back in 1987 on a snippet of footage captured by C-Span in which the Delaware senator, in response to a question about where he went to law school and what sort of grades he received, delivered this classic line: "I think I have a much higher IQ than you do."

The running scared, loonie Lefties like to bash Palin all day long but seem to forget that their own VP choice has been know to say far more ignorant things than Palin.
Cheers, Nick.

So Chuck wrote on Sep 13, 2008 9:57 AM:Why don't you explain to us, then, why you DO harbor so much animosity towards homosexuals? You are unique on this space in your unrelenting hostility towards gay/lesbians. You bring the issue up at every opportunity, even completely out of context. Surely there has to be SOME reason you feel this way and this strongly. What is it? (But please, don't say it's because the Bible says it's an abomination. Any random sample of your posts violates Biblical injunctions. No, Chuck, you are surely no religious person. Please spare us that absurd excuse. And besides, there are many so-called Christians here, and still, none treat this subject with the frequency, intensity, or pure malice that you do.)

Chuck wrote on Sep 13, 2008 9:59 AM:>>>Well, "Chuck" at 9:29AM,
I will not be voting for either McGWB or Obama>>> No need to pat yourself on the back, I'm not voting for them either.

SOLON wrote on Sep 13, 2008 10:04 AM:Palin would sacrifice her own son . .

. . for a Bush lie. How tragic. Sarah Palin spoke Sep. 11 before an Iraq-bound brigade of soldiers at Fort Wainwright, Alaska, that included her son saying they would "defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans."

The idea that the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein helped al-Qaeda plan the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, a view once promoted by Bush administration officials, has since been rejected even by the president himself. Palin still believes this, however. Her brain is hardwired.

That Palin would send her own son to face death, still believing the long discredited Bush lie, reveals the depth of her sincere delusion and ignorance. If her ignorance and delusion are so impregnated, how many more young Americans would she send to face death for other false beliefs? Sincerely ignorant leaders can spark horrible conflagrations.

Alf wrote on Sep 13, 2008 10:08 AM:In his letter, Herbert Pairitz lists many things that need to be addressed.
I would say that THE FIRST thing that needs to be addressed is to re-establish ALL of our Constitutional Rights that GWB and Congress have
STOLEN FROM US by, among other things,
abolishing the USA Patriot Act and all related laws and acts.
THEN address all concerns raised by Herbert Pairitz and then some.
Regards, Alf.

Nick wrote on Sep 13, 2008 10:10 AM:The Statement of Principles for
The Campaign for Liberty [PartI]:

Americans inherit from their ancestors a glorious tradition of freedom and resistance to oppression. Our country has long been admired by the rest of the world for her great example of liberty and prosperity – a light shining in the darkness of tyranny.
But many Americans today are frustrated. The political choices they are offered give them no real choice at all. For all their talk of “change,” neither major political party as presently constituted challenges the status quo in any serious way. Neither treats the Constitution with anything but contempt. Neither offers any kind of change in monetary policy. Neither wants to make the reductions in government that our crushing debt burden demands. Neither talks about bringing American troops home not just from Iraq but from around the world. Our country is going bankrupt, and none of these sensible proposals are even on the table.

This destructive bipartisan consensus has suffocated American political life for many years. Anyone who tries to ask fundamental questions instead of cosmetic ones is ridiculed or ignored.

That is why the Campaign for Liberty was established: to highlight the neglected but common-sense principles we champion and reinsert them into the American political conversation.

The U.S. Constitution is at the heart of what the Campaign for Liberty stands for, since the very least we can demand of our government is fidelity to its own governing document. Claims that our Constitution was meant to be a “living document” that judges may interpret as they please are fraudulent, incompatible with republican government, and without foundation in the constitutional text or the thinking of the Framers. Thomas Jefferson spoke of binding our rulers down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution, and we are proud to follow in his distinguished lineage.

With our Founding Fathers, we also believe in a noninterventionist foreign policy. Inspired by the old Robert Taft wing of the Republican Party, we are convinced that the American people cannot remain free and prosperous with 700 military bases around the world, troops in 130 countries, and a steady diet of war propaganda. Our military overstretch is undermining our national defense and bankrupting our country.

The rest to follow.
Cheers, Nick.

Ms M wrote on Sep 13, 2008 10:11 AM:Chuck, I have a question for you - and hopefully I will get an honest and sincere answer:

If your child told you they were gay - would you not still love your child?

SOLON wrote on Sep 13, 2008 10:13 AM:McCain’s ‘Culture of Death’

Letter writer Annie Welnick speaks of the beautiful option of adoption for children as opposed to abortion.

I wish only that Iraqi children had the option of living with parents who love them already, but lose them when U.S. firepower blows their little bodies apart.

I agree with Welnick that “A baby isn’t for punishment”, and should not have their little bodies destroyed by American firepower.

Thanks, Alf for speaking truth:
"Placing importance of a potential life over that of a living, breathing REAL person is about as wrong as it gets." (5:24 AM)

You cannot be pro-life and pro-war.

Nick wrote on Sep 13, 2008 10:16 AM:The Statement of Principles for
The Campaign for Liberty [Part II]:

We believe that the free market, reviled by people who do not understand it, is the most just and humane economic system and the greatest engine of prosperity the world has ever known.

We believe with Ludwig von Mises, Henry Hazlitt, and F.A. Hayek that central banking distorts economic decisionmaking and misleads entrepreneurs into making unsound investments. Hayek won the Nobel Prize for showing how central banks’ interference with interest rates sets the stage for economic downturns. And the central bank’s ability to create money out of thin air transfers wealth from the most vulnerable to those with political pull, since it is the latter who receive the new money before the price increases it brings in its wake have yet occurred. For economic and moral reasons, therefore, we join the great twentieth-century economists in opposing the Federal Reserve System, which has reduced the value of the dollar by 95 percent since it began in 1913.

We oppose the dehumanizing assumption that all issues that divide us must be settled at the federal level and forced on every American community, whether by activist judges, a power-hungry executive, or a meddling Congress. We believe in the humane alternative of local self-government, as called for in our Constitution.

We oppose the transfer of American sovereignty to supranational organizations in which the American people possess no elected representatives. Such compromises of our country’s independence run counter to the principles of the American Revolution, which was fought on behalf of self-government and local control. Most of these organizations have a terrible track record even on their own terms: how much poverty have the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund actually alleviated, for example? The peoples of the world can interact with each other just fine in the absence of bureaucratic intermediaries that undermine their sovereignty.

We believe that freedom is an indivisible whole, and that it includes not only economic liberty but civil liberties and privacy rights as well, all of which are historic rights that our civilization has cherished from time immemorial.

Our stances on other issues can be deduced from these general principles.

Our country is ailing. That is the bad news. The good news is that the remedy is so simple and attractive: a return to the principles our Founders taught us. Respect for the Constitution, the rule of law, individual liberty, sound money, and a noninterventionist foreign policy constitute the foundation of the Campaign for Liberty.

Will you join us?

Now folks, these beliefs are what the majority of Americans want when they speak of "Change".
This is NOT the kind of "Change" that both Obama and McCain.
This kind of "Change" is NOT what either The Democrat or Republican Party will give you.
Both Parties will continue our downward spriral and increasing debt.

Do these principles sound what you are looking for?
If you so, I urge you to stop voting Party Line, or because you dislike Palin or Obama or McCain and do what you know to be in the best interest of this once great Country.
There will be "Change" alright if you vote for Obama or McCain, but it won't be good.
Cheers, Nick.

Ms M wrote on Sep 13, 2008 10:17 AM:So Chuck
[-] wrote on Sep 13, 2008 9:57 AM:..I don't think Chuck is gay - I think that his feminine side is extremely dominate which he is constantly doing battle with!

Chuck wrote on Sep 13, 2008 10:20 AM:>>>why you DO harbor so much animosity towards homosexuals?>>>
1A. Cant leave well enough alone, the constant pressing of their agenda
1. Lawsuits vs Boy Scouts
2. SB777 and hate crime laws against people who dare use the words Mother and Father around a Johnny who has 2 daddies
3. The general environment of them wanting to get their hands on the kiddies for agenda indoctrination.
4. Infiltration of the church with the express intent of destroying it
5 - 200 etc, etc, etc

Words of wisdom wrote on Sep 13, 2008 10:22 AM:Dear Friends: Below is a missive of great importance to the future of our country. I do hope you'll read it thru to the end and follow thru. Ourselves, our children and our grandchildren will pay the price if this election should turn out wrong.

Thanks, Jane ...

On behalf of my brilliant colleagues Lyra Kilston and Quinn Latimer, editors at the esteemed art magazine Modern Painters, I pass on the following--


Friends, compatriots, fellow-lamenters,

We are writing to you because of the fury and dread we have felt since the announcement of Sarah Palin as the Vice-Presidential candidate for the Republican Party. We believe that this terrible decision has surpassed mere partisanship, and that it is a dangerous farce on the part of a pandering and rudderless Presidential candidate that has a real possibility of becoming fact.

Perhaps like us, as American women, you share the fear of what Ms. Palin and her professed beliefs and proven record could lead to for ourselves and for our present or future daughters. To date, she is against sex education, birth control, the pro-choice platform, environmental protection, alternative energy development, freedom of speech (as mayor she wanted to ban books and attempted to fire the librarian who stood against her), gun control, the separation of church and state, and polar bears. To say nothing of her complete lack of real preparation to become the second-most-powerful person on the planet.

We want to clarify that we are not against Sarah Palin as a woman, a mother, or, for that matter, a parent of a pregnant teenager, but solely as a rash, incompetent, and all together devastating choice for Vice President. Ms. Palin's political views are in every way a slap in the face to the
accomplishments that our mothers and grandmothers and great-grandmothers so fiercely fought for, and that we've so demonstrably benefited from.


First and foremost, Ms. Palin does not represent us. She does not demonstrate or uphold our interests as American women. It is presumed that the inclusion of a woman on the Republican ticket could win over women voters. We want to disagree, publicly.

Therefore, we invite you to reply here ...womensaynopalin@gmail ...with a short, succinct message about why you, as a woman living in this country, do not support this candidate as second-in-command for our nation. Please include your name (last initial is fine), age, and place of residence. We will post your responses on a blog called "Women Against Sarah Palin,"
which we intend to publicize as widely as possible. Please send us your reply at your earliest convenience the greater the volume of responses we receive, the stronger our message will be.

Thank you for your time and action. VIVA!


Sincerely,


Quinn Latimer and Lyra Kilston
New York, NY
womensaynopalin@gmail


PLEASE FORWARD WIDELY! We could be blessed with a country that takes your concerns seriously. Stranger things have happened.

Alf wrote on Sep 13, 2008 10:23 AM:Well, "Nick" at 10:10AM,
keep them coming!
Regards, Alf.

chuck wrote on Sep 13, 2008 10:26 AM:>>>I would say that THE FIRST thing that needs to be addressed is to re-establish ALL of our Constitutional Rights that GWB and Congress have
STOLEN FROM US by, among other things,
abolishing the USA Patriot Act>>>
The liberals have been most successful in defeating provisions of the Patriot Act, and they prance around congress complaining "America is not prepared"
I think the common good of exterminating terrorism is slighly more important than what you consider unconstitutional, because it was that clear that what is left of Patriot Act is unconstitutional, the liberals would have in the Supreme Court by now

Nick wrote on Sep 13, 2008 10:29 AM:Well "Ms M", the other day you wanted to know who on these blogs have joined The Campaign for Libery.
If you have been paying attention, you would see that you have myself, "Karl",
"Focal Point", "Hardtack", and a few bloggers who aren't regulars and just dropped in.
I have dozens of friends and family who have joined and it turn are telling dozens more.
The snowball effect works and is picking up steam.
We are now just shy of 100,000 and growing every day.

What are you so scared of "Ms M"?
Since I know you have never visited the website to actually see what we are all about, I have posted the Principles for all to see.
So you not agree with them?
Isn't the kind of "Change" you are really looking for?
Come on "Ms M", help us to take this Country back and return it to it's once great status.