BJean

Sorry gadget, you just didn't understand what you read. I didn't say that the guy in the video was using diversionary tactics. I was messing with Jack because he posted it right after a long post that I made that I thought might provoke some conversation on those issues. Rather than discuss those things, Jack posted something else that didn't relate to what I had brought up. I was referring to Jack using a diversionary tactic - not referring to what the context of his post was. I just don't have time to read all the stuff - all the links and stuff - that other people post. Nothing compells me to and so I don't. You don't have to read everything everyone else posts either - you choose to.

The one thing that Republicans have learned is that personal attacks work well for them. It is a diversionary tactic. It takes the attention away from their miserable plans for running the government. They want us to believe that they can run the government without taxation of any kind. Who is dumb enough to believe that? Well, it seems that people like Joe the Plumber have bought into it. Fortunately people like Warren Buffett and Colin Powell know better and are willing to stand up and tell it like it is. But clusk, I don't think they're into denial so much as that they are focused on their own agenda. They continue to divert attention from their real goals by insulting their opponents. Fortunately people like you and me are no longer sucked in by this tactic. Unfortunately they are willing to do anything to reach their goals. That's simply what we have to deal with - it is our Cross to bear. I am thrilled that we have a man in Senator Obama who is intelligent enough and a good enough person to handle the task. Now if the other folks see this post as being hateful or whatever they call hate mongering, you are correct in noticing that they have a double standard at work here.

gadget what are you talking about? I was speaking to an issue that Jack and I were trying to come to terms on. How does your post relate in any way, except to be negative and accuse me of interpreting something incorrectly? You must not have read both of our posts very well. I must say that I understand why you would be uncomfortable with a discussion about diversionary tactics in politics though. Cluck you continue to amaze me. It is very meaningful to know that someone understands what's going on.

Oh come on, girls. Play nice. Just because you don't like the message doesn't mean it is at all filled with, what did you say... HATE SPEAK? Haven't heard that one before but I get the point. I only started posting those kinds of long posts because of all the one-sided pronouncements and viewpoints I was reading. If you think I expect everyone to embrace my beliefs or even read what I post, you're mistaken. I may not be the most intelligent poster here, but I didn't just fall off the turnip truck. Clusk: my sincere gratitude goes out to you for your post! Thanks! Right back atcha. :tongue2:

Thanks, green. Good to hear from you! Your very insightful opinions have been sorely missed here. I used the term wing-nut because sometimes I think people have a screw loose. I am sorry if I offended anyone by its' usage. However, I have been offended clearly as much as anyone here has and sometimes I feel driven to go on the offensive more than may be necessary. Frankly I did not want Carrie to feel overwhelmed and under appreciated.

Btw Jack, I disagree that diversions are only diversions because they differ from your own viewpoints. Diversions can be lies or misrepresentations wholly put out to divert attention away from the honest issues that one side or the other doesn't want people to discuss openly.

Jack I didn't listen, but the real reason is because I suspect it is not the genuine article. Too much garbage has been generated by this campaign and I'm out of patience. But I certainly do agree with you that listening to people with differing viewpoints is enlightening. I always read your posts thoroughly (or at least I try to be thorough and fair when I'm trying to understand your point of view.) The only reason I've posted any of the political garbage is because I think I'm one of the few with an opposing view here. Somebody had to give the other side equal time, doncha know.

Nope. Didn't have time. Too busy posting diatribes. :tongue2:

Sure, ignore me. It makes sense to ignore anyone with an opposing opinion. :tongue2:

I commend your diversionary tactic, Jack. Not enough to listen to those guys, but I appreciate the attempt nonetheless. :tongue2:

Why do you think I'm calling YOU a wing-nut? So you don't think I have a logical discourse in me, gadget? I rest my case.

I believe this is the right thread for this letter to McCain. The Moment Monday 13 October 2008 by: John Cory, t r u t h o u t | Perspective Arizona Senator John McCain. (Photo: Gunby / AP) Senator McCain. Was this the moment? The epiphany? The realization that stoking the flames of bigotry and fear had come home to roost? As I watched your town hall gathering, I wondered what was going through your mind when you came face to face with the incendiary results of your campaign tactics. What did you see and feel when that elderly woman said Obama was an Arab? Or the man who said he feared an Obama presidency? And all the others? I saw your face. I watched your body language as you took the microphone and quickly distanced yourself from that one. At that moment, did you see your reflection in the mirror of her eyes? A reflection, not of a maverick, but a pariah? Did you see the decades of American scar tissue? Birmingham? Burning crosses? The noose? Did you see that awful year in American history when Dr. King and Bobby Kennedy were assassinated, cut down in the prime of their dreams for a better America? Did you hear the echo of Dr. King's words about being "judged not by the color of their skin, but the content of their character," and suddenly realize that it was not your opponent's character in question - but yours? Perhaps you heard the whisper of Langston Hughes when he asked, "What happens to a dream deferred ...? Maybe it just sags like a heavy load. Or does it explode?" Did you suddenly smell the rot and fetid acrid aroma of fear and hate, the carcass of mendacious political tactics decaying at your feet? Or did you sniff the flop-sweat of your own campaign standing in a puddle of decimating poll numbers? I watched your mouth dry up and wondered if you could taste the bitter words like "Arab," "terrorist," "treason," "kill him," - all served up on the plate of red meat politics by your campaign. Did it make you choke and want to spit out the rancid flavor of ignorance and violence? Or did you want to savor the success of the politics of personal destruction? Did you feel the cold chill of defeat? Did your heart pound with the all-encompassing realization that you would never be president? Could you sense that the America you appeal to is stale and dying out and being replaced by the freshness of hope and tolerance and a rainbow of change? No doubt, the media will genuflect before your image and be pushed by your campaign spinners to reanoint you as a maverick and honorable man in rising to the defense of your opponent. But your ads still sully the airwaves. Your surrogates still spew their venom. After all, this is just politics. People need to understand that. Nothing personal - it is just politics. But here was this moment. And you know it, regardless of whether or not you were reading from cue cards or just looking down to avoid having to face the ugliness before you - you know. And when the crowd booed as you struggled to use words about decency and honorable character to defuse the situation you created, you must have recalled the words from Proverbs, "He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind ..." This is not a moment for you to be proud of in this campaign. Garnering credit for coming to the defense of Senator Obama is like an arsonist claiming heroism for saving lives after having set fire to the building in the first place. It does not matter how the media or your advisers and consultants spin this moment because it can only reflect badly on you. If it is tossed off as politics as usual, your campaign appears shallow and less interested in what's best for America than what is best for John McCain. If it is said that there is no room for this kind of rhetoric in a presidential campaign, then you look weak and unable to control your own staff that continue to push these messages. If it is about leadership and going against the flow, then we see that a McCain presidencywill be divisive and reinforce the meme of "two Americas." We have already had eight years of a divided country from the man who ran as a "Uniter not a divider." This was a defining moment. And you, sir, lost. John Cory is a Vietnam veteran. He received the Purple Heart and Bronze Star with V device, 1969 - 1970.

All this arguing about the winking, the hairstyle, the accent, and the flirting of Sarah Palin making her an unacceptable candidate for being chosen to be the Republican nomination for Vice President is not getting us anywhere. Most of us know why she was chosen. And even General Colin Powell, former Secretary of Defense, and all-around brilliant man, made the most important point about her selection. I won't quote him or provide a bunch of links, although you're all welcome to do that. I'll just tell you in my own words what I heard him say: the extremists in the Republican party had not thoroughly embraced John McCain because McCain had not shown himself to be right wing enough for them. McCain doesn't believe in abortion, but (until recently) he didn't believe that women's right to choose should be taken away. There are other issues that were troublesome to the extremists, but that was what they said was a "deal breaker". Consequently when John McCain realized that there was no way he could win the election without the support of the right wing extremists, he had to do something to prove to them that he would be open to abolishing abortion. That's why he chose Sarah Palin. She embodies everything the extremists believe is right, good, patriotic and American. Even Palin has softened her stance - in order to be more electable - by saying in the debates, and elsewhere, that she believes that the question of women having the right to choose should be left up to the states. (And btw, how ridiculous is that? It's similar to alcohol prohibition by state - people just cross the state line to get what is illegal in their own state.) I'm gonna call bull-pucky on it. She wants all women's right to choose taken away in each and every case, with one exception and that is when the woman's life is endangered. Of course she'd be glad to be the one who decides when a woman's life is considered to be endangered. The choice of Sarah Palin is a huge mistake on the part of McCain. Her appointment did appease the extremists, but what he didn't count on was the number of regular voters it would turn completely off. He didn't count on the number of important newspapers that would find it so unacceptible that they would endorse his opponent, Senator Obama. He didn't count on someone like Colin Powell, a very important and brilliant man who could have won the presidency if he had wanted it, to endorse Senator Obama. He didn't count on the numbers of prominent people who have, from McCain's own party, decried the nomination of Sarah Palin. They do not oppose Sarah Palin because she winks, or because she's a woman, or because she takes off her boots and puts on her gloves or because she compares herself to red-neck men. They do not oppose Sarah Palin because she's been made fun of by Tina Fey. They oppose Sarah Palin for lots and lots of reasons, but not for those mentioned in the previous paragraph. Intelligent people, people who are not driven by extreme viewpoints, oppose Sarah Palin because of her radical beliefs and because she has made it known that she intends to impose those extremist beliefs upon the entire population of the United States. People oppose Governor Palin because she is not smart enough to take on a few news commentators, when the president and vice presidents of the United States should be able to be smart enough to preside over not only our own Congress and military, but also preside over meetings with heads of state from around the world. In the past we might not have realized how very important that is. But after having George W. Bush be unable to effectively represent our country and use intelligence to influence people, we know how very important it is to not allow someone like Sarah Palin be first in line for the presidency. All of this is not just IMHO - it is lots of people's opinion.

BBKitty: When did Carlene post that?? I would love to know that Carlene is really back. She always brought some keen insight to the threads.

You both know why I used the word "expert" in that context. You know Republicans, especially John McCain, would like for the rest of us to believe that Sarah Palin is an expert - on something. That's why McCain has mentioned her knowledge and relationship to the problem of autism over and over. Saying that Palin is an expert on autism and therefore that qualifies her to be Vice President is like saying that McCain's torture at the hands of his captors qualifies him to be president. Neither statement is correct, but it doesn't stop Republicans from hoping that the general population will believe them to be true. **I would like to suggest to anyone reading this, please check with your election board and find out if you can participate in early voting. Most election boards are anticipating an enormous turn out this year and the long, long lines may be daunting.**

Carrie- don't let the wing nuts get you down. They may innundate you with their propaganda and profession of right-ness, but they are wrong and most Americans know that. Thank the good Lord.

You're underscoring my belief that abortion is not always a good answer to a very difficult problem. As for the Constitution, I find it amusing that you have decided to interpret it and some of the Amendments to the Constitution for all of us. If you don't trust the Supreme Court to rule on Constitutional issues, that pretty much tells us that you have appointed yourself and your demonstrating buddies, as the supreme deciders for women in this country. A proposition I find particularly abhorrent. MissFFs: I was not trying to insult you at all. I was very distressed that you might have come to a conclusion, as do many people in certain areas of this country, that someone's skin color has anything at all to do with their behavior toward their children. It made me very uncomfortable for something tpo be posted here at LBT, that could be possibly interpreted that way. I am happy to drop the issue after having read your most recent post.

Are you being intentionally obtuse? I asked if you know what it does say in the Constitution. I'm not the one who suggested that the word "abortion" is or is not addressed in the Constitution. Do you understand your Constitutional rights? Why do you want to take away every woman's Constitutional rights? I have no quarrel with your abhorence of abortion. That's your right. Fortunately for you, I'm not trying to make a law that requires you to have one. There is nothing that requires you to have one. You're picketing abortion clinics. The Constitution gives you that right. You can say whatever you want. You can even lie. In fact, your presidential and vice presidential candidates can lie - in public - and do on a regular basis, and do it on the record. Their people can actually call Obama a Marxist and not get carted off to jail. Guess I can call anyone who wants to take my rights away, a communist. Now you go girl. Rant on. Right now I'm heading home (with visions of Colin Powell's statements that the right wing that has taken over the Republican party, dancing in my head.)

My twin grandsons' doctor in the Los Angeles area, explained the risks to us. He made us think about whether these little preemie boys should take the chance of going without some of the vaccinations that are usually given to small children, or take the chance of becoming autistic. So although the pharmacutical companies have an incredible lobby in Congress and an incredible amount of power to hide things from the public, there are some doctors who are willing to inform their patients where there are questionable meds and treatments lurking. Public awareness is always a problem. Keep up the good fight. I hope that research and proof will happen in record time to answer the question beyond a reasonable doubt.

Those of you who justify your position on taking away women's right to choose, please tell me exactly what the Constitution of the United States does promise us, if it does not "mention" abortion as you have stated? And for the person who asked why we're discussing this because we already legally have the right to choose, I am here to tell you why. It is not because it is a very volatile issue and one that is spoken of nearly every Sunday in many of our churches. It is because Sarah Palin and John McCain and the right wing faction that has taken over the Republican party are pushing with all of their might to overturn Roe v. Wade - the very case that was upheld again not too long ago by the Supreme Court - which ruled that to take away a woman's right to choose is to take away a woman's Constitutional Rights. As women, we should be very afraid of people who want to take away our rights. We have to fear them just as much as we would fear any communist; Hitler, Stalin, or Chairman Mao for instance, who has decided that it should be within their power to tell every woman what she must do in this extremely personal medical issue.

MissFFs: I am seriously wanting to take issue with your claim that there is some relationship between abusive parents and people of color. I lived in Florida for 16 years (one of your "sources" of experience that provided your claim). My sister worked in state-run drug program. Most of the people she helped into the program (both live-in treatment and out-patient treatment) were black. If she were a single minded, biased person, she would have claimed that most drug abusers are people of color. But whoa...she didn't believe that for one minute because she understood that she was working in an area of town that was accessible to black people more readily than to white people, and the people they treated had fewer options for treatment than more financially well-off white people. So just because she saw more black people with drug problems in her treatment center, that had absolutely nothing to do with the statistic of which race has more drug problems. By the same token, during the 16 years I lived in Florida, the number of cases across Florida of child abuse, child endangerment (people leaving their babies in hot cars) and the outright torture and murder of children was alarming! And the majority of those cases were not black people abusing their children - they were nearly all white people abusing and killing their children. So I take exception to your claim that child abuse is probably more prevelant in black families and I would suggest that you cite serious references to back up your suggestion.

The thing I find most objectionable is that Sarah Palin, the woman on the plane who keeps shooting her mouth off in such obnoxious ways, is that she is a Vice Presidental nominee for the United States of America. But to clairfy, I am not bothered by her obnoxious mouth. I am bothered by her obnoxious political beliefs. That and the fact that she's very clever, but not very smart and I find that very threatening to my Constitutional rights and the democratic ideals of our forefathers.

Steve, I have a lot of respect for you - my fellow Methodist. I grew up in the Methodist church and love the fact that they care so much about social problems and about the human condition. What are your thoughts on the cause of autism? I know many extremists believe that people are misdiagnosing autism and that there are no more people with autism now than there have ever been. Sarah Palin has a sister (or sister-in-law or whatever) who has a child with autism. It makes her an expert on autism, just like having Russia close in proximity to Alaska makes her an expert on foreign policy.

I am happy to see that Colin Powell has the good sense to support Senator Obama. And the really nice thing was to hear someone with his background and his ability to express his beliefs so succinctly, speak this morning to the question of which is the better presidential nominee. I missed the first part of Meet the Press, but in the part I did see, I was relieved to be listening to a man like Colin Powell instead of the political pundits and biased news commentators for a change. I know that you Republicans have expressed your respect and love of Colin Powell in the past. I hope you won't now start calling him names and accusing him of being a socialist, a terrorist, or Muslim who is not patriotic because he doesn't wear some silly pin. But after reading some of the posts here, I am sure you're silently (or loudly) cursing him. And it shouldn't take you long to come up with something to try to sully his good name.

So plain, you're fine with the wealthy getting all the write offs and breaks that they've been enjoying? Just so's they'd be doing their share - no more, mind you, just their part?