IF the economy is the #1 issue in America why would you vote for McCain? He stated not long ago (Sept 15,2008) that the fundamentals of our economy is good:blink:. Seriously? Then just today or yesterday, he said the problem with the economy is corporate greed and would have a commission (much like the like 9/11 commission) study it. WTF?! So basically he is saying he doesn't want to deal with the economy! AND lets not forget his TOP economic advisor stated just a few months ago in JUNE/JULY of THIS year that there was nothing wrong with our economy and that the American people were a bunch of "whiners". Does this sound like a person who is for the people? It is just infuriating to me that this race has become "tight"! I mean it's pretty bad when Karl Rove says the McCain campaign is lying and running a bad campaign!! UGH I will never understand what people see in McCain!

Actually, kids, the irony is that I perceive Ultra Conservatives to be against sex education. Ergo, telling HSers to "just say no" clearly didn't work with Bristol. Clearer?

Hey, the fact that UltraConservatives favor the Amish sex ed plan was supposed to secret! How'd that leak out? PS- yeah, I trashed the Amish....they won't be reading this anyway.

my Democrat mother had a daughter that chose abstinence in HS, tyvm!!!

Nerd.:biggrin:

What I'd like to know is what the hell Chris Cox (SEC) has been doing for the last month besides sitting around on his thumb?!? The SEC is supposed to be watching Wall Street and he's just sitting around chilling!

The way I heard it, every time he went down to Wall Street, they would make fun of his last name...Reduced to tears, he often fled to avoid further public humiliation.

Hey, the fact that UltraConservatives favor the Amish sex ed plan was supposed to secret! How'd that leak out? PS- yeah, I trashed the Amish....they won't be reading this anyway.

Nerd.:biggrin:

The way I heard it, every time he went down to Wall Street, they would make fun of his last name...Reduced to tears, he often fled to avoid further public humiliation.

OH MY STARS, Plain - this is the 3rd time you've called me a name, you nekkid perv!

Hysterical comment about Cox.....just had to say it again.

Edited October 28, 200817 yr by SickNTired

Here's a great video on the economic problem we're currently in:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcJMotDF1rA]YouTube - Deregulation: The Big Lie[/ame]

from Foxnews, please!

They are bash Obama and or Dems all the time

from Foxnews, please!

They are bash Obama and or Dems all the time

Did you watch it? I suspect not, because there are clips in there from CNN, C-Span, MSNBC, NBC, and Fox as well. The screen-shot shows Fox, but that's not all there is in there. It's actually a montage of clips of politicians saying various things that led up to the current economic crisis, with commentary from the person who put it together. It's very well done. You should watch it.

Just as I thought right wing propaganda. Anyone can cut footage to say anything they like.

It just took over 6 minutes of my life - Ugh! - what a waste of time

Can someone tell "Joe the plumber", that his 15 minutes are up.

What a clown

Can someone tell "Joe the plumber", that his 15 minutes are up.

What a clown

is he still around? :w00t:

Can someone tell "Joe the plumber", that his 15 minutes are up.

What a clown

I know, right? What a whiner!

Did Joe the plumber ever pay the taxes that he owed from back whenever?

Did Joe the plumber ever pay the taxes that he owed from back whenever?

He'd better pay 'em now, before Obama gets in the white house...

I am SURE he won't be affected...I am sure he makes no where near enough money...LOL!

Brilliant article at Laura Hollis : A President Who Won't Uphold the Constitution? Never. - Townhall.com (emphasis mine):

Well, now we know why Barack Obama’s been so reluctant to have symbols of this country associated with his campaign. No flags on his airplane. Nix to pins on his lapel. Not inclined to put his hand over his heart during the national anthem.

After all, it turns out he has a problem with that other slightly more significant representation of our nation, the United States Constitution.

Just as he tried to prove to everyone that his patriotism was demonstrated by the lack of symbols of the United States, so he is now arguing that his passion for the Constitution is demonstrated by his commitment to shredding it.

The Drudge Report and other legitimate investigative sources like the National Review, have exposed the most damning evidence yet of Barack Obama’s utter disregard for the core principles of the United States government. In a radio interview given in 2001, Obama reveals yet again about what he means by ‘equality,’ when he says, “…the Supreme Court never entered into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.”

Bad? Sure. Because now it’s not just “spread the wealth” a little bit (antithetical as that already is to American notions of hard work and prosperity). It’s that “redistribution of wealth” is part and parcel of Obama’s vision of what is “political and economic justice” in this society.

But it is much worse. Because this Harvard-educated lawyer then announces that the United States Supreme Court when headed by Chief Justice Earl Warren, was “not radical enough,” in its pursuit of civil liberties, because “t didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution.”

If this has not stopped you dead in your tracks, either you don’t understand, or you’re already dead. What Obama is doing here is expressing his opinion that the Court would have better effectuated his definition of “political and economic justice” if it had been willing to ignore the limits placed upon it by the Constitution.

I have written elsewhere of Obama’s potential designs on the country, and his inclinations should he obtain the power he seeks. Many of the hypotheticals I posited then were pooh-poohed by readers, who said, in essence, “He’d never do that; the Constitution prevents it.”

At this point, any belief in Obama’s respect for constitutional limits is delusional. If he is so cavalier about the Constitution’s limits upon the power of the judiciary, why on earth would he respect the limits on the power of the Presidency? Or on Congress? Clamor for the reinstatement of the insidiously named “Fairness Doctrine” has already put the First Amendment in Obama’s sights. What would be sacrosanct about the Second? Or the Fourth? Or Fifth? Or Eighth? Why would Obama let any constitutional limit stand in the way of what he views as “political and economic justice”?

These views are why Obama’s acquaintances, associates and allies matter. Why his Alinskyite “by any means necessary” philosophy matters. Why we should care that he funds and takes money from people who say they hate or wish to undermine America. Why we should be concerned when he took spiritual sustenance from a man who spends much of his time condemning white people. This is what drives Barack Obama. And this is why he wants the Presidency.

The rest of Obama’s observations during this interview are just as asinine, and just as threatening. He says, “generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: [it] says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.”

This is deception. As an initial matter, few listening to him would understand the gobbledygook, “negative liberties.” But more importantly, he never explains that the United States Constitution is the oldest constitution in effect in the world. And that is no accident. It is the oldest, because it is the only constitution I am aware of that is drafted the way it is. Specifically, other constitutions list certain rights that the government conveys upon the people. Or, to put it as Obama did, the things “government must do on your behalf.”

Our Constitution, by contrast, has precisely the opposite construction. We, the people, are presumed to have all the rights, not just those written down in the Constitution. (And the Declaration of Independence states that these rights are “endowed by our Creator;” not by any government.)

Lest this be unclear, the drafters of the Constitution put it in writing. The Ninth Amendment says, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

And the Tenth Amendment goes further, stating explicitly that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.”

Obama is engaging in dangerous demagoguery when he suggests that we the people of the United States need him – or the government he wants in place – to give us rights we don’t already have.

This deceitful view was echoed when he was introduced by Democratic Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur in Ohio earlier this week, who said that Americans “needed a Second Bill of Rights guaranteeing all Americans a job, health care, homes, an education, and a fair playing field for business and farmers.” This is no “bill of rights,” it is a bill of attainder (look it up). Those found “guilty” would be anyone wealthier, more successful, or more prosperous than any other. And the punishment? The very things Obama and the Democrats are already pushing for: high taxes, and even seizure and redistribution of all American’s private property.

I am stunned beyond belief that these blunt admissions do not give otherwise patriotic Obama supporters (and this describes the vast majority of them) serious pause. But those voting for him seem to fall into two groups. The first group says, “Oh well, Bush has trashed the Constitution, too.” Even assuming that this were true, it is hardly a ringing endorsement for your candidate. Worse, it displays a surprising ignorance that the procedural protections Obama is determined to dismantle won’t be there to protect you against the next right-wing fascist you guys are always running in terror from. What – you think Obama will give those rights back right before (if) he leaves office?

The second group consists of disgruntled so-called “conservatives” like Kathleen Parker, Colin Powell, Peggy Noonan, and Christopher Buckley, who hear what Obama is saying, but choose not to believe him. I’m not sure what to say to these people, except that their refusal to learn from history suggests that there may be something to those claims that there’s no such thing as evolution.

Those who drafted the Constitution knew that persuasive orators who promised beneficence in exchange for liberty would come along. This is why George Washington admonished that “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master.” And it is why Thomas Jefferson said, "In questions of power then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."

Every President, upon taking office, takes an oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."A President should be willing to die to defend our Constitution. Obama is dying to destroy it.

Gadget, I keep waiting and waiting for the outcry, as Obama's socialist tendencies are uncovered, but.......silence. Either people are apathetic, or stupid (or like the appeal of a socialist government, I guess).

Gadget, I keep waiting and waiting for the outcry, as Obama's socialist tendencies are uncovered, but.......silence. Either people are apathetic, or stupid (or like the appeal of a socialist government, I guess).

Plain - I really do hope you are not painting all liberals with the "stupid" paint brush. My undergrad is in poli sci and I have an MBA. As I have stated numerous times, we are electing a President, not a dictator. The fact that Bush's approval numbers are in the TOILET, I think it's "stupid" to support someone that's voted with Bush 90% of the time.

Of course, if Cheney had it his way, the President would've been dictator with the Congress and Supreme Court as mere secondary annoyances. Clearly, Cheney ain't much for the Constitution either.

Gadget - with your often and longggggg posts, how do you make time to also teach children? I'd be too wiped out to do all that research.