Barack Hussein Obama

[dude1394]

The text of the obama sex education bill. I don't know how else to read it to be honest.

http://www2.nationalreview.com/dest/...00sb0099lv.pdf

“Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades 6 through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention, transmission and spread of AIDS” to “Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades K through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV.”

[chumdawg]

Thanks, I read it too. Me, I didn't have any problem understanding what "age-appropriate" means. It means that it's not appropriate to talk to kids about using their reproductive organs until such time as they are actually able to do so. You know, like after puberty.

What did you think "age-appropriate" meant?

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Thanks, I read it too. Me, I didn't have any problem understanding what "age-appropriate" means. It means that it's not appropriate to talk to kids about using their reproductive organs until such time as they are actually able to do so. You know, like after puberty.

What did you think "age-appropriate" meant?

I'm sure it means different things to different people. that would seem to be the issue (or the "lie" as it were).

[chumdawg]

Yes, that would seem to be at the heart of the issue, or "lie." I haven't paid close enough attention to this from the outset--frankly, because the whole idea that the big, bad Barack Hussein Obama endorsed teaching sex education to kindergarterners appeared to me an obvious ploy--but what was his role in the bill? Did he write it, or just co-sponsor it?

The reason I ask is that it is clear from the version of the bill you linked to that the bill was originally written to encompass grades six through twelve, and that K-12 was edited in later, along with the language about "age and developmentally appropriate" and the language about teaching kids to avoid sexual predators. What did Obama do? Write, edit in, or neither?

That said, I'm sure you noticed in your reading of the bill that abstinence education is strongly advocated for. And I'm sure you also noticed how any parent is free to opt their child out of whatever programs their school may choose to enact.

On my reading of it, it looked like a common-sensical piece of policy. It sounded like an attempt to teach kids exactly what their parents would teach them, if their parents hadn't bothered to do so. And I'm sure you will agree that this (parents not teaching their kids these things) is squarely at the root of the problems our society faces in this regard.

[rabbitproof]

From the former supporter of Barry Goldwater and editor of the National Review makes the case for why Obama better represents the genuine values of conservativism than John McCain does:

A Conservative for Obama

My party has slipped its moorings. It’s time for a true pragmatist to lead the country.
Leading Off By Wick Allison, Editor In Chief

http://www.dmagazine.com/ME2/dirmod....A3EF81822D9F8E

THE MORE I LISTEN TO AND READ ABOUT “the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate,” the more I like him. Barack Obama strikes a chord with me like no political figure since Ronald Reagan. To explain why, I need to explain why I am a conservative and what it means to me.

In 1964, at the age of 16, I organized the Dallas County Youth for Goldwater. My senior thesis at the University of Texas was on the conservative intellectual revival in America. Twenty years later, I was invited by William F. Buckley Jr. to join the board of National Review. I later became its publisher.

Conservatism to me is less a political philosophy than a stance, a recognition of the fallibility of man and of man’s institutions. Conservatives respect the past not for its antiquity but because it represents, as G.K. Chesterton said, the democracy of the dead; it gives the benefit of the doubt to customs and laws tried and tested in the crucible of time. Conservatives are skeptical of abstract theories and utopian schemes, doubtful that government is wiser than its citizens, and always ready to test any political program against actual results.

Liberalism always seemed to me to be a system of “oughts.” We ought to do this or that because it’s the right thing to do, regardless of whether it works or not. It is a doctrine based on intentions, not results, on feeling good rather than doing good.

But today it is so-called conservatives who are cemented to political programs when they clearly don’t work. The Bush tax cuts—a solution for which there was no real problem and which he refused to end even when the nation went to war—led to huge deficit spending and a $3 trillion growth in the federal debt. Facing this, John McCain pumps his “conservative” credentials by proposing even bigger tax cuts. Meanwhile, a movement that once fought for limited government has presided over the greatest growth of government in our history. That is not conservatism; it is profligacy using conservatism as a mask.

Today it is conservatives, not liberals, who talk with alarming bellicosity about making the world “safe for democracy.” It is John McCain who says America’s job is to “defeat evil,” a theological expansion of the nation’s mission that would make George Washington cough out his wooden teeth.

This kind of conservatism, which is not conservative at all, has produced financial mismanagement, the waste of human lives, the loss of moral authority, and the wreckage of our economy that McCain now threatens to make worse.

Barack Obama is not my ideal candidate for president. (In fact, I made the maximum donation to John McCain during the primaries, when there was still hope he might come to his senses.) But I now see that Obama is almost the ideal candidate for this moment in American history. I disagree with him on many issues. But those don’t matter as much as what Obama offers, which is a deeply conservative view of the world. Nobody can read Obama’s books (which, it is worth noting, he wrote himself) or listen to him speak without realizing that this is a thoughtful, pragmatic, and prudent man. It gives me comfort just to think that after eight years of George W. Bush we will have a president who has actually read the Federalist Papers.

Most important, Obama will be a realist. I doubt he will taunt Russia, as McCain has, at the very moment when our national interest requires it as an ally. The crucial distinction in my mind is that, unlike John McCain, I am convinced he will not impulsively take us into another war unless American national interests are directly threatened.

“Every great cause,” Eric Hoffer wrote, “begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.” As a cause, conservatism may be dead. But as a stance, as a way of making judgments in a complex and difficult world, I believe it is very much alive in the instincts and predispositions of a liberal named Barack Obama.

Write to wicka@dmagazine.com.

[chumdawg]

That's a great article...thanks for posting. I think this sums it up for me:

Nobody can read Obama’s books (which, it is worth noting, he wrote himself) or listen to him speak without realizing that this is a thoughtful, pragmatic, and prudent man.

That's what appeals to me. That's what I think we need.

And I've always identified with the Republican party. I was a fervent Bush supporter. But A) "Republican" doesn't mean the same to thing to me now as it did when I was growing up (in the Reagan era), and B) John McCain isn't even much of a Republican.

If the Reps are void of an offering this year, then it's time to give the other guys the chance.

[Arne]

"thoughtful, pragmatic, and prudent... "

Reminds me of all the mischaracterizations of "Che" Guevara...

[mcsluggo]

who in the world characterized Che that way?
Casto? (Before or after he had him killed)

[rabbitproof]

Looks like my Hussa got his inbox cracked, too...

Wtf happened to decency?

[Arne]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

who in the world characterized Che that way?
Casto? (Before or after he had him killed)

Well Jon "some middle name" Anderson, lots of New York Times journalists at the time, a lot of Stanford historians... I'm reading "Exposing The Real Che Guevara And The Useful Idiots Who Idolize Him" by Humberto Fontova right now.... I stongly recommend it. Especially for all these people who walk around in Guevara shirts... Amazingly ignorant.

Best quote in the whole book:

"I think you get hung up too much on facts, my friend"

- Carlos Santana trying to talk someone out of wearing his "Che is dead - get over it"-shirt and receiving a great educational session from a exile-cuban.

[aquaadverse]

Yeah, those nasty taxcuts caused a recession. It took 7 years, 9/11, record hurricanes and natural disasters but like that old adage of the broken clock...

I seem to remember something about heading into the biggest depression since the big one, being the first President to lose jobs since Hoover and all manner of gnashing teeth and rendering clothes post 2000 election . If there wasn't a problem, it was the noisiest vacuum I've ever heard.

[dude1394]

So what exactly does this guy belive in?

http://www.pajamasmedia.com/instapun...es2/024617.php

DAVID WEIGEL: Obama's Wars: Liberal Interventionism Makes a Comeback. "Obama believes all of what he said six years ago in Chicago. He has called for, or retroactively endorsed, interventions in Zimbabwe, Pakistan, and Sudan. He has advocated a humanitarian-based foreign policy for his entire public career. Since coming to the U.S. Senate in 2005, he has built up a brain trust of academics and ex-Clintonites who, like him, challenge the logic of the Iraq war but not the logic of wars like Iraq. John McCain looks at American military power and sees a way to 'roll back' rogue states. Obama looks at American military power and sees a way to solve international and intranational conflict, regardless of the conflict's immediate impact on national security. McCain seeks to aggressively confront imminent threats. Obama wants to do the same, while forestalling threats of tomorrow with just as much military vigor." Hmm.

[dude1394]

Keep it classy Obama.
http://wizbangblog.com/content/2008/...ppen-to-it.php

A reader sent this link to an exclusive CBS 2 HD report that says Democrats threatened the tax exempt status of Jewish organizations involved in the rally if they didn't pull Sarah Palin's invitation:

Sources tell CBS 2 HD that a decision to disinvite Palin from the high profile rally after Clinton pulled out in a huff came as the result of intense pressure from Democrats...The groups sponsoring the rally against Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speaking at the UN were reportedly told, "it could jeopardize their tax exempt status" if they had Palin and not Clinton or Democratic VP candidate Joe Biden on hand.

So all politicians were disinvited, most prominently, Palin.

"It's an absolute shame that this has happened," Hikind said. "To threaten organizations ... to threaten the Conference of Presidents that if you don't withdraw the invitation to Gov. Palin we're going to look into your tax exempt status ... that's McCarthyism."

Another Jewish group tried to step into the breach by inviting Palin to a different protest a day earlier.

"I'm absolutely appalled at the behavior of the Democrats," said Bob Kunst of Defenders.net. "I'm a Democrat and for the first time in my life I'm going to vote Republican. I can't take it anymore."

This is the politics of thuggery and intimidation. Let's not forget, Obama recently told his followers to argue with political opponents and get in their faces. Also, he's all for trampling his critics' free speech rights. When David Freddoso and, separately, Stanley Kurtz were on WGN radio to discuss his book The Case Against Barack Obama, Obama instructed his followers to interfere with the shows by flooding the radio station with phone calls and emails in an effort to prevent these two men the right to express their views. He doesn't have any problem with shutting down those he disagrees with because he thinks his ideas are so important that he's morally justified in shutting up his critics.

Steve Schippert wrote a great post earlier today in which he writes that Democrats, Obama ops specifically, were behind Palin's being disinvited from the rally. He was right.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

So what exactly does this guy belive in?

http://www.pajamasmedia.com/instapun...es2/024617.php

odd for the writer to make the case that "intervention" equates to "invasion".

I've never read a single statement by obama that he would attack or invade another country that has not attacked the us. have you?

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Keep it classy Obama.
http://wizbangblog.com/content/2008/...ppen-to-it.php

why did you leave out this line from the very same article?

"I have never seen such raw emotion -- on both sides," said someone close to the situation.

and bob kunst isn't with defenders.net, he's a wannabe politico from miami.

also, is it wrong to "argue with political opponents and get in their faces"? seems that has been the mantra for the right for many, many years now.

for someone who rails agaionst one-sided news reporting, this is darn ironic.

[dude1394]

Typical democrat demagoguery. No wonder NOTHING will be done about social security in our lifetimes...until the bankrupt ponzi scheme is gone. Yup...new kind of politician allright, racism and social security demagoguery...sounds like what's been going on for decades.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...g_seniors.html

A new Obama ad characterizes the "Bush-McCain privatization plan" as "cutting Social Security Benefits in half." This is a falsehood sure to frighten seniors who rely on their Social Security checks. In truth, McCain does not propose to cut those checks at all.

What he really said.

For the record, McCain has said that he would seek a bipartisan deal with Congress to fix Social Security's financial problems.

During a Republican candidate debate last year in Orlando, Florida, he said:

McCain, Oct. 21, 2007: Look, what Americans need is some straight talk. They need to know -- every man, woman and child in America needs to know that both of these are going broke. They're going broke and we've got to do the hard things. We've got to fix it for the future generations of Americans. Don't we owe that to young Americans today? I say we do. ... It's got to be bipartisan. ... And you have to got to the American people and say we don't -- we won't raise your taxes. We need personal savings accounts, but we got to fix this system.

The system isn't exactly "going broke." But the latest official projection is that the trust fund will be exhausted by the year 2041, after which current tax rates will finance only 78 percent of currently scheduled benefits. We agree that "straight talk" is needed and that finding solutions will be hard. Ads like this, however, misinform the public and make the job of fixing the system more difficult.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

why did you leave out this line from the very same article?

"I have never seen such raw emotion -- on both sides," said someone close to the situation.

and bob kunst isn't with defenders.net, he's a wannabe politico from miami.

also, is it wrong to "argue with political opponents and get in their faces"? seems that has been the mantra for the right for many, many years now.

for someone who rails agaionst one-sided news reporting, this is darn ironic.

Sure argue all you want....Send out obama-alerts to shout your opponents off the stage, threaten law-suits when needed. Typical democrat thuggery.

Please link to the McCain campaign sending out alerts to shout his opponents off the stage...I'll wait.

[dude1394]

Keep it "classy" democrats. Keep the "country first". yea..
http://wizbangblog.com/content/2008/...apolitical.php

But a few days ago, Hillary Clinton backed out and had spokesmen - not herself - raise the objection that appearing would 'politicize' the event unnecessarily. Initial reaction was with Republican vitriol towards Senator Clinton and speculation that she simply would not and could not be seen standing shoulder to shoulder with Governor Sarah Palin, lest she further surrender her presumed role of the very image of successful women in American political leadership. There is no doubt that there is some truth to that, and perhaps that made the decision a bit easier for Clinton. But that was not the impetus.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Sure argue all you want....Send out obama-alerts to shout your opponents off the stage, threaten law-suits when needed. Typical democrat thuggery.

Please link to the McCain campaign sending out alerts to shout his opponents off the stage...I'll wait.

not sure about "shouting..off the stage", but the freddoso event was a call in show, and the dems took to the phones.

isn't that what a call in show asks for?

let me ask you a question, if a book was written with inaccuracies should those inaccuracies and mistruths not go unchallenged?

[dude1394]

I'm not exactly sure why the race-monger should even be considered. Yea...keep it classy Obama.

Barack-Hussein-Obama "It is this world, a world where cruise ships throw away more food in a day than most residents of Port-au-Prince see in a year, where white folks' greed runs a world in need, apartheid in one hemisphere, apathy in another hemisphere…That's the world! On which hope sits!"

Seeing as how the US is probably the most generous of nations, this is typical race-mongering.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Keep it "classy" democrats. Keep the "country first". yea..
http://wizbangblog.com/content/2008/...apolitical.php

so let me get this straight....the dis-invitation (is that a new word?) went out not because it would be political?

how could this event not be political? answer: not have a bunch of politicians as the face.

and the event was to be non-partisan, but the writer laments the loss of the ability to show palin at an event confronting iran, which photos and videos they would certainly profit from by using in the campaign commercials?

yeah, THAT makes a lot of sense.

hillary clinton did not want to used by the mccain/palin campaign, and I don't blame her. she clearly anticipated that the mccain/palin campaign would use the videos from the event.

the mccain/palin campaign is upset because their plan failed. maybe THEY shouldn't have pushed to have their candidate (hillary isn't a candidate anymore remenber?) "politicizing" the event.

[chumdawg]

A new Obama ad characterizes the "Bush-McCain privatization plan" as "cutting Social Security Benefits in half." This is a falsehood sure to frighten seniors who rely on their Social Security checks. In truth, McCain does not propose to cut those checks at all.

Maybe it will stick as well as "Obama will raise your taxes" has.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

not sure about "shouting..off the stage", but the freddoso event was a call in show, and the dems took to the phones.

isn't that what a call in show asks for?

let me ask you a question, if a book was written with inaccuracies should those inaccuracies and mistruths not go unchallenged?

Are you saying you approve of the presidential campaign sending out instructions to shout someone off the stage? The dems were told to take to the phones to first disrupt the show and secondly to shout him off.

This biography if I recall is pretty well thought of.

[aquaadverse]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

odd for the writer to make the case that "intervention" equates to "invasion".

I've never read a single statement by obama that he would attack or invade another country that has not attacked the us. have you?

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=3434573&page=1

"I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges," Obama said, "but let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

Don't know if unapproved military incursions count as attack or invade, but it will make some bad folks nervous.

[Mavdog]

I'm referring to the call in show at wgn in chicago.

imo people should be allowed to speak, and if others have the ability to expose them as idiots they should.

the biography is weak. it has many, many inaccuracies and uses rumour as fact.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by aquaadverse

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=3434573&page=1

"I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges," Obama said, "but let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

Don't know if unapproved military incursions count as attack or invade, but it will make some bad folks nervous.

didn't al queda attack us?

yeah, I thought so....

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

I'm referring to the call in show at wgn in chicago.

imo people should be allowed to speak, and if others have the ability to expose them as idiots they should.

the biography is weak. it has many, many inaccuracies and uses rumour as fact.

Review of Fredosi's book from Ben Smith of the Politico.
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.c...90F74D5579425E

The first serious negative biography of Senator Barack Obama casts the Democratic nominee as a fake reformer and a real liberal.

“The Case Against Barack Obama,” by National Review’s David Freddoso, blasts Obama for failing to take on the Chicago machine, for listening to “radical advisors,” and for backing “doctrinaire liberal” causes from teachers unions to abortion rights.

It does not, however, compare him to Paris Hilton, or dwell at length on his religion or race – making the substance of “The Case Against Barack Obama” sound a bit unfamiliar amid a campaign cacophony of hyperbolic web ads, alleged race cards, and viral smears.

Freddoso says John McCain’s campaign and Republicans at large are making the wrong case against the Illinois senator.

“I don’t think you beat Obama by saying that he’s Paris Hilton,” said Freddoso, a reporter for the conservative magazine National Review, referring to McCain’s latest advertising campaign. “The more important thing is really to look at is he who he says he is? Is he really this great reformer?”

Freddoso’s book, released today by the conservative publishing house Regnery and provided exclusively to Politico by the publisher, occupies a small island in the often-shrill sea of criticism of Obama. As a range of conservatives suggest that Obama is a closet radical, and as McCain’s campaign aims to disqualify him from the White House on the grounds of his international fame, Freddoso makes a case that conservatives should look at the presumptive Democratic nominee's record.
See also

* Dear 44: Education matters
* VP pick may chafe Hillary supporters
* Obama calls for 'clean energy' nation

His thesis: “It’s not that Obama is a bad person. It’s just that he’s like all the rest of them. Not a reformer. Not a Messiah. Just like all the rest of them in Washington. And just like all the other liberals too.”

Freddoso’s is one of two new books harshly attacking Obama. The other, by Jerome Corsi, reportedly covers some of the same terrotory as the viral emails that have plagued the Democratic candidate, making much of his slender connections to Islam and his teenage drug use.

Freddoso opts largely for a fact-based critique, and writes that the viral and overt smears have allowed Obama to evade substantive criticism.

“Too many of those criticizing Obama have been content merely to slander him,” he writes. False rumors about Obama's religion and ancestry have produced, Freddoso writes, “an intellectual laziness among the very people who should be carefully scrutinizing Obama.”

His book comes with Republican popularity at a historic low, amid widespread disenchantment with Republican ideals of limited government and hawkish foreign policy. Many – including, apparently, McCain’s strategists – doubt a Republican can win a policy face-off. But as the real campaign hones in on the character of the candidates, Freddoso’s book attempts to build an alternate case against Obama.
Freddoso’s argument begins in Chicago, and focuses largely on his ties to Mayor Richard M. Daley’s political organization. Though Obama’s first political steps were in Hyde Park’s reformist politics, Freddoso focuses on the smooth accommodation he made to the machine.

Freddoso recalls a Chicago Sun-Times story from 2005, after a wave of indictments of Daley aides in a patronage scandal. “Obama almost said something mildly critical of Daley,” Freddoso writes, quoting Obama as saying that the reports gave him “huge pause.”

“An hour later, he was already calling [the Sun-Times] back to ‘clarify’ his comments,” Freddoso writes, and to lavish praise on Daley’s record.

Freddoso also indicts him for standing on the sidelines of a bitter battle between reformers and the machine for the presidency of the Cook County Board. The African-American incumbent, John Stroger, faced a rare, real challenge from a united reform front, led by Forrest Claypool. Obama stayed out of the race, despite the pleas of his reformist supporters.

“Obama’s silence had probably saved Cook County’s political kingpin,” he writes, detailing the incumbent Stroger’s patronage operation.

And I guess Stanley Kurtz should also be shouted down because his "argument" is weak.

In the next few hours, we have a crucial opportunity to fight one of the most cynical and offensive smears ever launched against Barack.

Tonight, WGN radio is giving right-wing hatchet man Stanley Kurtz a forum to air his baseless, fear-mongering terrorist smears. He's currently scheduled to spend a solid two-hour block from 9:00 to 11:00 p.m. pushing lies, distortions, and manipulations about Barack and University of Illinois professor William Ayers.

Tell WGN that by providing Kurtz with airtime, they are legitimizing baseless attacks from a smear-merchant and lowering the standards of political discourse.

Call into the "Extension 720" show with Milt Rosenberg at (312) 591-XXXX. (I edited the number.)

(Show airs from 9:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. tonight)

Then report back on your call at http://my.barackobama.com/WGNstandards

I'm starting to get it, ANY criticism of theMessiah is baseless and smear-mongering. I get it.

[dude1394]

Murdoch on Obama's economics. Socialist comes to my mind also.

Rupert Murdoch was a guest on Your World w/Neil Cavuto today (September 19, 2008). He and Cavuto talked about a wide range of things but mostly the Wall Street mess and politics. This is what he said about Barack Obama:

Cavuto: "Your New York Post, very early on, endorsed the McCain/Palin ticket. Since that endorsement, we have heard a lot of this populist talk. We've heard a lot of this corporate railing, which again, seems to resonate in the polls. Do you regret that?"

Murdoch: "Not in the least. Ah, I'm very worried. I like ah, ah, Senator Obama very much. I've met him. He's a very intelligent man, but his policy of anti-globalization, protectionism, he's going to, ah, and card checks (?), are going to do two or three things. They're going to give us a lot of inflation. They're going to ruin our relationships with the rest of the world, and the, and they're going to slow down the rest of the world too, and they're going to make people frightened to add to employment. Um, you're going to find companies leaving this country if it's, if you could put a protectionist wall around it. You're gonna get, he, his policy is really very, very naive, old fashioned, 1960's socialist."

[Mavdog]

review of freddoso's book by media matters:

Citations in Freddoso's anti-Obama book rife with misinformation
Summary: The first few pages of David Freddoso's book, The Case Against Barack Obama, are marked by false and misleading assertions about Sen. Barack Obama, accompanied by dubious citations. A Media Matters review of the endnotes reveals that the rest of the book is little different from these first few pages, as throughout the book, Freddoso misrepresents or distorts his sources and even makes assertions that are actually refuted by sources he cites.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200808050011?f=h_top


hey, freddoso is just trying to make a buck on the back of conservative dislike of obama. he should do it with more substance abd acccuracy tho.

again, the note you posted was a message to dial into a call in radio program. what's wrong with that?

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Murdoch on Obama's economics. Socialist comes to my mind also.

really? when does "socialism" equate with "protectionism"?

not that I see the obama platform actually proposing either -ism, but they are not philosophies that run parallel to each other, they are very seperate.

can you outline what "socialist" platforms if any are proposed by obama?

here's a link to his issues page, good luck.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

review of freddoso's book by media matters:



http://mediamatters.org/items/200808050011?f=h_top


hey, freddoso is just trying to make a buck on the back of conservative dislike of obama. he should do it with more substance abd acccuracy tho.

again, the note you posted was a message to dial into a call in radio program. what's wrong with that?

You are going to criticize his book by quoting media matters? You've got to be kidding.

[Mavdog]

oh yeah, like politico.com is MUCH better...

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

oh yeah, like politico.com is MUCH better...

Well yea...politico in general at least runs liberal. Find a review from a conservative site wouldya'.

[Mavdog]

are you kidding?

why would I want a review from a conservative site?

if what media matters says is wrong, tell us why.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Well yea...politico in general at least runs liberal. Find a review from a conservative site wouldya'.

I found one:

McCain: not one of us
Palin: THE ONE
Obama: Muslim

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

are you kidding?

why would I want a review from a conservative site?

if what media matters says is wrong, tell us why.

So if left leaning sites believe that obama criticism is weak, wrong, etc., then the authors should be shouted down.

I don't really know how wrong/right it is (nor do you I imagine unless you've read it) but if anyone dares criticize the one, we do know that his campaign will try to shout them off the stage. With meet-up help from the obama campaign.

In general I don't feel that the national review magazine is a screaming right-wing rag. If you do then you do. Seeing as how both of those authors are respected contributors to that magazine, then I believe that the smear that is being perpetrated is by obama and yourself.

[dude1394]

Keep it classy democrats.

More Hope and Change...
Actress comedienne Sandra Bernhard is the latest Obama supporter to lash out at conservative Governor Sarah Palin. Ms. Bernhard's latest comedy sketch includes Sarah Palin gang rape jokes.

[chumdawg]

I am sensing that folks aren't as head-over-heels for the Princess Warrior as they were two weeks ago.

[dude1394]

Ah another child moleting, incest practioner pitching for theMessiah.

US filmmaker Woody Allen, best known for divorcing his daughters mother, screwing his 14 year old daughter and marrying her, says it will be no laughing matter if Barack Obama fails to win the race for the White House.

"It would be a disgrace and a humiliation if Barack Obama does not win," he told Spanish journalists at the ongoing 56th San Sebastian film festival, where his latest film "Vicky Cristina Barcelona" is being screened.

Not exactly a ringing endorsement.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

So if left leaning sites believe that obama criticism is weak, wrong, etc., then the authors should be shouted down.

I don't really know how wrong/right it is (nor do you I imagine unless you've read it) but if anyone dares criticize the one, we do know that his campaign will try to shout them off the stage. With meet-up help from the obama campaign.

In general I don't feel that the national review magazine is a screaming right-wing rag. If you do then you do. Seeing as how both of those authors are respected contributors to that magazine, then I believe that the smear that is being perpetrated is by obama and yourself.

if there are errors and an agenda, imo the author should be confronted and challenged. if there's "shouting", does it matter? the line drawn is when the author is not allowed to publish or to speak. did that happen?

you are hung up with that word-"shout"-like it means "silence". it's not.

if you "don't feel that the national review magizine is a screaming (isn't "screaming" the same as "shout" btw) right-wing rag", well, it is...maybe the problem is those blinders you're fond of wearing.