will Obama be a good President?

[miraclesrule]

Phew! We can finally toss out the Bible now.
Heck, let''s just toss out the Constitution as well, since it''s history. I''m game.


But the Iraq War isn''t history, so can we talk about the real deaths that occur daily? I would like to talk about the fact that instead of providing our military with necessary protection and decent pay, or any meaningful treatment when they return with mentally and physically debilitating injuries...we care more about providing a 1.3 trillion dollar tax cut for the wealthy multimillionaires. All this for a war based on lies and not at all about protecting our American citizens from imminent danger. No WMD? Okay, let''s make up another reason for the war. We need to spread (force) democracy on everyone as a means of preventing terrorism. Oh yeah, let''s pay the brave young men a mere $1366 a month to fight in 120 degree heat and die. Even Canada paid their men over $1000 more a month to do the same thing. Not us...not the richest country on earth. Invest in Humvees that can actually survive an IED? The army states they needed at least 2600 armored vehicles for the military police, yet the Bushleague Administration only contracted with one company, Textron in New Orleans and only for 1250. Why? Because that is all we could afford (again, because we have to give the 1.3 trillion tax break to the super rich over the next ten years).

A Pentagon study in 2006 found that some 80 percent of marines killed in Iraq between 2003 and 2005 from upper body wounds could have survived if they had extra body armor there. As of late 2005, over two and a half years into the war, less than 10 percent of the 28,000 upper armor plates on order had reached our marines in Iraq. Medical care upon return...underfunded. Well, at least by the end of August 2007, four years later, 1500 of the 14,000 MRAPS (mine-resistant, ambush-protected vehicles) were finally shipped to Iraq. Why? oh yeah, 1.3 trillion in tax cuts for the mega wealthy who don''t need a dime from anyone.

You can spin the history any way you want to, but these are present day facts backed by documentary evidence.

So, to circle around to the question of this thread. The mere fact that Obama voted against this Iraq war that had no evidence to support the claims to justify it in the first place, is enough to convince me that he is not insane enough to support a policy of our fighting other peoples'' wars and sacrificing thousands upon thousands of young American lives to give people freedom of other nations, who never asked for it, nor welcomed it. I suspect he knew that it wasn''t worth dying for to enter into a country who would not view us as liberators but as occupiers. And Obama gets brownie points if he predicted that it would be an endless, fruitless war that cost our taxpayers trillions of dollars.

The fact that McCain/Palin will fight until everyone is dead, at whatever the cost to the taxpayers, including the cost of suffering over the loss of human life... 4000 American soldiers to date and over 100,000 innocent civilians to date....well, it''s more than my heart and conscience can bear.

Okay, I feel much better after that rant....carry on.

 

[ksinger]

Date: 10/14/2008 11:35:12 PM
Author: HollyS

Date: 10/14/2008 8:33:59 AM
Author: ksinger

Date: 10/14/2008 8:17:28 AM
Author: HollyS

I''m not quoting conservative blogs. Read something besides internet sites to gain some perspective. Pick up a book. Pick up the Congressional Record. The Congressional Record is probably available on line. Review some actual laws/policies of previous administrations besides the last one. Think outside the box of your own liberal viewpoint and your usual sources.

And regardless of ksinger''s post that suggests history is all in one''s perspective, or subject to change, it is not. Opinion changes; history never varies. You can twist it to make your point I suppose, as long as no one questions your revision.

LMACOMPLETELYO! Yeah! Take THAT, SCHLESINGER! PTHBBBBTTTTT!!! We no need no definition of history from no steenking HISTORIAN!

Well, you can laugh your ass off if you want, but ''facts'' don''t change. People''s beliefs might skewer their understanding of historical facts, but what happened five minutes ago or 50 years ago might as well be set in stone. You can Monday morning quarterback, but you can''t ''change'' what actually happened. No matter how hard you try. I don''t believe in ''relativism''. I don''t believe in ''revisionism''. Sorry.

The statement "history never changes" is true only if one operates at the lowest level of understanding; the concrete operational. This is the "history" promoted by NCLB because it''s easlly measured by a bubble in test. However, those who go beyond the lower levels of thought - and cease to want simple answers for complex situations - soon realize that facts are not history, interpretation is history. Just as a pile of 2X4''s, shingles and nails are not a house, so a pile of facts is not history. It is not until the materiels are selected, shaped and assembled in a partiular order are they a house. Likewise, it is not until the historical data is sorted, organized and selected that the the most important of historical questions is addressed - "So what?". "Why is this set of facts important and how can I use them to understand how I got here and where I''m going?" All historical writing is based upon interpretation and a particular point of view, it is the responsiblility of the reader to cast a critical eye upon them and discern those biases and points of view. The author is not being decietful in writing from a point of view (he''s being human) but he does demand that the reader be an active participant in the learning process by critically examining the author''s positions. This is the reader''s responsiblilty toward understanding history.

As long as humans write history, as long as humans reading history want a story rather than a spreadsheet of facts, we will have interpretations based upon points of view. The whole of historical data on any given topic is far too large for any but the professional or most dedicated hobbyist to process it all so decisions must be made about what facts are used to present the story. Which facts are to be used and how the story is told is the art of historical writing and teaching.

Kyle Ward''s History in the Making and History Lessons are great books on this very topic. The first is an examination of how the same event is treated in US History books from the time of event to the present. The second is an examination of how text books in different countries treat the same events. Adventures in historiography....

Note: My thanks to the DH for that explantion. At my lack of time getting ready, and my frustration with the way this thing has gone, he actually kindly pushed me aside and sat down and composed this. This topic is the first, and probably the ONLY, that would get him to post here. As many of your know from reading my posts, he has more than a passing interest in history.

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 10/15/2008 6:46:29 AM
Author: ksinger

Date: 10/14/2008 11:35:12 PM

Author: HollyS

Date: 10/14/2008 8:33:59 AM

Author: ksinger

Date: 10/14/2008 8:17:28 AM

Author: HollyS


I'm not quoting conservative blogs. Read something besides internet sites to gain some perspective. Pick up a book. Pick up the Congressional Record. The Congressional Record is probably available on line. Review some actual laws/policies of previous administrations besides the last one. Think outside the box of your own liberal viewpoint and your usual sources.


And regardless of ksinger's post that suggests history is all in one's perspective, or subject to change, it is not. Opinion changes; history never varies. You can twist it to make your point I suppose, as long as no one questions your revision.

LMACOMPLETELYO! Yeah! Take THAT, SCHLESINGER! PTHBBBBTTTTT!!! We no need no definition of history from no steenking HISTORIAN!

Well, you can laugh your ass off if you want, but 'facts' don't change. People's beliefs might skewer their understanding of historical facts, but what happened five minutes ago or 50 years ago might as well be set in stone. You can Monday morning quarterback, but you can't 'change' what actually happened. No matter how hard you try. I don't believe in 'relativism'. I don't believe in 'revisionism'. Sorry.

The statement 'history never changes' is true only if one operates at the lowest level of understanding; the concrete operational. This is the 'history' promoted by NCLB because it's easlly measured by a bubble in test. However, those who go beyond the lower levels of thought - and cease to want simple answers for complex situations - soon realize that facts are not history, interpretation is history. Just as a pile of 2X4's, shingles and nails are not a house, so a pile of facts is not history. It is not until the materiels are selected, shaped and assembled in a partiular order are they a house. Likewise, it is not until the historical data is sorted, organized and selected that the the most important of historical questions is addressed - 'So what?'. 'Why is this set of facts important and how can I use them to understand how I got here and where I'm going?' All historical writing is based upon interpretation and a particular point of view, it is the responsiblility of the reader to cast a critical eye upon them and discern those biases and points of view. The author is not being decietful in writing from a point of view (he's being human) but he does demand that the reader be an active participant in the learning process by critically examining the author's positions. This is the reader's responsiblilty toward understanding history.


As long as humans write history, as long as humans reading history want a story rather than a spreadsheet of facts, we will have interpretations based upon points of view. The whole of historical data on any given topic is far too large for any but the professional or most dedicated hobbyist to process it all so decisions must be made about what facts are used to present the story. Which facts are to be used and how the story is told is the art of historical writing and teaching.


Kyle Ward's History in the Making and History Lessons are great books on this very topic. The first is an examination of how the same event is treated in US History books from the time of event to the present. The second is an examination of how text books in different countries treat the same events. Adventures in historiography....


Note: My thanks to the DH for that explantion. At my lack of time getting ready, and my frustration with the way this thing has gone, he actually kindly pushed me aside and sat down and composed this. This topic is the first, and probably the ONLY, that would get him to post here. As many of your know from reading my posts, he has more than a passing interest in history.

So well written! Now, is there going to be a test after this?

 

[iheartscience]

Date: 10/14/2008 8:17:28 AM
Author: HollyS

Date: 10/14/2008 1:15:54 AM

Author: thing2of2

Date: 10/14/2008 12:44:40 AM

Author: HollyS

Date: 10/13/2008 11:36:13 PM

Author: thing2of2

Date: 10/13/2008 11:08:45 PM

Author: beebrisk

I saw a clip on the news today where Obama told a self-employed plummer that he was going to raise his taxes and see''s nothing wrong with wealth redistribution, giving to those less fortuate and in need. I''m all for helping the poor but I want to do it myself, not because the gov''t decides to take even more of my husband''s (who is a small business owner) $$. I swear, if the average american had to pay in their taxes, like small business owners do, they would be shocked at how much the gov''t already takes and angry that they will have to pay even more

A clear indication of Obama''s Socialist leanings. The remark he made about spreading the wealth around is downright frightening.

What do you think about the Bush administration''s bailout of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac. Wall Street, etc., beebrisk? Seems awfully...I don''t know...socialist to me!

The Bush Administration bailout? Just ''cause the utter nonsense that was ''loans to the unloanable'' and the real estate speculation, and the Wall Street corruption came to a head before the upcoming election? This problem began in 1977 under Jimmy Carter, and was compounded by the Clinton administration. It just took 30 years for it to fester into the ugly situation it has become. It would be so nice if some of you who apparenty were not around (or paying attention) during other administrations would at least read some history. History, not op/ed pieces. Not internet soapboxes. History. Please.

Funny, Holly, the only information regarding your history lesson for me comes from extremely conservative blogs who essentially blame the current economic crisis on minority homeowners. The Community Reinvestment Act applied to depository banks only, and many of the worst offenders in the subprime mortgage business were not banks and were not regulated by the Federal Reserve, so they were not forced to comply with the CRA. But thanks anyways for the lesson given from your very own internet soapbox!

I''m not quoting conservative blogs. Read something besides internet sites to gain some perspective. Pick up a book. Pick up the Congressional Record. The Congressional Record is probably available on line. Review some actual laws/policies of previous administrations besides the last one. Think outside the box of your own liberal viewpoint and your usual sources.

And regardless of ksinger''s post that suggests history is all in one''s perspective, or subject to change, it is not. Opinion changes; history never varies. You can twist it to make your point I suppose, as long as no one questions your revision.

What books have you read about the CRA, Holly? I''d love a book recommendation from you on the subject!

 

[HollyS]

Date: 10/15/2008 8:43:05 AM
Author: thing2of2

Date: 10/14/2008 8:17:28 AM
Author: HollyS

Date: 10/14/2008 1:15:54 AM

Author: thing2of2

Date: 10/14/2008 12:44:40 AM

Author: HollyS

Date: 10/13/2008 11:36:13 PM

Author: thing2of2

Date: 10/13/2008 11:08:45 PM

Author: beebrisk

I saw a clip on the news today where Obama told a self-employed plummer that he was going to raise his taxes and see''s nothing wrong with wealth redistribution, giving to those less fortuate and in need. I''m all for helping the poor but I want to do it myself, not because the gov''t decides to take even more of my husband''s (who is a small business owner) $$. I swear, if the average american had to pay in their taxes, like small business owners do, they would be shocked at how much the gov''t already takes and angry that they will have to pay even more

A clear indication of Obama''s Socialist leanings. The remark he made about spreading the wealth around is downright frightening.

What do you think about the Bush administration''s bailout of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac. Wall Street, etc., beebrisk? Seems awfully...I don''t know...socialist to me!

The Bush Administration bailout? Just ''cause the utter nonsense that was ''loans to the unloanable'' and the real estate speculation, and the Wall Street corruption came to a head before the upcoming election? This problem began in 1977 under Jimmy Carter, and was compounded by the Clinton administration. It just took 30 years for it to fester into the ugly situation it has become. It would be so nice if some of you who apparenty were not around (or paying attention) during other administrations would at least read some history. History, not op/ed pieces. Not internet soapboxes. History. Please.

Funny, Holly, the only information regarding your history lesson for me comes from extremely conservative blogs who essentially blame the current economic crisis on minority homeowners. The Community Reinvestment Act applied to depository banks only, and many of the worst offenders in the subprime mortgage business were not banks and were not regulated by the Federal Reserve, so they were not forced to comply with the CRA. But thanks anyways for the lesson given from your very own internet soapbox!

I''m not quoting conservative blogs. Read something besides internet sites to gain some perspective. Pick up a book. Pick up the Congressional Record. The Congressional Record is probably available on line. Review some actual laws/policies of previous administrations besides the last one. Think outside the box of your own liberal viewpoint and your usual sources.

And regardless of ksinger''s post that suggests history is all in one''s perspective, or subject to change, it is not. Opinion changes; history never varies. You can twist it to make your point I suppose, as long as no one questions your revision.

What books have you read about the CRA, Holly? I''d love a book recommendation from you on the subject!

Here''s some recommendations for books that give a more analytical approach, rather than pointing fingers at only one side of the aisle:

"Serving Two Masters, Yet Out of Control: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac" by Peter J. Wallison

"The Trilliion Dollar Meltdown: Easy Money, High Rollers, and the Great Credit Crash" by Charles R. Morris

"Outrage" by Dick Morris. Oh no, wait. He''s a Fox contributor now that he turncoated on the Clintons. You won''t read him.

"America''s Suicidal Statecraft: The self-destruction of super power" by James Cumes

I can''t claim to have read all of them, but I have some of them. And yes, you can find them on Amazon. That''s where I buy, and just looked them up for the author''s names and complete titles. The last title there is one I hadn''t seen before; reading the excerpt, it looks pretty interesting.

 

[HollyS]

Date: 10/15/2008 6:46:29 AM
Author: ksinger

Date: 10/14/2008 11:35:12 PM
Author: HollyS

Date: 10/14/2008 8:33:59 AM
Author: ksinger

Date: 10/14/2008 8:17:28 AM
Author: HollyS

I''m not quoting conservative blogs. Read something besides internet sites to gain some perspective. Pick up a book. Pick up the Congressional Record. The Congressional Record is probably available on line. Review some actual laws/policies of previous administrations besides the last one. Think outside the box of your own liberal viewpoint and your usual sources.

And regardless of ksinger''s post that suggests history is all in one''s perspective, or subject to change, it is not. Opinion changes; history never varies. You can twist it to make your point I suppose, as long as no one questions your revision.

LMACOMPLETELYO! Yeah! Take THAT, SCHLESINGER! PTHBBBBTTTTT!!! We no need no definition of history from no steenking HISTORIAN!

Well, you can laugh your ass off if you want, but ''facts'' don''t change. People''s beliefs might skewer their understanding of historical facts, but what happened five minutes ago or 50 years ago might as well be set in stone. You can Monday morning quarterback, but you can''t ''change'' what actually happened. No matter how hard you try. I don''t believe in ''relativism''. I don''t believe in ''revisionism''. Sorry.

The statement ''history never changes'' is true only if one operates at the lowest level of understanding; the concrete operational. This is the ''history'' promoted by NCLB because it''s easlly measured by a bubble in test. However, those who go beyond the lower levels of thought - and cease to want simple answers for complex situations - soon realize that facts are not history, interpretation is history. Just as a pile of 2X4''s, shingles and nails are not a house, so a pile of facts is not history. It is not until the materiels are selected, shaped and assembled in a partiular order are they a house. Likewise, it is not until the historical data is sorted, organized and selected that the the most important of historical questions is addressed - ''So what?''. ''Why is this set of facts important and how can I use them to understand how I got here and where I''m going?'' All historical writing is based upon interpretation and a particular point of view, it is the responsiblility of the reader to cast a critical eye upon them and discern those biases and points of view. The author is not being decietful in writing from a point of view (he''s being human) but he does demand that the reader be an active participant in the learning process by critically examining the author''s positions. This is the reader''s responsiblilty toward understanding history.

As long as humans write history, as long as humans reading history want a story rather than a spreadsheet of facts, we will have interpretations based upon points of view. The whole of historical data on any given topic is far too large for any but the professional or most dedicated hobbyist to process it all so decisions must be made about what facts are used to present the story. Which facts are to be used and how the story is told is the art of historical writing and teaching.

Kyle Ward''s History in the Making and History Lessons are great books on this very topic. The first is an examination of how the same event is treated in US History books from the time of event to the present. The second is an examination of how text books in different countries treat the same events. Adventures in historiography....

Note: My thanks to the DH for that explantion. At my lack of time getting ready, and my frustration with the way this thing has gone, he actually kindly pushed me aside and sat down and composed this. This topic is the first, and probably the ONLY, that would get him to post here. As many of your know from reading my posts, he has more than a passing interest in history.

I don''t fundamentally argue with this logic. However, in the context of my original statement, it is entirely possible to inform oneself as to the ''facts'' about a particular administrations actions or inactions. Our ''interpretation'' as to why they took action (or did nothing) is not the issue. What they did or didn''t do will still remain static. Their ''why'' can change. Our ''hindsight'' can change. But just like Reagan deregulating the transportation industries of our county, the action he took remains the action he took. How it effected the country is another issue, as are our viewpoints about it.

We can get just a little too esoteric.

 

[HollyS]

Date: 10/15/2008 1:44:29 AM
Author: miraclesrule
Phew! We can finally toss out the Bible now.
Heck, let''s just toss out the Constitution as well, since it''s history. I''m game.


But the Iraq War isn''t history, so can we talk about the real deaths that occur daily? I would like to talk about the fact that instead of providing our military with necessary protection and decent pay, or any meaningful treatment when they return with mentally and physically debilitating injuries...we care more about providing a 1.3 trillion dollar tax cut for the wealthy multimillionaires. All this for a war based on lies and not at all about protecting our American citizens from imminent danger. No WMD? Okay, let''s make up another reason for the war. We need to spread (force) democracy on everyone as a means of preventing terrorism. Oh yeah, let''s pay the brave young men a mere $1366 a month to fight in 120 degree heat and die. Even Canada paid their men over $1000 more a month to do the same thing. Not us...not the richest country on earth. Invest in Humvees that can actually survive an IED? The army states they needed at least 2600 armored vehicles for the military police, yet the Bushleague Administration only contracted with one company, Textron in New Orleans and only for 1250. Why? Because that is all we could afford (again, because we have to give the 1.3 trillion tax break to the super rich over the next ten years).

A Pentagon study in 2006 found that some 80 percent of marines killed in Iraq between 2003 and 2005 from upper body wounds could have survived if they had extra body armor there. As of late 2005, over two and a half years into the war, less than 10 percent of the 28,000 upper armor plates on order had reached our marines in Iraq. Medical care upon return...underfunded. Well, at least by the end of August 2007, four years later, 1500 of the 14,000 MRAPS (mine-resistant, ambush-protected vehicles) were finally shipped to Iraq. Why? oh yeah, 1.3 trillion in tax cuts for the mega wealthy who don''t need a dime from anyone.

You can spin the history any way you want to, but these are present day facts backed by documentary evidence.

So, to circle around to the question of this thread. The mere fact that Obama voted against this Iraq war that had no evidence to support the claims to justify it in the first place, is enough to convince me that he is not insane enough to support a policy of our fighting other peoples'' wars and sacrificing thousands upon thousands of young American lives to give people freedom of other nations, who never asked for it, nor welcomed it. I suspect he knew that it wasn''t worth dying for to enter into a country who would not view us as liberators but as occupiers. And Obama gets brownie points if he predicted that it would be an endless, fruitless war that cost our taxpayers trillions of dollars.

The fact that McCain/Palin will fight until everyone is dead, at whatever the cost to the taxpayers, including the cost of suffering over the loss of human life... 4000 American soldiers to date and over 100,000 innocent civilians to date....well, it''s more than my heart and conscience can bear.

Okay, I feel much better after that rant....carry on.

Whose tax dollars do you think are supporting those troops now? Whose tax dollars, and real corporate dollars are supporting the soldier with not only the weapons, the security, the equipment needed to fight, but the food, shelter, recreational needs of the soldier at war? Not my tax dollars, I don''t pay enough. Neither do you.

 

[bee*]

Thought some of you might appreciate this-here

 

[luckystar112]

I''m watching Obama''s rally right now and he''s telling the story about the pie........again.

 

[decodelighted]

Date: 10/16/2008 12:43:16 PM
Author: luckystar112
I''m watching Obama''s rally right now and he''s telling the story about the pie........again.

What pie story? I''m honestly curious. Maybe its slipping my mind? (But on a similar note: I thought the same type of thing last night after McCain brought up that "negotiated a better deal for a battleship" story for the umpteenth time!

)

 

[SarahLovesJS]

Date: 10/16/2008 1:37:39 PM
Author: decodelighted

Date: 10/16/2008 12:43:16 PM

Author: luckystar112

I''m watching Obama''s rally right now and he''s telling the story about the pie........again.

What pie story? I''m honestly curious. Maybe its slipping my mind? (But on a similar note: I thought the same type of thing last night after McCain brought up that ''negotiated a better deal for a battleship'' story for the umpteenth time!

)

I think it was on Daily show or Colbert where they showed how many times he brought up pie at one rally...it was hilarious it was seriously like 20 times - I thought he was just hungry or something!

 

[decodelighted]

I saw this comment by someone & I thought it was so interesting I had to post it:

Ponder the following:

What if the Obamas had paraded five children across the stage,including a three month old infant and an unwed, pregnant teenage daughter?

What if John McCain was a former president of the Harvard Law Review?

What if Barack Obama finished fifth from the bottom of his graduating class?

What if McCain had only married once, and Obama was a divorcee?

What if Obama was the candidate who left his first wife after a severe disfiguring car accident, when she no longer measured up to his standards?

What if Obama had met his second wife in a bar and had a long affair while he was still married?

What if Michelle Obama was the wife who not only became addicted to pain killers but also acquired them illegally through her charitable organization?

What if Cindy McCain graduated from Harvard?

What if Obama had been a member of the Keating Five?(The Keating Five were five United States Senators accused of corruption in 1989, igniting a major political scandal as part of the larger Savings and Loan crisis of the late 1980s and early 1990s.)

What if McCain was a charismatic, eloquent speaker?

What if Obama couldn't read from a teleprompter?

What if Obama was the one who had military experience that included discipline problems and a record of crashing seven planes?

What if Obama was the one who was known to display publicly, on many occasions, a serious anger management problem?

What if Michelle Obama's family had made their money from beer distribution?

What if the Obamas had adopted a white child?

You could easily add to this list. If these questions reflected reality, do you really believe the election numbers would be as close as they are?

Educational Background:

Barack Obama:
Columbia University - B.A. Political Science with a Specialization in
International Relations.
Harvard - Juris Doctor (J.D.) Magna Cum Laude

Joseph Biden:
University of Delaware - B.A. in History and B.A. in Political Science.
Syracuse University College of Law - Juris Doctor (J.D.)

vs.

John McCain:
United States Naval Academy - Class rank: 894 of 899

Sarah Palin:
Hawaii Pacific University - 1 semester
North Idaho College - 2 semesters - general study
University of Idaho - 2 semesters -journalism
Matanuska-Susitna College - 1 semester
University of Idaho - 3 semesters - B.A. in Journalism

Education isn't everything, but this is about the two highest offices in the land as well as our standing in the world. You make the call.

 

[Anna0499]

Interesting post, deco, but I believe several PSers have posted similar posts that have been deleted since race is not allowed for discussion around here. Probably would've been okay without that little blurb about racism...maybe you can edit it out really quick.

ETA: I do get your point, though. I don't think it has much, if anything, to do with racism though. I asked the same questions as far as "What if McCain's spiritual mentor was a racist preacher who gave sermons about how black people were ruining America?" Each side's supporters will make their own value judgments on candidates's characteristics and make what they will of them. Depends which Kool-Aid you are drinking, I suppose!

 

[decodelighted]

Date: 10/16/2008 3:00:52 PM
Author: IndyGirl22
Interesting post, deco, but I believe several PSers have posted similar posts that have been deleted

Thanks for the tip ... I thought it was "religion" that was the no fly zone. Read the rules again just yesterday. Back to study 'em again!

ETA: Yup, I see it now. My bad.

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 10/16/2008 3:05:33 PM
Author: decodelighted

Thanks for the tip ... I thought it was ''religion'' that was the no fly zone. Read the rules again just yesterday. Back to study ''em again!

ETA: Yup, I see it now. My bad.

No problem! I thought your post was very interesting and thought-provoking; I only told you about the rules because I had seen the other posts be taken down and I wanted the message of yours to stay.

 

[Tacori E-ring]

Deco, I got the same e-mail. Interesting indeed.

 

[beebrisk]

Date: 10/16/2008 2:48:10 PM
Author: decodelighted
I saw this comment by someone & I thought it was so interesting I had to post it:


Ponder the following:


What if the Obamas had paraded five children across the stage,including a three month old infant and an unwed, pregnant teenage daughter?

---*He''d be hailed as "Father of the Year" for keeping his family together despite the hardships and heartaches!



What if John McCain was a former president of the Harvard Law Review?

---*People would simply note he was a former president of the Harvard Law Review.



What if Barack Obama finished fifth from the bottom of his graduating class?

---*It might get one mention on the back page of the NY Times and you''d never hear about it again. Nah, actually you wouldn''t know his rank. Besides, we''re talking about the NAVAL ACADEMY...not Podunk Community Junior College, for spit''s sake!




What if McCain had only married once, and Obama was a divorcee?

---*He''d be a divorcee. Like Reagan. But not an adulterer like Clinton.



What if Obama was the candidate who left his first wife after a severe disfiguring car accident, when she no longer measured up to his standards?

---*What if your wife was tirelessly supporting you in public while you were doing Monica Lewinsky in the oval office?



What if Obama had met his second wife in a bar and had a long affair while he was still married?

---*How do you know he hasn''t had an affair? Oh yeah, I forgot--he''s closer to being perfect and more God-like than any human that has ever walked the earth...or at least run for president! Need we again bring up the Democrat''s man of the century, Bill Clinton?



What if Michelle Obama was the wife who not only became addicted to pain killers but also acquired them illegally through her charitable organization?

---*What if Michelle Obama''s dissertation called for black separatism? Oh wait. It did!



What if Cindy McCain graduated from Harvard?

---*What if Cindy McCain never went to college? Who gives a flip?



What if Obama had been a member of the Keating Five?(The Keating Five were five United States Senators accused of corruption in 1989, igniting a major political scandal as part of the larger Savings and Loan crisis of the late 1980s and early 1990s.)

---*What if he had? He would be completely cleared of any involvement. Oh wait, he was! What if he palled around with anti_Semitic pastors and guys who tried to bomb the capital??



What if McCain was a charismatic, eloquent speaker?

---*Actually, he might poll better in the debates. I for one, am not voting for charisma.



What if Obama couldn''t read from a teleprompter?

---* What if he couldn''t? Maybe his opponents don''t actually need to read a script?.



What if Obama was the one who had military experience that included discipline problems and a record of crashing seven planes?

---*He''d be hailed as hero. (Nice impugning the integrity of a man who nearly died for his country. You know, the one with all the freedoms that allows you to ask such ridiculous and vile questions.)


What if Obama was the one who was known to display publicly, on many occasions, a serious anger management problem?

---* You''d call it "intense passion" and probably bubble over with emotion so deep you''d be brought to tears.



What if Michelle Obama''s family had made their money from beer distribution

---* I''d say "God Bless America"!



What if the Obamas had adopted a white child?

---*Uh..a child would have a good home?


LOL....That was the most fun yet!

 

[ksinger]

Thinking About Obama

A very interesting piece by David Brooks this morning. He does an analysis of Obama''s temperment compared to other presidents in our history. While he pretty much does that Brooks thing that annoys me - a meandering detailed analysis with no point or decent conclusion, still the psychological analysis I thought was decent. I thought he observations about all the Ayers accusations and why they just won''t stick to be pretty perceptive. I''d never thought of that, but it certainly works. Anyway, I thought it worth the read.

 

[decodelighted]

Colin Powell likely to endorse OBAMA!!!

 

[decodelighted]

Fun? Really ... I find it tiresome ...

Date: 10/16/2008 10:49:27 PM
Author: beebrisk

Date: 10/16/2008 2:48:10 PM
Author: decodelighted
I saw this comment by someone & I thought it was so interesting I had to post it:
Ponder the following:
What if the Obamas had paraded five children across the stage,including a three month old infant and an unwed, pregnant teenage daughter?
---*He'd be hailed as 'Father of the Year' for keeping his family together despite the hardships and heartaches! NOT A CHANCE. IT WOULD BE "THAT BUM & HIS BUNCH OF BABIES BOUND FOR WELFARE"

What if Barack Obama finished fifth from the bottom of his graduating class?
---*It might get one mention on the back page of the NY Times and you'd never hear about it again. Nah, actually you wouldn't know his rank. Besides, we're talking about the NAVAL ACADEMY...not Podunk Community Junior College, for spit's sake! BEING A PARTY BOY THERE IS AS WASTEFUL THERE AS EVERY WHERE ELSE. ASK HIS OLD CLASSMATES.

What if McCain had only married once, and Obama was a divorcee?---*He'd be a divorcee. Like Reagan. But not an adulterer like Clinton. YOU MUST MEAN "ADULTERER LIKE **JOHN MCCAIN**" WHO LIVED WITH HIS WIFE WHILE COURTING CINDY!

What if Obama was the candidate who left his first wife after a severe disfiguring car accident, when she no longer measured up to his standards?---*What if your wife was tirelessly supporting you in public while you were doing Monica Lewinsky in the oval office? GUESS YOU HAVE TO DRAG CLINTON INTO IT TO DEFEND MCCAIN ... HA! LMAO ...

What if Michelle Obama was the wife who not only became addicted to pain killers but also acquired them illegally through her charitable organization? ---*What if Michelle Obama's dissertation called for black separatism? Oh wait. It did! WONDER WHAT MY SITCOM THESIS MAKES ME ... OH WAIT, IT DOESN'T DEFINE ME AT ALL.

What if Cindy McCain graduated from Harvard?---*What if Cindy McCain never went to college? Who gives a flip? WHAT IF SHE LIED ABOUT MOTHER TERESA PERSONALLY BEGGING HER TO ADOPT HER DAUGHTER? SHOW-OFF LIAR!

What if Obama had been a member of the Keating Five?(The Keating Five were five United States Senators accused of corruption in 1989, igniting a major political scandal as part of the larger Savings and Loan crisis of the late 1980s and early 1990s.---*What if he had? He would be completely cleared of any involvement. Oh wait, he was! What if he palled around with anti_Semitic pastors and guys who tried to bomb the capital?? WHY WAS JOHN MCCAIN PALLING AROUND WITH G. GORDON LIDDY ... ATTENDING PARTIES AT HIS HOUSE?
OR HANGING OUT ON ANNE HATHAWAY'S FELON BOYFRIEND'S YACHT??

What if McCain was a charismatic, eloquent speaker?---*Actually, he might poll better in the debates. I for one, am not voting for charisma. OBVIOUSLY ... HA!

What if Obama was the one who had military experience that included discipline problems and a record of crashing seven planes?---*He'd be hailed as hero. (Nice impugning the integrity of a man who nearly died for his country. You know, the one with all the freedoms that allows you to ask such ridiculous and vile questions.) IMPUGNING HIS INTEGRITY WITH, UH, FACTS??? WHY WON'T HIS FELLOW P.O.W.'s ENDORSE HIM? WHAT DO THEY KNOW THAT WE DON'T?

What if Obama was the one who was known to display publicly, on many occasions, a serious anger management problem?---* You'd call it 'intense passion' and probably bubble over with emotion so deep you'd be brought to tears. YEAH, ANGRY YOUNG MEN GET SO FAR IN POLITICS.

What if the Obamas had adopted a white child?---*Uh..a child would have a good home? REALLY? WOULDN"T ALL THAT PALLING AROUND WITH TERRORISTS IMPACT HIS SOCCER COACHING SCHEDULE?

 

[decodelighted]

What if Michelle Obama was the wife who not only became addicted to pain killers but also acquired them illegally through her charitable organization?
---*What if Michelle Obama''s dissertation called for black separatism? Oh wait. It did!

The separatism Michelle Obama was investigating ... its ODDLY SIMILAR to Todd Palin''s flirtations with the Alaskan Secessionist movement? Only he was actually a member.

Guess Alaska must not be one of those "pro American" places Sarah Palin *loves* to visit.

 

[luckystar112]

Palin's full quote:

"We believe that the best of America is not all in Washington, D.C. We believe--- We believe that the best of America is in these small towns that we get to visit, and in these wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you hard working very patriotic, um, very, um, pro-America areas of this great nation."

"This is where we find the kindness and the goodness and the courage of everyday Americans. Those who are running our factories and teaching our kids and growing our food and are fighting our wars for us. Those who are protecting us in uniform. Those who are protecting the virtues of freedom."

Palin spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt emphasized that the Alaska governor was not insulting D.C., she was merely highlighting the virtues of far-flung cities and towns across the nation.

"She was reinforcing the message that the best of our America isn't confined to our nation's capitol," Schmitt wrote.

I bolded for emphasis. I took her statement to mean exactly what her spokewoman said it meant, with a stumble on words of course---but then again, I'm not picking apart every single word of her sentences. Give me a fricken BREAK Washington Post!

What a non-story.

 

[SarahLovesJS]

Woah Deco that''s a lot of caps lock in one place!

 

[beebrisk]

Date: 10/17/2008 11:52:45 PM
Author: decodelighted
What if Michelle Obama was the wife who not only became addicted to pain killers but also acquired them illegally through her charitable organization?

---*What if Michelle Obama''s dissertation called for black separatism? Oh wait. It did!



The separatism Michelle Obama was investigating ... its ODDLY SIMILAR to Todd Palin''s flirtations with the Alaskan Secessionist movement? Only he was actually a member.


Guess Alaska must not be one of those ''pro American'' places Sarah Palin *loves* to visit.

Ohhh dear.
Chill.
It''s okay.
Really.
I''ll make sure I watch out for those secessionists and the little green men that must be living on Palin''s planet. Or maybe I''ll just go for a sail on Anne Hathaway''s Boyfriends boat.

 

[decodelighted]

Date: 10/17/2008 10:38:56 PM
Author: decodelighted
Colin Powell likely to endorse OBAMA!!!

**crickets** **crickets**

Oh I can''t *WAIT* for this to happen!!

ps -- and Sarah: eh, CAPS LOCK was the easiest choice. Too much formatting already in that darn list post.

 

[miraclesrule]

Because the majority of Americans seem to assume that all African-Americans will vote for Obama, I wonder if Condolezza Rice is casting her vote for Obama.

 

[decodelighted]

Date: 10/18/2008 6:45:08 PM
Author: miraclesrule
Because the majority of Americans seem to assume that all African-Americans will vote for Obama, I wonder if Condolezza Rice is casting her vote for Obama.

What goes on behind closed doors ... or flimsy curtains ... no one KNOWS!!!

 

[SarahLovesJS]

Date: 10/18/2008 6:18:00 PM
Author: decodelighted

Date: 10/17/2008 10:38:56 PM

Author: decodelighted

Colin Powell likely to endorse OBAMA!!!

**crickets** **crickets**


Oh I can''t *WAIT* for this to happen!!


ps -- and Sarah: eh, CAPS LOCK was the easiest choice. Too much formatting already in that darn list post.

Haha yeah well we all have our lazy formatting times. I know I do anyway.

 

[trillionaire]

Seems like Obama could be good news for everyone!

http://theragblog.blogspot.com/2008/10/on-voting-economy-and-stock-market.html

 

[decodelighted]

Date: 10/18/2008 7:13:41 AM
Author: beebrisk

Date: 10/17/2008 11:52:45 PM
Author: decodelighted
What if Michelle Obama was the wife who not only became addicted to pain killers but also acquired them illegally through her charitable organization?
---*What if Michelle Obama''s dissertation called for black separatism? Oh wait. It did!

The separatism Michelle Obama was investigating ... its ODDLY SIMILAR to Todd Palin''s flirtations with the Alaskan Secessionist movement? Only he was actually a member.
Guess Alaska must not be one of those ''pro American'' places Sarah Palin *loves* to visit.

Ohhh dear.
Chill.
It''s okay.
Really.
I''ll make sure I watch out for those secessionists and the little green men that must be living on Palin''s planet. Or maybe I''ll just go for a sail on Anne Hathaway''s Boyfriends boat.

*sniff sniff* Ah yes. Eau de SNARK.