i haven't read any of this thread....and i don't care a whole lot about politics at this point....i just want to say Obama Nation. five times, fast.

Show me a governor that is willing to bring troops to the border, and I'll show one that doesn't own any landscape that needs maintenance.

ooh ooh hyperbole works really well to convince people!:rolleyes:

Don't forget, middle America mows it's own damn lawn.

Better yet, you show me a Gov that would be stupid enough to directly hire illegal aliens to do their yard work and I'll bet his term will be shortened.

what a stupid ass argument. so if we don't have illegals running around our society will be overrun by runaway landscaping? AAAH, the bushes are attacking! Run away run away!

People pay landscapers and housecleaners because the low cost is justifiable within their budgets. It is a business decision. If it becomes too expensive, I'll bet they'll remember how to start their own lawnmowers before the grass gets too tall. hey look at that, now they are saving a couple hundred bucks a month and getting some exercise... the horror, the horror.

Actually, without undocumented immigrants you'd be paying $10 for an apple. Also, there are no "illegals" and anyone who denies this is an idiot who can't read English.

Might want to change that to your standard of "and a moron" before we all asphyxiate on the irony of "can't read English."

Well since so many illegal aliens can't read English I would guess that would be a great description.

"can't read English" is grammatically correct so I fail to see the irony.

And the English I was referring to is that of the U.S. Constitution which prohibits the federal government from legislating over immigration.

I stand corrected. I was referring to those for whom English as their primary language, yet are unable to read in English. This refers to idiots like you Merc.

illegal aliens ate yer brain.

YOU KNOW WHO ELSE COULDN'T READ ENGLISH?

Hitler. Duh.

Your mother?

All the illegal aliens standing just on the other side of the fence waiting to enter our country illegally in violation of our law? I think you are right.

It's cool Merc. I can't hate you too much. You can't help being stupid. You're a redneck and you drive a truck. When a retarded kid runs around repeating the same idiotic crap despite being corrected, all you can do is pity him or laugh at him....which is what the vast majority of people do with you.

O'Rly????Well thank God we have never had to see you repeat the same idiotic crap despite being corrected. Yep, thank God.
:lol2:

http://removereality.com/images/blog/retard-owls.jpg

:corn:

Can anyone tell me the definition of irony? :D

IRONY: See Mercenary http://homeschoolsupplyhouse.com/images/retard.jpg

:crazy:

:biglaugha

:shocking:

:fumette:

Choice Just Got Harder
OK, Obama’s all about hope, and Hillary’s all about experience. I’ve got that. But Obama’s got a crazy pastor. And Hillary just lied about her war record. Now, it turns out, Obama’s related to Brad Pitt, and Hillary’s related to Angelina Jolie.

Make the Olsons their love twins and you’ve got a supermarket tabloid cover. Hill’s also related to Madonna and Celine Dion and Alanis Morrisette, because she’s part French-Canadian. Hey, I thought you can’t be president unless you’re American. What’s with that? And what kind of name is “Alanis” anyway? Or “Celine” and “Madonna,” for that matter. Must run in the family. That explains “Chelsea.” But Obama’s related to both George Bushes and Dick Cheney. That can’t be good. And Gerald Ford, Lyndon Johnson, Harry S. Truman, James Madison, Winston Churchill and Robert E. Lee. Starts to sound like Obama’s got the experience thing after all, sitting around that dinner table. All Hill did was marry a president. The New England Historic Genealogy Society forgot to mention Obama’s also related to some supposedly genocidal wackjob in Kenya, but who cares, because judging by recent history, just about everyone who’s anyone in Africa is related to some genocidal wackjob. The point is, this is turning into a really difficult race. I don’t know how people are supposed to make up their minds.

Another pressing question: Who will this tired old geezer who’s been playing the same song with different titles since 1978 endorse? Adoring fans hang on for the endorsement of the eminence grease.

Gotta decide, gotta decide. The Hero of Tuzla or the United Trinity Crackpot churchgoer? When will the bleeding stop? Sage physicians weigh in: Bleed the patient. Leeches and scalpel, please!

Meanwhile, what’s with this other old geezer who just acts normal?

If you want to escape all of this, there’s only one place to go. The North Pole. With gin and tonics.

http://www.julescrittenden.com/2008/...st-got-harder/

Here is Carl Bernstein's article on Hillary's truthiness.

Hillary Clinton: Truth or Consequences
Posted: 10:14 AM ET
Hillary Clinton has many admirable qualities, but candor and openness and transparency and a commitment to well-established fact have not been notable among them. The indisputable elements of her Bosnian adventure affirm (again) the reluctant conclusion I reached in the final chapter of A Woman In Charge, my biography of her published last June:


“Since her Arkansas years [I wrote], Hillary Rodham Clinton has always had a difficult relationship with the truth… [J]udged against the facts, she has often chosen to obfuscate, omit, and avoid. It is an understatement by now that she has been known to apprehend truths about herself and the events of her life that others do not exactly share. ” [italics added]

As I noted:

“Almost always, something holds her back from telling the whole story, as if she doesn’t trust the reader, listener, friend, interviewer, constituent—or perhaps herself—to understand the true significance of events…”

The Bosnian episode is a watershed event, because it indelibly brings to mind so many examples of this tendency– from the White House years and, worse, from Hillary Clinton’s take-no-prisoners presidential campaign. Her record as a public person is replete with “misstatements” and elisions and retracted and redacted and revoked assertions…


When the facts surrounding such characteristic episodes finally get sorted out — usually long after they have been challenged — the mysteries and contradictions are often dealt with by Hillary Clinton and her apparat in a blizzard of footnotes, addenda, revision, and disingenuous re-explanation: as occurred in regard to the draconian secrecy she imposed on her health-care task force (and its failed efforts in 1993-94); explanations of what could have been dutifully acknowledged, and deserved to be dismissed as a minor conflict of interest — once and for all — in Whitewater; or her recent Michigan-Florida migration from acceptance of the DNC’s refusal to recognize those states’ convention delegations (when it looked like she had the nomination sewn up) to her re-evaluation of the matter as a grave denial of basic human rights, after she fell impossibly behind in the delegate count.

The latest episode — the sniper fire she so vividly remembered and described in chilling detail to buttress her claims of foreign policy “experience” — like the peace she didn’t bring to Northern Ireland, recalls another famous instance of faulty recollection during a crucial period in her odyssey.

On January 15, 1995, she had just published her book, It Takes a Village, intended to herald a redemptive “come back” after the ravages of health care; Whitewater; the Travel Office firings she had ordered (but denied ordering); the disastrous staffing of the White House by the First Lady, not the President — all among the egregious errors that had led to the election of the Newt Gingrich Congress in 1994.

On her book tour, she was asked on National Public Radio about the re-emergence of dormant Whitewater questions that week, when the so-called “missing billing records” had been found. Hillary stated with unequivocal certainty that she had consistently made public all the relevant documents related to Whitewater, including “every document we had,” to the editors of the New York Times before the newspaper’s original Whitewater story ran during Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign.

Even her closest aides — as in the case of the Bosnian episode18 years later — could not imagine what possessed her to say such a thing. It was simply not true, as her lawyers and the editors of the Times (like CBS in the latest instance) recognized, leading to huge stories about her latest twisting of the facts. “Oh my God, we didn’t,” said Susan Thomasas, Hillary’s great friend, who was left to explain to the White House lawyers exactly how Hillary’s aides had carefully cherry-picked documents accessed for the Times in the presidential campaign. The White House was forced — once again — to acknowledge the first lady had been ‘mistaken;” her book tour was overwhelmed by the matter, and Times’ columnist Bill Safire that month coined the memorable characterization of Hillary Clinton as “a congenital liar.”

“Hillary values context; she does see the big picture. Hers, in fact, is not the mind of a conventional politician,” I wrote in A Woman In Charge. “But when it comes to herself, she sees with something less than candor and lucidity. She sees, like so many others, what she wants to see.”

The book concludes with this paragraph:

“As Hillary has continued to speak from the protective shell of her own making, and packaged herself for the widest possible consumption, she has misrepresented not just facts but often her essential self. Great politicians have always been marked by the consistency of their core beliefs, their strength of character in advocacy, and the self-knowledge that informs bold leadership. Almost always, Hillary has stood for good things. Yet there is a disconnect between her convictions and her words and actions. This is where Hillary disappoints. But the jury remains out. She still has time to prove her case, to effectuate those things that make her special, not fear them or camouflage them. We would all be the better for it, because what lies within may have the potential to change the world, if only a little.”

The jury — armed with definitive evidence like the CBS tape of Hillary Clinton’s Bosnian adventure — seems on the verge of returning a negative verdict on her candidacy.

- Carl Bernstein, 360° Contributor


Filed under: Carl Bernstein • Election 2008

The Article

"Almost always, Hillary has stood for good things. Yet there is a disconnect between her convictions and her words and actions."

Her legacy to date, for sure.

Truth? You can't handle the truth!

The truth has a well-known liberal bias.

What was once ice to play war games under has now become ice cubes. One cannot escape change even at the North Pole.

Being the North Pole is so cold, shrinkage is inevitable.

PA Gov endorses Obama.

Senator and son of an ex-Governor Bob Casey Jr., that is -- not the current Gov. Rendell, who is firmly in the Hill camp.

Opps... my bad, I typed that incorrectly. Thanks for the correction.

PITTSBURGH (AP) - Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey endorsed Democrat Barack Obama on Friday, a move that could help the presidential candidate make inroads with white working-class voters dubbed "Casey Democrats" in the Keystone State.
Appearing on stage beside the Illinois senator, Casey told a boisterous rally, "I believe in my heart that there is one person who's uniquely qualified to lead us in that new direction and that is Barack Obama."

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...cle=1&catnum=3

I made a bet with my Vietnamese friends this last weekend. The Vietnamese all love McCain. I bet them 4 bottles of Martell Cordon Bleu Cognac (roughly $100 each) that Obama would win not only the Democratic nomination, but the presidency.

So what kind of thinking does not occur up there?

Well, if she's the candidate, it will be good to finally cast a vote -- against Washington's Least Convincing Blonde. Face it: the Clintons, husband and wife, are incompetently evil. Of the many things they're not good at, they are among the worst at being bad, and do it remarkably poorly. You vote for that, you're voting for a schmuck.

I recommend sixteen Bushes in the Oval Office over one more self-destructive Clinton. Seventeen might be too much of an antifascist good thing, though -- on the grounds that new blood would be wanted by then.

Actually, most people would consider the Clinton presidency pretty competent. Of course, you could make the case that some of the bad decisions made then came to roost in the next administration, but you could also make that argument about the Reagan administration.

As for the multi-Bush option. Outside of a lesbian nightclub, this is not a good idea. While H was a competent president, the $1-3 trillion dollar quagmire that GW put us in will probably take an entire generation to pay off, when the bill finally comes due. Rumor has it that GWB is the stupid one in the family and that Jeb would probably have been and might be better at the job, but considering the monumental cost at this point, writing off the entire clan seems like a good idea.

I will do this in the fashion of W.Hi.P. Betting Tips.

Democratic nomination

Barry Obama v Hill Clinton @ Pennsylvania

Clinton is heavily favored in this state, by 20 points, and has been for months. However, she has just "hit the wall"; a combination of unfavorability trends is working against her; and she has nearly run out of money, according to some sources. Meanwhile Obama is saturation-bombing the airwaves of PA. Polls are starting to narrow the gap and there are three weeks left.

Bet on Obama to win Pennsylvania = Currently $3 to make $10 @ Intrade

Bet on Clinton to drop out after Pennsylvania = not wagered at Intrade, but predicted by UT anyway

From Larry Eichel at philly.com:

nd there's a fourth poll just in, this one from the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

This poll has Clinton up by 9 points. The previous version had her ahead by 12. So, again, there's movement toward Obama, but not much in this one.

In the past two days, there've been three new polls in the Pennsylvania primary. And all of them show movement in Barack Obama's direction.

The movement almost surely reflects a combination of factors -- Obama's having spent six straight days in the state, his huge television buy, and the fallout from the controversy over Hillary Rodham Clinton's overstatement of how much danger she faced as First Lady landing in Bosnia in 1996.

In the Rasmussen Reports poll, Clinton leads by 5 points. She'd been up 10 in the same poll last week.

In the Survey USA poll, she's up 12. She's been up 19 in the same poll three weeks earlier.

The latest survey, from Public Policy Polling, actually has Obama ahead by 2 points, although that is well within the poll's margin of error. It's hard to know what to make of this one. Two-and-a-half weeks ago, the same company had Clinton ahead by 26, which is much the largest margin recorded in any Pennsylvania poll in the last few months.

Dean Debham, the company president, speculates that the movement "could be an indication that Democrats in that state think it's time to wrap it up." But the poll did not ask a question that would confirm such thinking.

The bottom line? It's safe to say Obama is gaining ground and that Clinton's hopes for a double-digit win in the state seem like more of a long-shot than a week ago. Beyond that, well, there are still 20 days to go.

She's dropping faster than Bill's drawers at a Delta Zeta party.

Is that the ugly sorority at Binghamton?

So Bill Cliton shows his true colors. If she could get reid of that fucker she might have had a chance. I really think if she divorced him she would have a better chance of being elected.

She'd lose remaining black voters.

Bill exonerated to become a Senator from Nevada?

I'd rather have someone who is incompetently evil than someone who is an expert at being evil like Bush or Cheney.

It doesn't matter who the Democratic candidate happens to be, they will roll over McCain effortlessly. I'd personally prefer if it wasn't Clinton, but I'd take an illiterate crack whore over any Republican.

I don't care what Bill does. If any state is stupid enough to elect him a Senator that is their problem. I mean look at NY. :lol2:

It's cracks like this that tell me you have a lot to learn about being a political man, Radar. A lot. And you had such a good chance at it, too. At least I think being rather well placed in the regional Libertarian Party might have been a good chance. Was it somehow not so? Or did such seeds as fell really only scatter upon rocky ground?

The Republicans, at least, are often doing things -- chiefly in foreign policy -- that I recognize as wisdom. At this moment I'm sure you're scoffing, but with time, I think you will recognize that however little credit this Administration is being given, whether GWB is comparable to a Reagan or to a Truman (per T.P.M. Barnett), this Administration will be the one that began the joining of the Non-Integrating, economically- and security-disconnected Gap into the richer life of the world's Economically Functional Core.

Really now? GHWB will be compared with James Buchanan, and unfavorably at that.

GHWB is reviving the Cold War with Russia, stopped cold in his imperialist war vs the axis of evil only when North Korea announced they got nukes, and played kissyfoot with China and Saudi Arabia when elements of these two countries are wreaking the most havoc around the world, militarily and financially.

Anyone is invited to translate, empathize, clarify, or vindicate that paragraph.

Don't be silly, we just use him as a bellweather of how crazy the extreme right is at the moment.

UG is just as impervious to counter-wisdom as you are, t.

The Republicans are indeed doing things with foreign policy. Specifically they are starting unprovoked, unwarranted, unnecessary and unconstitutional wars of aggression against nations that posed no threat to ours, didn't attack ours, and had no connection to those who did. Wars that have resulted in the deaths of more than 4,000 Americans, a million Iraqi people, thousands of our allies, etc. Wars that have nothing to do with defending America but will ensure that Americans will be born into debt for the next 10 generations. Republicans have made America the scourge of the world even among our allies, and made us known around the world for being the most dangerous rogue nation. Republicans have made our government a laughing stock everywhere. Republicans have made the dollar worthless, pushed up the cost of everything through the price of oil, have wrecked our economy, have infringed on our freedoms, violated the Constitution, emboldened our enemies, recruited terrorists, given a valid reason for people to hate us, etc.

I'd say you're right. The Republicans have been pretty damned busy. I'd rather have someone who wasn't to busy, though it may take the next 4 or 5 presidents to undo the damage this one has caused.

Radar, read Thomas P.M. Barnett's works, both of them, and get a clue why I didn't even finish your post before replying.

Hell, son, tw of all people has read at least one of the two.

I already know why you don't finish my posts before replying. You actively avoid anything remotely resembling the truth, facts, reason, or logic. You've devised a system of hiding your head deep within your own ass to avoid seeing such things. From these depths, things that annoy normal humans seem pleasant sounding. For instance the voices of liars and idiots like Coulter, Hannity, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Dobbs, Bush, Cheney, Rice, Ashcroft, Gonzales, Rove, Rumsfield, Petraeus, Roberts, Alito, etc. might even sound believable and not make you want to vomit like those of us breathing from outside our rectum.

The combined IQ of all of these people and you, wouldn't make up 10% of mine or any other intelligent, well-educated, articulate, honest, and reasonable person like me.

No reason to comprehend. UG has a Rush Limbaugh political agenda to tell him how to think. All Republicans good; all Democrats evil. Same sources also proved that Saddam had WMDs, the Domino Theory, and rewrote the Pentagon Papers (which UG understood also without ever reading). Amazing what is known when one has conclusions; never bothers to first learn why. UG reads words; then comprehends what he is told to think.

Sometimes I wonder if his thesaurus had a swastika on it. Or just a Satanic verse. Imagine, UG in a tub of Jell-O - proclaiming a communist conspiracy because Jell-O is red. Fighting Jell-O now so that we don't have to fight them out in our streets. If Rush told him, UG would post it.

UG apparently read words in Barnett's book; never comprehended what was being said. Wacko extremists in the administration did same. Then as Barnett explained those reasons why, suddenly, Barnett was uninvited. If UG had comprehended Barnett, then UG also would be attacking Barnett; not creating a persona non gratis.

Extremists see only what they are told to see. UG never read what Barnett said just like UG need not read what Radar has posted. UG - like some others - ignore 'reasons why' and then get pissy when confronted for not grasping underlying facts.

A political agenda (and denials, insults, rhetoric) is sufficient to save us from ourselves. UG don't need bother reading. God tells him what Radar will post. Same reason why some automatically knew Saddam had WMDs.

Now that's some funny shit right there. :lol2:

Well I'm still on the fence, but I did sign up for a discussion with Tony Lake and Cassandra Butts, Obama's foreign and domestic policy advisers. Speeches are fun to watch, but PA doesn't do town hall meetings very well so if you want real answers maybe it's best to talk to advisers rather than the candidates themselves. It's also instructive to meet with the people a candidate picks to advise him/her. If I had been able to meet James Witt and Michael Brown, Clinton's and Bush's FEMA heads, I think I would have been able to formulate a theory on the success of their administrations.

It's at 1pm in Center City.

Since foreign policy and domestic energy policy are going be even more linked going forward than they have been in the past, it's a good pairing.

Lake has an extremely impressive record. Anyone lucky enough to get him on their administration will have a star.

It was a great presentation. Tony Lake spoke about 2/3 of the time and Cassandra Butts for the remainder. I asked a dual question about energy policy and she handled part and had him finish with the foreign policy aspects.

There were only about 20 people there and before and after the formal presentation both speakers were available so I got to ask them additional questions and listen while others asked them questions. Cassandra Butts' presentation was very good and Tony Lake's presentation was great. I kept thinking that to hear this anywhere else I'd have to sign up for a $100 a plate dinner or take a college class.

I went in undecided and I still am, but it would be nice if I could have found a similar event with Richard Holbrooke speaking for Hillary Clinton. Of course, if I did I would have asked why he thought the Iraq invasion was a good idea.

Still, I would have like the opportunity to give equal time. Unfortunately for Hillary, the Obama web site make it easier to find events and the Obama team is making themselves more available.

BTW, I forgot to bring my camera and so I had to make do with the cellphone.

Below are pictures of Tony Lake with Cassandra Butts and Tony Lake with me and the family.

Very nice Rich!