For GOP only

[EvilMonkey]

http://realdemocrathistory.wordpress.com/2...bama-supporter/

For your amusement: A funny radio clip of an Obama supporter going nuts calling a radio station.

[bmags]

It wasn't racist in the slightest, all he did was point out the difference in skin color and even then didn't say it as a perjorative.

 

but what's the point in saying that? Why not just say he's just another John Kerry?

 

What if someone said "He's just another George W. Bush, but older"

[EvilMonkey]

but what's the point in saying that? Why not just say he's just another John Kerry?

 

What if someone said "He's just another George W. Bush, but older"

How about a lame attempt at humor.

[lostfan]

How about a lame attempt at humor.

This

 

It's just like when Huckabee cracked that lame ass joke at that NRA meeting about Obama falling off a chair or something because somebody pointed a gun at him. There was nothing offensive about it, it was just dumb.

[southsider2k5]

but what's the point in saying that? Why not just say he's just another John Kerry?

 

What if someone said "He's just another George W. Bush, but older"

 

It has pretty much been said everyday on the campaign trail...

[bmags]

It has pretty much been said everyday on the campaign trail...

 

proof?

[southsider2k5]

proof?

 

Watch CNN, MSNBC, Fox, or anywhere else that plays the campaign events.

[bmags]

Watch CNN, MSNBC, Fox, or anywhere else that plays the campaign events.

 

I do, I've never seen that statement.

[southsider2k5]

I do, I've never seen that statement.

 

Not much I can do for you then...

[kapkomet]

I do, I've never seen that statement.

Then you're not listening (and no, they aren't going to come right out and say it, but they'll sure imply it, at least, and sometimes come out and say it).

 

[NorthSideSox72]

I do, I've never seen that statement.

A big theme for the Obama campaign is that McCain is another Bush. I think the "older" part is just obvious and unstated - I don't see them actually saying anything on THAT part.

 

[bmags]

A big theme for the Obama campaign is that McCain is another Bush. I think the "older" part is just obvious and unstated - I don't see them actually saying anything on THAT part.

 

right, but the latter part of my statement was the point.

[Cknolls]

The disappearance of England, and Europe, continues apace. The Telegraph reports (italics mine):

 

Muslims have complained over a police advert featuring a puppy sitting in an officer's hat. A police force has apologised to Islamic leaders for the "offensive" postcard advertising a new non-emergency telephone number, which shows a six-month-old trainee police dog named Rebel. The German shepherd puppy has proved hugely popular with the public, hundreds of who have logged on to the force's website to read his online training diary. But some Muslims in the Dundee area have reportedly been upset by the image because they consider dogs to be "ritually unclean", while shopkeepers have refused to display the advert. Tayside Police have admitted they should have consulted their 'diversity' officers before issuing the cards, but critics argued their apology was unnecessary.

Don't think it could happen here? Remember this story from May? The student in the teacher-training program at a Minnesota high school who was compelled to leave because of threats by immigrant Somali Muslim students who took offense to the dog he needed because it was specially trained to deal with a medical condition he had.

 

 

The second part about the teacher is what gets me. The dog is trained to help notify people when the guy has a seizure. He left the training program because one of the students threatened to kill the dog.

[mr_genius]

The disappearance of England, and Europe, continues apace. The Telegraph reports (italics mine):

 

Muslims have complained over a police advert featuring a puppy sitting in an officer's hat. A police force has apologised to Islamic leaders for the "offensive" postcard advertising a new non-emergency telephone number, which shows a six-month-old trainee police dog named Rebel. The German shepherd puppy has proved hugely popular with the public, hundreds of who have logged on to the force's website to read his online training diary. But some Muslims in the Dundee area have reportedly been upset by the image because they consider dogs to be "ritually unclean", while shopkeepers have refused to display the advert. Tayside Police have admitted they should have consulted their 'diversity' officers before issuing the cards, but critics argued their apology was unnecessary.

Don't think it could happen here? Remember this story from May? The student in the teacher-training program at a Minnesota high school who was compelled to leave because of threats by immigrant Somali Muslim students who took offense to the dog he needed because it was specially trained to deal with a medical condition he had.

 

 

The second part about the teacher is what gets me. The dog is trained to help notify people when the guy has a seizure. He left the training program because one of the students threatened to kill the dog.

 

good old political correctness gone awry. things like this are just so incredibly stupid there really isn't a reply that does it justice.

[mr_genius]

What if someone said "He's just another George W. Bush, but older"

 

No one would care. I've basically heard it said a bunch of times on tv and by Obama supporters. I also wonder if McCain is too old to be president, I guess that makes me guilty of ageism. But it's unrealistic to not question it when someone would be 78 after their second term. So if some 98 year old runs for president no one can question if their too old?

[Balta1701]

No one would care. I've basically heard it said a bunch of times on tv and by Obama supporters. I also wonder if McCain is too old to be president, I guess that makes me guilty of ageism. But it's unrealistic to not question it when someone would be 78 after their second term. So if some 98 year old runs for president no one can question if their too old?

He'd actually be 80.

[mr_genius]

He'd actually be 80.

 

you sir, are a hateful ageist. how dare you mention that.

[bmags]

The disappearance of England, and Europe, continues apace. The Telegraph reports (italics mine):

 

Muslims have complained over a police advert featuring a puppy sitting in an officer's hat. A police force has apologised to Islamic leaders for the "offensive" postcard advertising a new non-emergency telephone number, which shows a six-month-old trainee police dog named Rebel. The German shepherd puppy has proved hugely popular with the public, hundreds of who have logged on to the force's website to read his online training diary. But some Muslims in the Dundee area have reportedly been upset by the image because they consider dogs to be "ritually unclean", while shopkeepers have refused to display the advert. Tayside Police have admitted they should have consulted their 'diversity' officers before issuing the cards, but critics argued their apology was unnecessary.

Don't think it could happen here? Remember this story from May? The student in the teacher-training program at a Minnesota high school who was compelled to leave because of threats by immigrant Somali Muslim students who took offense to the dog he needed because it was specially trained to deal with a medical condition he had.

 

 

The second part about the teacher is what gets me. The dog is trained to help notify people when the guy has a seizure. He left the training program because one of the students threatened to kill the dog.

 

you know I continue to find posts like these funny. So many of these stories pop up in these forums with the basic theme calling Europe p***** but you'd find more hatred for Islam there than in the US. There's a reason those cartoons showed up in Denmark (edit: thanks Balta). In addition, there is also anti-immigrant sentiment as well, leading to elections of right wing crazies in places like Germany spain and elsewhere, right wing crazies that parallel our right wing crazies that WE wouldn't elect. The difference? Unlike in America where our Muslim population is fairly middle class and educated, they are the poorest of the poor in Europe and unskilled and uneducated, making them more susceptible to the lunatics of their religion. Making it worse, the growing rage over their poverty being channeled through religious fanaticism has the countries backlash back at them, making their situation worse.

 

So, their situation is nothing like ours at all, and their islamic relations are many more times more complicated than ours.

Edited July 1, 2008 by bmags

[bmags]

He'd actually be 80.

 

he would be 78 as well though.

[Balta1701]

you know I continue to find posts like these funny. So many of these stories pop up in these forums with the basic theme calling Europe p***** but you'd find more hatred for Islam there than in the US. There's a reason those cartoons showed up in Belgium.

The cartoons actually turned up in Denmark.

[bmags]

The cartoons actually turned up in Denmark.

 

Correct, I'll edit.

[EvilMonkey]

you know I continue to find posts like these funny. So many of these stories pop up in these forums with the basic theme calling Europe p***** but you'd find more hatred for Islam there than in the US. There's a reason those cartoons showed up in Denmark (edit: thanks Balta). In addition, there is also anti-immigrant sentiment as well, leading to elections of right wing crazies in places like Germany spain and elsewhere, right wing crazies that parallel our right wing crazies that WE wouldn't elect. The difference? Unlike in America where our Muslim population is fairly middle class and educated, they are the poorest of the poor in Europe and unskilled and uneducated, making them more susceptible to the lunatics of their religion. Making it worse, the growing rage over their poverty being channeled through religious fanaticism has the countries backlash back at them, making their situation worse.

 

So, their situation is nothing like ours at all, and their islamic relations are many more times more complicated than ours.

Now they are upset over a puppy on postcards!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10...cemans-hat.html

[southsider2k5]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion...,0,755653.story

 

Can Obama rescue Bush legacy?

 

Jonah Goldberg

July 2, 2008

 

Breaking news! The ultimate White House insider plans a tell-all book about the Bush years. With boasts of unprecedented access to the president's thinking, it will run counter to almost everything we have been told about Bush's radical presidency.

 

Who will be the latest to break the code of silence after former White House press secretary Scott McClellan? George W. Bush. At least that's what went through my mind listening to the president during a meeting with journalists in the Oval Office Monday. The session, maddeningly and often foolishly punctuated by long, off-the-record musings and soliloquies, mostly dealt with foreign policy.

 

At the end of their run, presidents usually become preoccupied with world affairs—an area in which they have a much freer hand. On Capitol Hill these days, the only way a Bush proposal will see the light of day is if it arrives concealed in a pizza delivery box. Dressed in a pale blue suit with a crisp blue tie, the president seemed to be in high spirits as he discussed developments in North Korea and other diplomatic initiatives, crushing my hopes for a poignant "Bush in winter" column. "When I write my book," Bush teased, people will understand how much behind-the-scenes diplomacy went on during this administration. I'm sure he's right. In fact, if only a fraction of what he had to say was accurate, then the conventional bleats about unilateralism, war lust and cowboyishness will go down in history as the excessive caterwauling of an imaginative and hyperpartisan opposition.

 

Indeed, President Bush's reputation is not as solidified as his detractors and fans think. If Iraq becomes a stable and democratizing nation, his presidency will look much better than it does today. But if Iraq Balkanizes or Lebanon-izes, then Democratic rhetoric about the "worst foreign policy blunder in U.S. history" will gain descriptive heft. Only time will tell.

 

But whether it is ultimately deemed a failure or a success, there is one inconvenient fact of the Bush presidency that should prove dismaying to those who have invested so much in demonizing it: It isn't that special. Many of its supposedly radical features fit neatly in the mainstream of American presidential history. Extraordinary rendition? That practice (in which we send suspected terrorists to foreign countries to be interrogated under laxer rules) began under President Bill Clinton. Aggressive interrogations, for good or ill, surely predate 2001. Holding prisoners indefinitely at Guantanamo without benefit of a trial? As terrorism expert Andrew McCarthy notes in National Review, we were doing that under the first President Bush and under Clinton to innocent Haitian refugees, who got even less due process than we give captured enemy combatants. Even the invasion of Iraq will probably seem to historians, in part, a continuation of trends begun in the Persian Gulf War and extended by Clinton's (and Britain's) attacks in 1998. On the domestic front, Bush broadly expanded spending on education, signed campaign finance reform and orchestrated a huge expansion of health-care entitlements with his prescription drug benefit. Whatever the merits of those policies, it's unlikely historians will see them as a right-wing break from the Clinton years.

 

The more interesting question is how radical a break from the Bush years the next president will represent. If John McCain wins, the continuity will be more obvious. McCain would inch leftward on most domestic issues, and rightward on a few. He doubtless would continue the efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, though his methods might vary.

 

The larger question is about Barack Obama, who at times promises revolutionary, if not messianic, change. With a potentially huge Democratic majority in Congress, Obama might indeed produce a radical change from the Bush (and Clinton and Bush and Reagan) years on domestic issues.

 

But what about Iraq? A growing chorus of foreign policy experts, including Timothy Lynch and Robert Singh (co-authors of "After Bush: The Case for Continuity in American Foreign Policy") and the New Yorker's George Packer, are starting to argue—much as Obama's own foreign policy advisers have for a while—that his foreign policy promises will not survive contact with post-election reality.

 

Already, Obama is changing his tune from his old, irresponsibly heated rhetoric about "immediate" withdrawal to talking about the need for policies that would adapt to the improving conditions in Iraq. Given Obama's ideological leanings and inexperience, there's clearly plenty of potential for him to make costly mistakes. But odds are he too would come to realize that America needs to win the war on terror and succeed in Iraq. Hence the greatest irony. A successful Obama presidency would have the unintended consequence of making Bush's memoir a success story.

 

 

 

Jonah Goldberg is an editor at National Review Online. E-mail: jonahscolumn @aol.com

[southsider2k5]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion...,0,755653.story

 

Can Obama rescue Bush legacy?

 

Jonah Goldberg

July 2, 2008

 

Breaking news! The ultimate White House insider plans a tell-all book about the Bush years. With boasts of unprecedented access to the president's thinking, it will run counter to almost everything we have been told about Bush's radical presidency.

 

Who will be the latest to break the code of silence after former White House press secretary Scott McClellan? George W. Bush. At least that's what went through my mind listening to the president during a meeting with journalists in the Oval Office Monday. The session, maddeningly and often foolishly punctuated by long, off-the-record musings and soliloquies, mostly dealt with foreign policy.

 

At the end of their run, presidents usually become preoccupied with world affairs—an area in which they have a much freer hand. On Capitol Hill these days, the only way a Bush proposal will see the light of day is if it arrives concealed in a pizza delivery box. Dressed in a pale blue suit with a crisp blue tie, the president seemed to be in high spirits as he discussed developments in North Korea and other diplomatic initiatives, crushing my hopes for a poignant "Bush in winter" column. "When I write my book," Bush teased, people will understand how much behind-the-scenes diplomacy went on during this administration. I'm sure he's right. In fact, if only a fraction of what he had to say was accurate, then the conventional bleats about unilateralism, war lust and cowboyishness will go down in history as the excessive caterwauling of an imaginative and hyperpartisan opposition.

 

Indeed, President Bush's reputation is not as solidified as his detractors and fans think. If Iraq becomes a stable and democratizing nation, his presidency will look much better than it does today. But if Iraq Balkanizes or Lebanon-izes, then Democratic rhetoric about the "worst foreign policy blunder in U.S. history" will gain descriptive heft. Only time will tell.

 

But whether it is ultimately deemed a failure or a success, there is one inconvenient fact of the Bush presidency that should prove dismaying to those who have invested so much in demonizing it: It isn't that special. Many of its supposedly radical features fit neatly in the mainstream of American presidential history. Extraordinary rendition? That practice (in which we send suspected terrorists to foreign countries to be interrogated under laxer rules) began under President Bill Clinton. Aggressive interrogations, for good or ill, surely predate 2001. Holding prisoners indefinitely at Guantanamo without benefit of a trial? As terrorism expert Andrew McCarthy notes in National Review, we were doing that under the first President Bush and under Clinton to innocent Haitian refugees, who got even less due process than we give captured enemy combatants. Even the invasion of Iraq will probably seem to historians, in part, a continuation of trends begun in the Persian Gulf War and extended by Clinton's (and Britain's) attacks in 1998. On the domestic front, Bush broadly expanded spending on education, signed campaign finance reform and orchestrated a huge expansion of health-care entitlements with his prescription drug benefit. Whatever the merits of those policies, it's unlikely historians will see them as a right-wing break from the Clinton years.

 

The more interesting question is how radical a break from the Bush years the next president will represent. If John McCain wins, the continuity will be more obvious. McCain would inch leftward on most domestic issues, and rightward on a few. He doubtless would continue the efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, though his methods might vary.

 

The larger question is about Barack Obama, who at times promises revolutionary, if not messianic, change. With a potentially huge Democratic majority in Congress, Obama might indeed produce a radical change from the Bush (and Clinton and Bush and Reagan) years on domestic issues.

 

But what about Iraq? A growing chorus of foreign policy experts, including Timothy Lynch and Robert Singh (co-authors of "After Bush: The Case for Continuity in American Foreign Policy") and the New Yorker's George Packer, are starting to argue—much as Obama's own foreign policy advisers have for a while—that his foreign policy promises will not survive contact with post-election reality.

 

Already, Obama is changing his tune from his old, irresponsibly heated rhetoric about "immediate" withdrawal to talking about the need for policies that would adapt to the improving conditions in Iraq. Given Obama's ideological leanings and inexperience, there's clearly plenty of potential for him to make costly mistakes. But odds are he too would come to realize that America needs to win the war on terror and succeed in Iraq. Hence the greatest irony. A successful Obama presidency would have the unintended consequence of making Bush's memoir a success story.

 

 

 

Jonah Goldberg is an editor at National Review Online. E-mail: jonahscolumn @aol.com

[southsider2k5]

Charts are included at the link.

 

http://people-press.org/report/433/gas-prices

 

As Gas Prices Pinch, Support for Energy Exploration Rises

More Favor Drilling in ANWR

 

Amid record gas prices, public support for greater energy exploration is spiking. Compared with just a few months ago, many more Americans are giving higher priority to more energy exploration, rather than more conservation. An increasing proportion also says that developing new sources of energy - rather than protecting the environment - is the more important national priority.

Figure

 

The latest nationwide survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted June 18-29 among 2,004 adults, also finds that half of Americans now support drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, up from 42% in February.

 

The public's changing energy priorities are most evident in the growing percentage that views increased energy exploration - including mining and drilling, as well as the construction of new power plants - as a more important priority for energy policy than increased conservation and regulation. Nearly half (47%) now rates energy exploration as the more important priority, up from 35% in February. The proportion saying it is more important to increase energy conservation and regulation has declined by 10 points (from 55% to 45%).

Figure

 

In surveys dating to 2001, majorities or pluralities had consistently said that greater energy conservation and regulation on energy use and prices was more important than increased energy exploration.

Partisan Gap over Energy Exploration Disappears

 

Much of the increase in support for energy exploration has come among groups that previously viewed this as a less important priority than energy conservation - young people, liberals, independents, Democrats, women and people who have attended college.

Figure

 

Fully half of people ages 18 to 29 (51%) now say expanding energy exploration is a more important priority for energy policy than increasing energy conservation and regulation; only about a quarter of young people (26%) expressed this view in February. The proportion of liberals who say expanded energy exploration is the more important priority also has doubled (from 22% to 45%).

 

The gender gap in attitudes about whether greater exploration or greater conservation is the more important priority has disappeared, as women have become much more supportive of expanded exploration (up 18 points).

 

Similarly, more independents (19 points) and Democrats (16 points) view increased energy exploration as the more important priority. About the same proportions of Democrats (46%) and Republicans (43%) now say expanded exploration, rather than increased conservation, should take precedence; in February, far more Republicans than Democrats expressed this view.

ANWR Drilling Still Politically Divisive

Figure

 

In contrast with overall opinions about energy exploration, views about drilling for oil and gas in ANWR remain politically divided. As was the case in February, about twice as many Republicans as Democrats favor drilling in ANWR (75% vs. 36%). Support for oil and gas drilling in the Alaska wildlife refuge has increased sharply among Republicans (12 points), but only modestly among Democrats (five points).

 

Support for ANWR energy drilling has increased across age groups, but Americans ages 65 and older continue to support this at much higher levels than do those younger than 30 (62% vs. 37%). More women favor ANWR drilling than in February, but women continue to be less supportive of drilling for oil and gas in the Alaska wildlife refuge than men (45% vs. 56%).

Iraq War Views Stable

Figure

 

Public opinion about the war in Iraq has changed little over the past few months. A narrow majority (52%) says that the U.S. military effort is not going well; 44% say things in Iraq are going very or fairly well. That is identical to the balance of opinion in April; in February, a slightly greater percentage (48%) said things were going well in Iraq.

 

The public also remains divided about whether to bring home U.S. troops as soon as possible (52%), or keep them there until the country is stabilized (43%). As in previous surveys, most of those who support a troop withdrawal from Iraq say it should gradual rather than immediate (35% gradual vs. 16% immediate).

 

By 50% to 42%, more Americans believe that the United States will succeed, rather than fail, in achieving its goals in Iraq. In April, opinion about whether the United States will succeed was a bit more closely divided (47% definitely/probably succeed vs. 46% definitely/probably fail).

 

As has been the case since October 2007, a majority of Americans (55%) believe the United States made the wrong decision in using military force in Iraq. Just 39% say the war was the right decision.