Presidential debates on ABC right now-both parties
Comments
-
I saw that show and never once thought of McCain. Not even when they said he was a Senator. It just didn't come into my mind. If they were trying to make a point it was wasted on me. I thought the show was not in good taste considering we have a war going on.
-
I agree, the show was in poor taste. I didn't think of John McCain at all -- I actually thought of Senator Bob Kerrey (Democratic Senator from Nebraska) -- who resigned from the Senate in 2001 when a story was printed in the New York Times in which a member of Kerrey's old Navy SEAL team said that in 1969 in a raid in Vietnam an elderly civilian Vietnamese man and woman and three children under 12 were killed inside their hut, "and that Kerrey helped kill the man. Despite the differing recollections about who actually stabbed these people, Kerrey accepts responsibility as the team leader for their deaths." (Quote is from Wikipedia)
The actor in the Medium episode even looked a little like Bob Kerrey (more than he looked like McCain), IMHO.
As for a Hillary Clinton-esque psycho murderer -- sorry to tell Michelle Malkin, but Meryl Streep played one in the 2004 remake of The Manchurian Candidate.
But even more -- there was a tough-as-nails female New York senator who seemed to get away with murder while ratting out someone else on Law & Order just a few weeks ago! Here's a discussion of it on Wonkette: http://wonkette.com/351175/analyzing-the-larry-craig-law--order-episode
Michelle Malkin really needs to get a grip!
-
Okay, the "Hillary Clinton" character on Law & Order (aired 1-30-08) was a congresswoman, not a senator, but she was running against a charismatic young black man, and her character's name was "Melanie Carver."
HillaryClinton/MelanieCarver. Coincidence? I think not!
-
Ann --You may have thought of Sen. Bob Kerry--but frankly most of the
country associates this actor-- Greg Itzin with one of the most hated despicable characters ever on TV.
For the past few seasons he has played the notorious traitor president Charles Logan on "24"--This character is indelibly etched in the TV psyche of any TV viewer of that show---so to have him portray an Arizona Senator that was a Vietnam POW and an evil cannibal was more than poor taste--these guys knew exactly what they were doing. JMHO
-
You've got me there, Susie. I've never been able to watch more than about 4 minutes of "24"! And even that was only in the first two seasons!
-
Well, I'm happy to say that I do not watch any of those programs.
As far as Senator McCain's choice for VP...I have no earthly idea.
And, as far as being a nice guy and not winning a nomination (Obama was mentioned by Amy that he was too nice), McCain is one of those nice guys. I hope that doesn't lose the election for him. He, so far, is refusing to have any exchanges with the press on negative comments. Some comment was made the other day (I can't remember what it was, but something to do with Hill and Bill's relationship) and he squelched that reporter quickly. How long this will last I don't know. However, he keeps saying he wants to have a respectful campaign.
Shirley
-
Rosemary I never thought of it either when watching the show. The show is set in Arizona, so it makes sense that the storyline would have to do with AZ.
I'm an avid L&O fan and the female senator character was not implicated in the murder, it was a character who was a fund raiser for several politicians. When the female senator realized that the guy was a murderer, she worked with the police to trap him. The character was a lot more likeable than Hillary, IMHO.
Don't forget that NBC also has the very pro Hillary, anti Obama show SNL, which even Clinton's people admit might have helped Hillary.
-
C'mon Amy --a senator that just happened to be a Vietnam POW.
Nobody would question Arizona by itself.
I don't think of SNL as pro Hillary----Just holding a true mirror of the press through political satire---that the press finally got it-having the light reflected on them and didn't like what they saw--well thats another matter.
It probably did help Hillary this week---next week it could be just as likely to help Obama.
-
Amy,
Even though the show didn't make a connection for us, I'll be watching for it now. Susie's post has opened my eyes a bit more to see if there is an undertone going on.
I didn't see the SNL show with Hillary. I think N.Y.ers might be a bit more biased for Hillary. Oh I just read an interesting stat, there were only 2 presidents elected directly from the Senate. Kennedy and I forgot the other one already, anyway that jinx will be broken this year. They were saying that why a Senator doesn't get elected is because they have a lot of voting history to use against them. I expect they're all going over voting histories for the next round of attacks.
-
I never made the connection about POW and McCain, Susie- even though I watch about 3 hrs of politics a day. Did you see the show? There was nothing about it that reminded me of McCain or even crossed my mind. As the L&O, those shows were taped long before the writers' strike, because instead of being a midseason replacement, the shows was originally supposed to run in the end of September.
I'm surprised you don't see SNL as being pro Hillary. I thought it was pretty obvious to people watching- but I guess not to everyone.
-
Someone made the comment to me at my water aerobics class the other day, that she thought it unlikely that Obama or Hillary would accept a VP position because history shows that the VP rarely is able to become President following a stint as VP.
Interesting thought.
grace -
Unfortunately for US Bush1 was the exception which caused Bush2 to be in a position to be elected....
-
I did see it Amy and it hit me in the face. I hope its not in two parts---
You can see it here. Sickening that they should stoop so low.
The episode is titled Aftertaste #406
-
Oh this is too good.
More than one reason for Obama to get rid of his Chief foreign policy adviser. Calling Hillary a Monster was probably convenient as some of her other comments were bound to finally provoke closer scrutiny.
Sorry Amy, but I had misgivings about his whole foreign policy team.--Not thrilled with Susan Rice either--and Robert Malley--they distanced themselves from him overnight as soon as that was scrutinized. --buried him quickly under a rock like he never existed.
Very glad to see Power gone.
-------------------
Samantha Power: Obama’s Withdrawal Plan is “Best Case Scenario”
Samantha Power
If Samatha Power didn’t resign because she called Sen. Clinton a “monster” her comments on Sen. Obama’s Iraqi withdrawal promise on a U.K. television show likely would have forced her to leave. Like Obama’s NAFTA talk foreign leaders should not take his words on an Iraq withdrawal literally [emphasis mine]:
STEPHEN SACKUR: Let me stop you just for a moment. You said that he’ll revisit it when he goes to the White House. So what the American public thinks is a commitment to get combat forces out within sixteen months, isn’t a commitment isn’t it?
POWER: You can’t make a commitment in whatever month we’re in now, in March of 2008 about what circumstances are gonna be like in Jan. 2009. We can’t even tell what Bush is up to in terms of troop pauses and so forth. He will of course not rely upon some plan that he’s crafted as a presidential candidate or as a US senator.
He will rely upon a plan, an operational plan that he pulls together, in consultation with people who are on the ground, to whom he doesn’t have daily access now as a result of not being the president.
So to think, I mean it would be the height of ideology, you know, to sort of say, well I said it therefore I’m going to impose it on whatever reality entreats me –
SACKUR: Ok, so the 16 months is negotiable?
POWER: It’s the best case scenario
It’s the best case scenario
POWER: It is –
SACKUR: And of course in Iraq we’ve never seen best case scenario
POWER: We have never seen best case scenario
SACKUR: So we needn’t necessarily take it seriously at all.
POWER: What we can take seriously is that he will try to get US forces out as quickly and as responsibly as possible. And that’s the best case, estimate of what it would take.
Those words won’t please the anti-war voters backing Obama.
Power’s words are a far cry from the promise on Obama’s website [again emphasis mine]:
Bringing Our Troops Home
Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.
Power was giving her candidate some wiggle room he wasn’t asking for. Last September, Obama didn’t tell Iowa voters about a “best case scenerio,”
“Let me be clear: There is no military solution in Iraq and there never was,” Obama said in excerpts of the speech provided to The Associated Press.
“The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq’s leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year — now,” the Illinois senator says.
"Obama campaign manager David Plouffe told reporters, “He offered a withdrawal plan over a year ago….It’s something that is a rock-solid commitment.” Someone forgot to tell one of the primary foreign policy adviser who presumably had plenty of input in developing the plan."
"Shhh! Did you hear that? That’s the sound of air leaving Obama’s authenticity balloon. Power was more authentic (and realistic) than the guy she was advising. " -
"Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda."
Susie, I'm going to laugh at this statement before I get irritated!
Oops! Wrong "smiley." 
I'm gonna tell everyone a secret that's been plastered on Fox...the answer that McCain gave to Obama when he said if Al Qudea builds a base in Iraq....McCain said he had news for Obama...that Al Queda is already in Iraq! I cannot believe that ANYONE would take Obama really seriously when he says he's gonna pull out the troops within 16 months except for those few to guard whomever and whatever. Who's gonna guard the troops from Al Queda or the oil wells or the air port, etc. He is such a dummy (sorry). And if Al Queda sets up a base he'll send in the troops...C'MON PEOPLE! Does that sound like a plan!!? Al Queda setting up a base!!?? for Pete's sake!
There goes my BP!
-
I always worry about slow withdrawals. Who will protect the poor guys and gals left there who are trying to protect the citizens who in turn are trying to kill them?
Obama's people are shooting themselves in the foot. Do they have any experience in the realm of politics? I knew this would get interesting.
-
Okay--After a day of The Democrats going on about "Mr Hothead"
Here presented is the softer side of John McCain from SNL
Enjoy!
-
That was too funny!
-
CNN was just reporting on the Michigan & Florida fiasco. Guess the latest is that they are "trying to work out a compromise," but announcer said that Howard Dean of the DNC has said no, they broke the rules and have to pay the consequences. Evidently all the trouble in FLA started with the Republican governor & state congress decided to change the date of the primary, and were told by Dean that if they did the votes from FLA would not count (same w/Michigan). However, because of that, many Democrats decided NOT to even go to the polls and cast a vote because they wouldn't count. CNN got this info from a female member of the legislator.
No one seems to know what to do. Count the votes as they stand, or set up a new primary and have campaigning in both states, but the taxpayers would no be paying for the new primaries, that somehow money would have to be raised. What??
I can't believe the Floridians are going to be counted out again. Wonder what will happen?
Any Florida or Michigan voters out there know anything more about what's being talked about in your state? Care to share?
grace -
my comment is totally off the wall...have been away for almost a week and haven't had time to read back and get re-educated! But, today, got settled in airplane seat next to cute young girl wearing glasses, hair pulled back in a pony-tail--and a sweet pink scarf around her neck...
I asked her if her name was "Amy"...well, NOT!! Even though i was with DH, won't describe how tense the flight was because I think this person thought I was hitting on her! Wishing it was Amy--would have had lots to talk about!!!
will read back tomorrow and catch up!!!
-
Saluki--how can you not like this guy? very funny film.
I thought to share a form letter that I received today (dated 3/3/08) from PA regarding my absentee ballot.
"Dear Sir or Madame:
The Delaware County Election Bureau is currently in possession of your absentee ballot application filed prior to this election. The Uniformed and Overseas Citizen Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) requires this office to mail absentee ballots to the address indicated on the application through two regularly scheduled general elections for federal office. However, due to your current voter registration status (as per 25 P.S. 299 (Right to Vote at Primary) of the Pennsylvania Election Code), you will be unable to participate in the April 22, 2008 Primary Election. Please be advised that your application will remain on file with this office and dthat you will receive a ballot for the November general election.
If you feel our records do not reflect your current status or a change is made, please contact this office immediately. Thank You, Laureen T. Hagan Chief Clerk"
Tis true....I am a registered Independent...only Dems and Reps choose in the primary. So if I don't like the selection or Bloomberg changes his mind...I have no candidate. Happens every time. (lol)
I was never very good at team sports...swimming, yes...archery, yes....equestrian, yes....it's the price I pay. So I, like many others, will be making last minute impacts to this election.
I haven't heard the fat lady sing yet, so I'm not certain who I'll vote for. This democratic process is the best it's been in years.
Rosemary--hope that you make it to the convention. We'll love to hear about it from you.
-
Power is one of the WORLD's foremost experts on genocide, harvard prof, pulitzer prize winning author. She was an asset to his team. She's not a politician and didn't realize that saying something off record that lots of people think would be printed and cause such a furor. It speaks to me to Obama's ability to think outside the political insider box and surround himself with the best and the brightest, not the most politically savvy.
Shirley if you actually watched a REAL news station, you would realize that Obama was speaking in terms of hypotheticals about what would happen if al qaeda came BACK to the country once they were gone. He's not a moron like our current president, he's probably brighter than most of the people in washington. If you watched more balanced news you would hear all sides of the story and people of different and varying opinions discuss these things, some who even would agree with you. How many people does faux have who agree with me on politics?
The whole McCain hot head thing with him "getting angry" with the reporter on the plane was much ado about nothing, in my opinion. He didn't get angry, he was adamant and frustrated. If people are going to use that as an example they're not going to prove much to anyone. I have heard, with nothing to back up the stories, that in private he has a very bad temper but I've never seen any evidence of that. Cursing at someone isn't indicative of a bad temper in my opinion, although it was pretty funny when Cheney was caught on tape doing it.
-
Oops to the hillary campaign--
http://thenewargument.com/index.php/2008/03/07/breaking-news-child-in-clinton%e2%80%99s-%e2%80%9c3am-phone-ad%e2%80%9d-supports-obama/
Casey Knowles, a High School Senior in Washington state, recently
discovered she was one of the sleeping children in Clinton's controversial
"Children" ad appearing prior to the Texas primaries.
Knowles, a supporter of Barack Obama was shocked that she had contributed
to the national security message of a candidate that she passionately
opposes.
When asked by The New Argument, this is what Knowles had to say about her
appearance in Clinton's ad:
"While I love Hillary, I would much rather hear Barack Obama's voice
at the other end of the phone at 3am. Its hilarious and ironic that
the child in Hillary's ad is now of voting age and not her supporter.
I've been campaigning for Barack since October and was a caucus
precinct captain. I've been a very avid advocate of his and recruited
a lot of folks to caucus for him in January. He's inspired and
mobilized so many already, he's refreshing and quite simply the best
option for people who want to change this country." -
I am very much looking forward to this campaign having 2 people running all the way to the convention. So if anyone has any pull with any candidate would you please tell them to shut their people up. I just read a paper from someone who "said" they called up the Obama campaign and spoke to someone, but because the interview was taped, she can't say who that someone was. Nor can any of this be proved to be true or believed, but if it is true, they gotta stop talking. I'm not going to repeat a rumor here, but it has to end.
I remember the old conventions and there was so much going on it was impossible to keep up with it all. I think Mike Wallace got thrown out of one. Remember Rockefeller giving the finger to everyone? Those were the days. That time has come around again.
-
I think Mike Wallace got thrown out of one. Remember Rockefeller giving the finger to everyone? Those were the days. That time has come around again.
Ahhhh the good old days
-
Amy --Off course I applaud her views on the genocide in Darfur.
Its her other views that give me pause.---
"For one, Power is an advocate of the Walt-Mearsheimer view of the American relationship with Israel. In a recent interview published on the Harvard Kennedy School’s website, Power was asked to explain “long-standing structural and conceptual problems in U.S. foreign policy.” She gave a two-part answer: the first problem, she said, is “the US historic predisposition to go it alone.” A standard reply, of course. The second problem, though, should give us pause:
Another longstanding foreign policy flaw is the degree to which special interests dictate the way in which the “national interest” as a whole is defined and pursued . . . America’s important historic relationship with Israel has often led foreign policy decision-makers to defer reflexively to Israeli security assessments, and to replicate Israeli tactics, which, as the war in Lebanon last summer demonstrated, can turn out to be counter-productive.
So greater regard for international institutions along with less automatic deference to special interests–especially when it comes to matters of life and death and war and peace–seem to be two take-aways from the war in Iraq.
Power is not just assenting to the Israel Lobby view of American foreign policy, but is also arguing that Israel had something to do with the Bush administration’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003–an appalling slander, and a telling one.
Also of note is a recent opinion piece Power wrote for TIME magazine, titled “Rethinking Iran,” the thrust of which rethinking involves the need to engage diplomatically the mullahs and pretend that the Iranian nuclear program is a figment of the paranoid imagination of the Bush administration. She writes:
The war scare that wasn’t [the recent incident between Iranian speedboats and the U.S. Navy in the Straight of Hormuz] stands as a metaphor for the incoherence of our policy toward Iran: the Bush Administration attempts to gin up international outrage by making a claim of imminent danger, only to be met with international eye rolling when the claim is disproved. Sound familiar? The speedboat episode bore an uncanny resemblance to the Administration’s allegations about the advanced state of Iran’s weapons program–allegations refuted in December by the National Intelligence Estimate.
Does Power actually believe that the NIE put to rest concerns about the Iranian nuclear program? If she actually thinks that — and it appears she does — she deserves voluminous ridicule from thinking people everywhere.
Does anyone think that if the time comes that Power has President Obama’s ear, she will advise him to do anything other than repudiate America’s greatest ally in the Middle East in favor of appeasing its greatest enemy? And here’s an even better question: Does Barack Obama have a single adviser who would tell him to do anything else?------------------
"Noah Pollak has flagged several statements by Barack Obama senior foreign policy advisor Samantha Power with regard to her policy prescriptions for the Middle East. Here’s another: Many readers back in 2002 will remember Palestinian allegations of a “Jenin Massacre” which both the U.N. and many journalists hyped. The ensuing investigation, however, showed that there had been no massacre, and that Palestinian claims of casualties were exponentially exaggerated. At a George Soros-funded conference since published in the volume Ethnic Violence and Justice (2003), Power seemed upset that The New York Times had chosen to correct the narrative about Jenin, instead of holding Israel’s feet to the fire over allegations of its human rights violation. Said Power:
I have a question for David [Rohde] about working for the New York Times. I was struck by a headline that accompanied a news story on the publication of the Human Rights Watch report. The headline was, I believe: “Human Rights Reports Finds Massacre Did Not Occur in Jenin.” The second paragraph said, “Oh, but lots of war crimes did.” Why wouldn’t they make the war crimes the headline and the non-massacre the second paragraph?”
It is questionable whether any war crimes occurred in Jenin, except of course the war crimes associated with Palestinian assembly of suicide bombs which Palestinian terrorists — not uniformed officials — used to target civilians on buses and elderly in hotels. But, that does not seem to be what Samantha Power means. Perhaps Samantha Power might explain what she did mean and, now that the dust has settled, whether she still subscribes to the same views about what led up to and transpired at Jenin. Indeed, her position with Obama suggests that she should do no less. " -
Oh, I love it.
Amy, the problem with Obama's withdrawal plan is that Al Qaeda is already in Iraq. It's not an "IF". And I don't think Al Qaeda are planning to leave anytime in the near future, particularly if they believe that the new U.S. President may arbitrarily remove almost all the U.S. troops. So the issue isn't whether troops have to be returned to Iraq if Al Qaeda show up; the issue is "how can the U.S. leave Iraq without causing irreparable harm given that Al Qaeda is already there, poised and ready to take complete control?".
When in a recent speech McCain pointed out this little inconsistency in Obama's Iraq plan, Obama's response was to say: "Hey, I'm not dumb, I know Al Qaeda is already in Iraq. But don't you know that they weren't there until Bush started this war? So it's all Bush's fault" (I've paraphrased, obviously.) Okay, Obama is right on that, but guess what? It doesn't matter!!! What's the relevance of how Al Qaeda got into Iraq or when they got there or who caused it? (I happen to agree that it was Bush's fault, but so what? That's ancient history.) What matters is that they are there. And Obama, in his response to McCain's criticism, completely ignored that fact. He didn't address the issue that McCain raised. So the question is, how can Obama plan to take the troops out of Iraq and return them only if Al Qaeda moves in, when in fact Al Qaeda is already there?
So.... from yesterday's events I'm guessing the answer is that Obama's plan is simply a "best case scenario". From a practical standpoint, I agree. Samantha Power's statement was a great relief to me, since it acknowledges that the withdrawal plan that Obama has been touting probably is unrealistic. I'm glad to hear that the Obama team recognizes this.
But gee, doesn't that mean that Obama has been lying to the electorate this whole time? And continues to do so, as he continues to confirm that his plan is to full withdraw the troops within 16 months?
The misstatements and inconsistencies from Obama's camp are starting to pile up. When will Obama's supporters start to see this? Or with the recent results in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island, have they already started to?
As an aside, the reason that I've been more comfortable with Clinton's Iraq plan from the start is that although she says that she plans to start withdrawal of troops quickly, she has not committed to a timetable and she has said that her plan is contingent on the advice of the U.S. military leaders in Iraq. Her only committment has been that she will immediately meet with the military leaders and ask them to put together a withdrawal plan. If they come back with a plan that has a long and very slow withdrawal schedule, then she's free to accept that, without breaking any election promises. What she has said during the campaigning, compared to what Obama has said, shows the difference in their experience levels. Ultimately they both may want to implement exactly the same withdrawal plan, but she's left herself open to all possibilities, while he's committed himself to a particular plan that likely isn't in the best interests of the troops or the country.
Edit added: Susie, our posts crossed. I agree that it's good news that Samantha Power is out. I'm just glad that she made that slip of the tongue about Obama's Iraq plan before she was ousted. Her background and her position on Israel, as well as the positions of some of the other Obama advisors, is downright scary.
-
Speaking of Obama, did anyone see this blog in the Washington Post? It was written prior to this week's primaries, hence the last paragraph:
Huckobama
Admit it, Secular America. If Mike Huckabee had said something like this on the campaign trail you'd be locking and loading faster than you could hum John Lennon's lyric "Imagine all the people, Living life in peace":
"And during the course of that sermon, I was introduced to someone named Jesus Christ. I learned that my sins could be redeemed and that if I placed my trust in Christ, He could set me on the path to eternal life."
And you'd probably be thinking again of applying for Canadian citizenship -- just ‘fess up: you were scouting properties in northern Manitoba back around Thanksgiving 2004 -- if the former governor of Arkansas declaimed:
"And whenever I hear stories about Americans who feel like no one's looking out for them, like they've been left behind, I'm reminded that God has a plan for his people. . . . But it's a plan He's left to us to fulfill."
But these are not Huck's words. They were, in fact, pronounced by Sen. Barack Obama. He delivered these remarks this past Friday to about 150 Latino Evangelical and Catholic clerics at the University of Texas at Brownsville.
These pious musings have not aroused as much as a peep of protest from nonbelievers and Church-State separatists. (Compare this to the former governor of Arkansas who enraged Secular America when he suggested that we amend the Constitution to God's standards).
This absence of outrage goes a long way in demonstrating how thoroughly secularism in this country is entwined with, and supportive of, political liberalism. For years, the received (albeit flawed) wisdom held that a secularist was a liberal and vice versa. But as the 2008 campaign has shown, Democrats with presidential aspirations are strenuously trying to decouple that association.
Take, for example, Obama's speech on Friday. Do these sound like the words of a politician who is trying to mollycoddle secularists?:
"I'd like to begin with a prayer. It comes to us from Jeremiah 29, when the prophet sent out a letter to those exiled from Jerusalem to Babylon. It was a time of uncertainty, and a time of despair. But the prophet Jeremiah told them to banish their fear - that though they were scattered, and though they felt lost, God had not left them. "For I know the plans I have for you," the Lord revealed to Jeremiah, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future." God had a plan for His people. That was the truth that Jeremiah grasped - the creed that brought comfort to the exiles - that faith is not just a pathway to personal redemption, but a force that can bind us together and lift us up as a community."
True, Obama did give a fleeting nod to the godless in his address. He urged Americans to "come together as Protestants, Catholics and Jews, believers and non-believers alike." But anyone familiar with his rhetoric knows that Obama is perennially resolving seemingly insoluble American dialectical tensions (Red States/Blue States, Pro-Choice/Pro-Life, Yankees/Red Sox, whatever).
Obama's speech-it wasn't his best and much of it was rehashed-was filled with a variety of theological ideas (and ambiguities) that we will be discussing for months if he wins big tonight. One is that God has a plan-a plan that is apparently centered on America (but what about Canada?). Another is that the divine plan only comes to fruition if all citizens pitch in and do their part (but what about nonbelievers who won't get with the program?).
Should he seal the deal in Texas and Ohio, the one claim from this speech that we will be scrutinizing most concerns his insistence that "our values should be expressed not just through our families, our communities, and our churches, but through our government." That's the new Faith-and-Values friendly liberalism of the 2008 Democratic Party in 2008. And that's something that may make it hard for secularists to live their lives in peace.
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/georgetown/2008/03/huckobama.html
-
Amy post to me LOUD AND CLEAR as ususal!!!!
"Shirley if you actually watched a REAL news station, you would realize that Obama was speaking in terms of hypotheticals about what would happen if al qaeda came BACK to the country once they were gone. He's not a moron like our current president, he's probably brighter than most of the people in washington. If you watched more balanced news you would hear all sides of the story and people of different and varying opinions discuss these things, some who even would agree with you. How many people does faux have who agree with me on politics?"
Amy, how many times have I told you that you need to get your "news" from someplace else rather than wherever you get it!?
I don't need for you to tell me where to get my news, thank you! I will watch whomever I want. I also like Glen Beck.
I bet you don't.You want us to be respectful. I see you can't live up to your request. Oh, I see, this is NOT the respectful thread.
I will tell you something..it's people like you who turn me WAAAYYYY of of candidates like Obama! My opinion of you is...you are soooo faaarrr left that you can't turn your head right! Believe it or not, I can hear/watch both sides of the story. But I will make up MY OWN MIND, and not be ridiculed from people like you! I just told my one of my best friends (yes, I have more than ONE best friend) yesterday to stop listening to Rush L. She's so upset about McCain...seems she doesn't have a "choice." I am not a misguided person, Amy, and I do want you to stop telling me that I watch "faux" news! Yep, you've brought out the anger! Was that your intent!? You've said this to me more than once. I overlooked it the other time/s.
What I think, Amy, is that you may be seeing Obama falling apart pretty soon and you don't like that. If he does you can vote for Hillary!
Shirley
Notice my signature...<sigh>
Edited to say...now I'll go back and finish reading your post (I don't know why though), and the rest of the posts.
-
Amy posts:
"Knowles, a supporter of Barack Obama was shocked that she had contributed to the national security message of a candidate that she passionately opposes."
Gee whiz! I heard this on "faux" news.
Categories
- All Categories
- 679 Advocacy and Fund-Raising
- 289 Advocacy
- 68 I've Donated to Breastcancer.org in honor of....
- Test
- 322 Walks, Runs and Fundraising Events for Breastcancer.org
- 5.6K Community Connections
- 282 Middle Age 40-60(ish) Years Old With Breast Cancer
- 53 Australians and New Zealanders Affected by Breast Cancer
- 208 Black Women or Men With Breast Cancer
- 684 Canadians Affected by Breast Cancer
- 1.5K Caring for Someone with Breast cancer
- 455 Caring for Someone with Stage IV or Mets
- 260 High Risk of Recurrence or Second Breast Cancer
- 22 International, Non-English Speakers With Breast Cancer
- 16 Latinas/Hispanics With Breast Cancer
- 189 LGBTQA+ With Breast Cancer
- 152 May Their Memory Live On
- 85 Member Matchup & Virtual Support Meetups
- 375 Members by Location
- 291 Older Than 60 Years Old With Breast Cancer
- 177 Singles With Breast Cancer
- 869 Young With Breast Cancer
- 50.4K Connecting With Others Who Have a Similar Diagnosis
- 204 Breast Cancer with Another Diagnosis or Comorbidity
- 4K DCIS (Ductal Carcinoma In Situ)
- 79 DCIS plus HER2-positive Microinvasion
- 529 Genetic Testing
- 2.2K HER2+ (Positive) Breast Cancer
- 1.5K IBC (Inflammatory Breast Cancer)
- 3.4K IDC (Invasive Ductal Carcinoma)
- 1.5K ILC (Invasive Lobular Carcinoma)
- 999 Just Diagnosed With a Recurrence or Metastasis
- 652 LCIS (Lobular Carcinoma In Situ)
- 193 Less Common Types of Breast Cancer
- 252 Male Breast Cancer
- 86 Mixed Type Breast Cancer
- 3.1K Not Diagnosed With a Recurrence or Metastases but Concerned
- 189 Palliative Therapy/Hospice Care
- 488 Second or Third Breast Cancer
- 1.2K Stage I Breast Cancer
- 313 Stage II Breast Cancer
- 3.8K Stage III Breast Cancer
- 2.5K Triple-Negative Breast Cancer
- 13.1K Day-to-Day Matters
- 132 All things COVID-19 or coronavirus
- 87 BCO Free-Cycle: Give or Trade Items Related to Breast Cancer
- 5.9K Clinical Trials, Research News, Podcasts, and Study Results
- 86 Coping with Holidays, Special Days and Anniversaries
- 828 Employment, Insurance, and Other Financial Issues
- 101 Family and Family Planning Matters
- Family Issues for Those Who Have Breast Cancer
- 26 Furry friends
- 1.8K Humor and Games
- 1.6K Mental Health: Because Cancer Doesn't Just Affect Your Breasts
- 706 Recipe Swap for Healthy Living
- 704 Recommend Your Resources
- 171 Sex & Relationship Matters
- 9 The Political Corner
- 874 Working on Your Fitness
- 4.5K Moving On & Finding Inspiration After Breast Cancer
- 394 Bonded by Breast Cancer
- 3.1K Life After Breast Cancer
- 806 Prayers and Spiritual Support
- 285 Who or What Inspires You?
- 28.7K Not Diagnosed But Concerned
- 1K Benign Breast Conditions
- 2.3K High Risk for Breast Cancer
- 18K Not Diagnosed But Worried
- 7.4K Waiting for Test Results
- 603 Site News and Announcements
- 560 Comments, Suggestions, Feature Requests
- 39 Mod Announcements, Breastcancer.org News, Blog Entries, Podcasts
- 4 Survey, Interview and Participant Requests: Need your Help!
- 61.9K Tests, Treatments & Side Effects
- 586 Alternative Medicine
- 255 Bone Health and Bone Loss
- 11.4K Breast Reconstruction
- 7.9K Chemotherapy - Before, During, and After
- 2.7K Complementary and Holistic Medicine and Treatment
- 775 Diagnosed and Waiting for Test Results
- 7.8K Hormonal Therapy - Before, During, and After
- 50 Immunotherapy - Before, During, and After
- 7.4K Just Diagnosed
- 1.4K Living Without Reconstruction After a Mastectomy
- 5.2K Lymphedema
- 3.6K Managing Side Effects of Breast Cancer and Its Treatment
- 591 Pain
- 3.9K Radiation Therapy - Before, During, and After
- 8.4K Surgery - Before, During, and After
- 109 Welcome to Breastcancer.org
- 98 Acknowledging and honoring our Community
- 11 Info & Resources for New Patients & Members From the Team