Manscape

When is advocating VIOLENCE.............. NOT advocating violence? v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v WHEN BUSH DEADENDER SUPREME RISH LIMPIE ADVOCATES VIOLENCE ON HIS DITTOHEAD SHOW!!!! (Mr. Orwell, it's worse than even you predicted.)

Did ANYONE view the North Dakota U.S. Senator's C-SPAN clip about Pentagon wild spending/waste/theft carte blanche in Iraqnam and A-ghan? Or has the Bush deadenders' attacks upon the messenger taken the attention as they've intended?

When are you Bush deadenders getting a new line? I would never expect you Bush deadenders to discuss the consolidation of mainstream U.S. journalism and the subsequent lockstep taboo on certain subject matter. Why would you shine light on your own crimes? But really, when are you Bush deadenders getting a new line when you HISS on messageboards? Perhaps it's a reflection of the stagnation and corrosion your party represents that you rattle the same old, same old? In closing, check out the Rish Limpie posting elsewhere on KOTW. I know you Bush deadenders will want to reead about your media hero!

A fine Christian that Rish Limpie, no? Number one advocate for the Republican party and all "true Americans"......... http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_9043850 Limbaugh "dreams" of - doesn't advocate - Denver riot By Joey Bunch The Denver Post Article Last Updated: 04/24/2008 10:26:42 PM MDT Rush Limbaugh says he was not calling for a riot in Denver during the Democratic National Convention — he only "dreams" of it, to the tune of "White Christmas." For a second day in a row today, the conservative talker discussed the potential for protests and power struggles at the August convention. "Now, I am not inspiring or inciting riots. I'm dreaming, I'm dreaming of riots in Denver," he said mimicking the holiday tune. He explained on-air: "Riots in Denver at the Democrat Convention would see to it we don't elect Democrats," Limbaugh said. "And that's the best damn thing (that) could happen for this country as far as anything I can think." Glenn Spagnuolo,an organizer with the protest group Re-create 68, called Limbaugh "a fool." "We don't need another 5,000 illiterate Limbaugh listeners coming to Colorado," he said, mocking a comment this week by State Rep. Douglas Bruce, R-Colorado Springs, calling migrant workers "illiterate peasants" as he debated a bill to accommodate up to 5,000 guest workers in the state. Calls to a Limbaugh spokeswoman were not immediately returned. Mayor John Hickenlooper said, ""Anyone who would call for riots in an American city has clearly lost their bearings." Jenni Engebretsen, a spokeswoman for the convention, declined to respond to Limbaugh. "I think we'll pass on this one," she said. Limbaugh is heard by more than 14 million listeners a week. Limbaugh's Denver affiliate, 850 KOA, issued a statement today, saying its marquee talker "was not advocating violence in Denver," according to the statement listing program director Kris Olinger as the contact. Olinger did not return telephone calls for comment, but the station sent out a second e-mail to local media stating, "Did he go to far? Or is this just Rush being Rush?" On Wednesday, Limbaugh had been discussing comments by the Rev. Al Sharpton, who had warned of "trouble" at the convention if the nomination was wrested Rush Limbaugh's website touted the Denver broadcast with a headline that said "Screw the world! Riot in Denver!" (rushlimbaugh.com)away from Barack Obama by superdelegates. Local conservative talk show host and GOP activist John Andrews saw what he believes Limbaugh was getting at. "Look, nobody seriously wants violence and civil disobedience at the Denver convention," he said. "Rush is just saying, 'Make our day'; if, in fact, the Re-create '68 hooligans or the Al Sharpton street toughs or anybody else wants to disrupt the convention, they're going to hurt Democrats' chances in the fall." Responding to a caller Thursday, Limbaugh held his ground but softened his tone. "Who wishes for riots?" he said to the caller, according to a transcript. "I didn't get the ball rolling. It is Democrats like Al Sharpton who have warned that there will be." Denver City Councilman Charles Brown, a Republican and Limbaugh listener, was outraged. Brown was a school teacher in Illinois during the Democratic National Convention in Chicago in 1968. He recalled the injuries, chaos, lingering tear gas and national disgrace for Chicago as a result of the riots. "What an insult," Brown said of Limbaugh's flippancy. "Regardless of political labels, for any radio announcer to wish a riot on a city so his party could win, that's disgraceful and it's absurd." He said he has found Limbaugh to be a "great entertainer, but he's really gone too far. It's almost juvenile." Brown said he did not think Limbaugh was speaking for Republicans when he made the comment. "I don't believe there is a Republican in this state that would agree with his comment." The station's listeners had mixed reviews, according to the 850 KOA online discussion forum. "The man is first and foremost an entertainer, selling radio spots at exorbitant rates," one listener wrote. "He does however have the best interests of the country at heart. The idea that he is somehow trying to foster riots at the DNC is the typical left-wing dodge resorted to when confronted with the consequences of their own actions." Another said, "I am aware that it is all for show, but that fact that many Americans hang their hats on his every word is quite disturbing. They can't think for themselves. They can't see that he is all about self gain." Joey Bunch: 303-954-1174 or jbunch@denverpost.com AND.............. http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_9057199 Sen. Salazar: Reprimand Rush By Howard Pankratz The Denver Post Article Last Updated: 04/26/2008 02:39:10 AM MDT U.S. Senator Ken Salazar has asked today that the owner of 850 KOA "reprimand" Rush Limbaugh for what Salazar calls Limbaugh's "clear exhortation" for riots during the Democratic National Convention in Denver. Limbaugh said earlier this week that he is not calling for a riot in Denver in August but only "dreams" of it, to the tune of "White Christmas." "Now, I'm not inspiring or inciting riots. I'm dreaming. I'm dreaming of riots in Denver," he said mimicking the holiday tune. But Salazar, in a letter sent today to Clear Channel Radio, the owner of KOA, characterized Limbaugh's comments as "incendiary." "As I read Mr. Limbaugh's comments about riots at the Democratic National Convention in Denver, they appear to me to be a clear exhortation that those riots are exactly what he wants to happen," said Salazar. "For that kind of incendiary comment, I ask Clear Channel to reprimand Mr. Limbaugh." Kris Olinger, director of AM programming for Clear Channel Denver, said that Limbaugh is syndicated by Premiere Radio Network , the syndication arm of Clear Channel. "We passed the letter along to Premiere," said Olinger. "They obviously are going to take Senator Salazar's comments and consider them." But Olinger added that from a local Clear Channel viewpoint, "we believe Rush is not calling for riots in Denver." Olinger said she was not surprised to receive a letter from a U.S. Senator over Limbaugh's comments. "We certainly expected strong reaction from the leadership," said Olinger. "No, we weren't surprised." She added that she didn't believe Salazar has heard or read the full transcript of Limbaugh's comments. She said the conservative talk-show host again talked about it today on his show. Limbaugh reiterated he is not calling for riots, she said. Rather, he said that if the extreme left of the Democratic party creates riots and unrest in Denver during the convention, it will be bad for the Democrats and good for the Rush Limbaugh's website touted the Denver broadcast with a headline that said "Screw the world! Riot in Denver!" (rushlimbaugh.com)Republicans, Olinger said. In the letter to Lee Larsen, senior vice president for Clear Channel Radio Rocky Mountain Region, Salazar said it is wrong to have political partisans of "any stripe suggesting that violence is somehow an acceptable outcome" of political conventions. "Political commentary on our public airwaves - heard by millions of Americans every day - should speak to the great strength reflected in the peaceful exercise of democracy at the national conventions in Minneapolis...and Denver," said the senator. Howard Pankratz: 303-954-1939 or hpankratz@denverpost.com

My hero bulgeface! http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/inde....xml&coll=2 McCain campaign gets almost 80% off on Homewood gathering space, plus free labor from Homewood Jail inmates Thursday, April 24, 2008 KIM BRYAN News staff writer Republican presidential candidate John McCain got a deal when his campaign rented gathering space from the city of Homewood for a private fundraiser earlier this week. His campaign was given a discount of about 80 percent off the standard booking rate for Rosewood Hall. In September, Jefferson County Democrats rented the same facility and were charged the full rate. The McCain campaign was charged $250 to use two rooms in the hall, which normally would book for $1,200 on a weeknight. The campaign also was given free labor from Homewood City Jail inmates to set up tables and chairs for the event, avoiding a $100 set-up fee, but did pay a standard $50 cleaning fee. Homewood Mayor Barry McCulley said the rental rate was discounted because the event was on Monday, a slow day for business. City Council members say they always vote on such discounts but didn't get a say in this deal. They're upset, as are local Democrats. "I think it's outrageous," said Robert Yarbrough, chairman of the Jefferson County Democratic Party and a Homewood resident. "I was charged full book rate. I was never offered any free inmate services to set up for my event. Mayor McCulley owes an apology to every citizen in Homewood as to why he arbitrarily changed the fee for this out-of-state senator from Arizona." Yarbrough rented the entire hall, three rooms, on Thursday nights in September 2006 and September 2007 for the Democratic Blue Dot Ball fundraiser. The weekday fee is $1,700 for all three rooms, according to the official rates. Yarbrough said the Democrats paid more than $2,500 for all charges each year. McCulley said he and City Council President Ginger Busby agreed on the lower rate for McCain's event. He said minor policy changes such as this don't require council approval. Busby says there was a miscommunication. "The mayor asked me if the hall could be free for the McCain event, and I said absolutely not," Busby said. "He then asked if it was appropriate to charge a lesser fee for Mondays. I said as long as it didn't cost the city money, it could be considered." Busby said she did not know what the charge was or that city inmates were involved. She didn't attend the event and was at a soccer game Monday night, she said. City Councilman David Hooks said that the council typically debates and votes each time there is a request to discount or waive the rent, but that didn't happen this time. "I'd be concerned with the legal ramifications of that, from the city's perspective," Hooks said. "It could be a problem for the city to have made in-kind donations to a political candidate by charging less rent or having inmates do work for the event." McCain campaign officials in Washington said they knew nothing about Homewood using inmate labor at no cost, nor did they ask for a cut rate. "We paid what we were asked to pay," said Jeff Sadosky, McCain campaign spokesman. The McCain event invoice shows an $850 total, including a $150 permit to serve alcohol and a refundable $400 security deposit. Homewood police Chief Phil Dodd said city jail inmates had never before set up at Rosewood Hall, but did so at the mayor's request. The regular workers don't work on Sundays, when the event had to be set up, Dodd said. Busby said she is asking the Republican Party to cover the $950 rental discount and $100 set-up waiver McCulley gave the McCain campaign.

(yeah Bush deadender, I know......Yahoo is a COMMIE NEWS SOURCE!!!) http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080427/ap_on_el_pr/road_to270_8 Electoral map favors a Democrat, has McCain playing defense By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 36 minutes ago WASHINGTON - The electoral road to the White House favors Democrats this fall — either Barack Obama or Hillary Rodham Clinton — and has Republican John McCain playing defense to thwart a presidential power shift. A downtrodden economy, the war in Iraq and a public call for change have created an Electoral College outlook and a political environment filled with extraordinary opportunity for the Democrats and enormous challenge for the GOP nominee-in-waiting. Both parties count on victory in dozens of states that long have voted their way. The competition to reach the 270 electoral votes needed to win is expected to play out primarily in 14 states. All but one saw the greatest action in 2004. The exception is Virginia, a longtime Republican stronghold where Democrats have made inroads. Eight of the states went for President Bush four years ago, including the crown jewels Ohio and Florida. Six, including big-prize Pennsylvania, voted for Democrat John Kerry. In the battlegrounds, far more electoral votes, 97, are up for grabs for Democrats than the 69 available for McCain to go after. Twice as many of the closest states — decided by 2 or fewer percentage points — voted Republican in 2004; they include New Mexico and Iowa, which the GOP won by 1 point. Both sides argue that their candidates can expand the playing field by making more states competitive than in previous elections. But they likely will only spend time and money to test that theory once they feel confident about higher priority states. "This is going to be a tough campaign. I have no illusions how hard we have to work to win," McCain says, a sobering assessment of a Republican's chances when most voters say the country is on the wrong track under a GOP president. Conversely, Democrats exude confidence that Nov. 4 will break their way — even as they continue their nomination slugfest. "I have every reason to believe we're going to have a Democratic president," Clinton argues. Obama declares: "We will beat John McCain in November. You can take that to the bank!" Recent polls, however, show McCain competing strongly with both Clinton and Obama in hypothetical matchups, and Republicans and Democrats envision a close race. In 2004, Bush won 286 electoral votes to 251 for Kerry. This year's Democratic nominee must triumph in all the states Kerry won, and pick up 19 more votes to prevail — or come up with another game plan to reach the magic number. McCain, for his part, must fend off Democratic challenges to hang on to the GOP advantage. DEMOCRATIC OPPORTUNITIES: Of the 14 battlegrounds, Bush won eight with 97 electoral votes. Half of those states were decided by only 1 or 2 percentage points, and all were under 10 points. Five have Democratic governors this year. Electoral votes are in parentheses. Three Western states — Colorado (9), Nevada (5) and New Mexico (5) — appear obvious targets for Democrats given their gains in the region, sharp population growth and large numbers of swing-voting Hispanics. But McCain, a four-term senator from Arizona, does well among those voters, too; his Senate support for an eventual path to citizenship for illegal immigrants could help. To the east, Iowa (7) holds promise for the Democrats; Republicans narrowly put it into their column in 2004 after years of Democratic dominance. Both Obama and Clinton competed here during the primary. McCain's opposition to ethanol subsidies complicate his chances, nor is he a favorite of evangelicals. Though less likely to change hands, Missouri (11) is a perennial battleground. McCain also must defend the two vote-rich prizes that decided the past two elections. Ohio (20), a bellwether that tipped the race to Bush in 2004, may be poised for a switch, with a rash of job losses, high numbers of Iraq casualties and a series of Republican statewide political defeats in 2006, including the governor. Florida (27), which put Bush in the White House in 2000 and voted for him again in 2004, will certainly be hard-fought, given its electoral treasure chest. Its demographics are tilting more Republican, though, and Obama has fared poorly in the primaries among Jewish and Hispanic voters. Clinton may have a better shot. Virginia (13) is a case where Obama, who is black, might play stronger than Clinton because of the state's large black population. The state moves into the competitive category given Democratic gains fueled by the growing Washington suburbs. Virginia also is home to large communities of military veterans who may have an affinity for McCain, a former Navy pilot who spent more than five years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. REPUBLICAN OPPORTUNITIES: Kerry won six of the hard-fought states offering 69 electoral votes that McCain will try to put in the GOP column. All of those were decided by under 5 percentage points. Most have Democratic governors as well as long histories as swing states. In the upper Midwest, Minnesota (10) has a quirky independent streak that presents an opening for McCain. It also has a Republican governor and will host the GOP's national convention. Wisconsin (10) and Michigan (17) have high numbers of Reagan Democrats that McCain could attract. But voters in all three states are reeling from economic woes, and that works in the Democrats' favor. New Hampshire (4) fell to Kerry by a razor-thin margin four years ago and, Democrats captured two House seats two years later. But McCain has a close bond with the state that made him in his first presidential primary in 2000, and saved him this year. It's been 20 years since Pennsylvania (21) voted Republican. Further complicating McCain's chances: The state's economy is bad and many Pennsylvanians have died in Iraq, the war he staunchly supports. Still, conservative swaths that are home to right-leaning Democrats could give McCain an opening. As usual, the Philadelphia suburbs figure to be pivotal. Oregon (7) has become more competitive in recent elections, but Democrats have won it in each of the last five. McCain hopes his moderate image and support for curbing climate change will tip the state to Republicans. WILD-CARDS: Beyond the core states, several others are worth watching. If Clinton wins the Democratic nomination, Arkansas (6) will certainly be contested. It has voted Republican in back-to-back elections but her husband, a former governor there, carried it twice. West Virginia (5), too, could be a target given that Bill Clinton won it twice and it's home to a large number of the working-class voters she attracts. Should Obama be the nominee, Democrats say they hope to put solid Southern GOP states in play, those with large black populations. Among them: North Carolina (15) and Georgia (15), and possibly even Louisiana (9) and Mississippi (6). But these are unlikely targets unless the Democrats think the election is in hand. Democrats also say they may look at Montana (3), which has a Democratic governor, and Kentucky (8), which twice voted for Bill Clinton. But they're also long-shots. McCain should hold his home state of Arizona (10) despite Democratic threats to play there. He sees potential opportunities in Democratic-leaning states on both coasts because of his appeal to voters across the political spectrum. These include Washington (11) and Maine (4), and, perhaps, even New Jersey (15) and Delaware (3). McCain also talks big about California (55) but the last Republican to win there was George H.W. Bush in 1988.

The plot thickens.........how America swallows............. http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/25/pbs-br...gon-propaganda/ PBS breaks ‘media blackout’ of NYT story on Pentagon propaganda.» On Sunday, The New York Times published an explosive report exposing the Pentagon’s secret campaign to use analysts in order to “generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance.” Since that time, TV news organizations have largely been silent on their role in the propaganda. Ari Melber notes that last night, PBS’s Newshour finally broke this blackout, but couldn’t convince the other networks to participate: JUDY WOODRUFF: And for the record, we invited Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC and NBC to participate, but they declined our offer or did not respond. (click the link above for the rest of the story including video)

...........and here's a "Guest" that wants "to chortle and dance away from the point!!!" HEY GUEST!! Invoke your precious Patriot Act............maybe you can arrange for my incarceration because I disagree with that chimpanzee you adore!

Huffington reports on the New York Times article and according to the quote above, the content of these sources is not to be trusted because of the reporting entities! I'd like everyone to observe the Bush deadender mentality of messageboard response that asserts to control/discount what people read! This "2smart" person doesn't address the content of my posting and instead he zeroes in on the messenger including myself and expects he's neutralized the MESSAGE! You may recall the tawdry "National Enquirer" being out in front on two big stories, Jesse Jackson's lovechild and Moonface Hillary's brother in yet another Clinton scandal............yes THAT National Enquirer commonly frontpaged by the frill of celebrity misery: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...nyt&emc=rss I use www.antiwar.com daily and I recommend it to EVERYONE who wants to get informed beyond the limits of America dumbed down news input. In addition to anti-war opinion articles and blogs (Ron Paul is a regular contributor) it's a collection of hyperlinks from EVERY possible point in the spectrum of political sentiment. How curious it is when some shmuck bellows, "you got that from 'antiwar dot com" you anti-America bastard!"........and the antiwar.com link is from William Krystol's "The Weekly Standard"!!!! To end in a positive manner exposing a nitwit's effort to ignore the message and attack the messenger, I will assert that ALL news sources must be considered, AlJazeera included. Why would ANYONE but a bigoted nincompoop avoid published/expressed views on common human concerns that may not agree with one's opinion? This is why Jimmy Carter is to be applauded for his diplomacy visiting legally elected Hamas and Barack Obama for his intentions to have a DIALOGUE with all nations including monkey boy's so called, "axis of evil." Above all, please be sure to read the content that begins this thread: The Pentagon's Corrupt Sock Puppet "Military Analysts" Expose http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-gareth-po...oc_b_97598.html

Observe pride and obtuse and denial posting in defense of the monkey president!

"Manscum!" How Christian of you! Pulling the race card is what your "goomba" did that you "can't disagree with"................ Your Rish Limpie sh*t doesn't cut it in 2008 America anymore. People realize America is bleeding profusely and will not tolerate the Bush deadenders' rhetoric. When's the next Kearny KKK meeting? I'll be glad to educate you and your rubes at the lecturn!

You don't get away with that Bush deadender. I'm in your face to call you a cowardly digressive seeking to hiss at me rather than address the video I put under your neocon nose. Watch the video which was conveyed by C-SPAN and comment on that. The text referring to building 7 being deliberately blown up by a monkey boy conspiracy is not my assertion. Nitwits and deadenders for Bush don't face the horrors they crafted. They hiss and spit off the subject like the hypocrites and cowards that they are. Anyone want to discuss the video about the North Dakota US Senator? Or do you want to chortle and dance away from the point?

Please postpone this video if you've had a bad day. Relax a bit and come back to it. See what the monkey president has enabled..........out of control fraud by a rampant pentagon. http://silverbearcafe.com/private/4.08/fraud.html

The world knows hollow when they look at that presidential chimpanzee that you and your cult deadenders defend even to this late date. Your posting is real KKK stuff and you are a glaring racist. Every one of your nitwitted points in what is perhaps the most LAME posting on KOTW is fit for the urinal, absolutely disposible concerning rebuttal. You embarass America with your duncehood. How many of you exist? Did you take lessons from the USSR in gutting a nation from the inside?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-gareth-po...oc_b_97598.html The Pentagon's Corrupt Sock Puppet "Military Analysts" Exposed In Sunday's New York Times, investigative reporter David Barstow exposes television's "military analysts" on the Iraq War as sock puppets of the Pentagon who consciously peddle the Bush administration's talking points on Iraq while hiding their own vested economic interest in selling the public on the Bush administration's happy talk about the war. This very long and very well-documented story lays bare the most blatantly obnoxious feature of the "Military-Industrial-Media Complex" which ensures that the airwaves convey the administration's major messages on the war day in a day out. The story should mobilize the blogosphere and news media figures who still have some integrity to demand immediate reform of a massively corrupt network system of covering military affairs. For starters, the networks should be forced to fire every "military analyst" who has been recruited accepted all-expenses-paid trips to Iraq, uncritically mouthed the administration talking points while concealing their special relationship or maintained vested financial interests in Pentagon contracts through business relationships with contractors. Based on 8,000 pages of email messages, transcripts and records, Barstow recounts a successful effort by Donald Rumsfeld's Pentagon to use retired military officers to create a "media Trojan horse" on the Iraq War. Not only did the "military analysts" routinely violate basic ethical standards of journalism by accepting trips completely arranged and paid for the administration; they were consciously participating in its strategy to manipulate public opinion by regurgitating the pro-war arguments they were given in top-level official briefings -- which they had to promise to keep secret. But even worse, Barstow shows how they had a personal financial stake in parroting the administration's war propaganda. He reports that several dozen military analysts who appear constantly on Fox, CNN and other networks and invariably support the administration's line "represent more than 150 military contractors either as lobbyists, senior executives, board members or consultants." Even when they knew they were being fed Pentagon BS, these agents of the war system could not utter a critical word about administration policy. They were afraid of retribution from Pentagon officials who could affect contracts for which their companies were competing. One corrupted former television analyst told Barstow he refrained from even the slightest criticism of the Pentagon's policies because of the fear "some four-star could call up and say, 'Kill that contract.'" Several of these officers told Barstow that even the "mildest criticism" would bring telephone calls expressing official displeasure within minutes of being on the air. When one analyst went so far as to say that the United States was "not on a good glide path right now" in Iraq, the Pentagon immediately "fired" him from the analysts group which had received privileged access to high-ranking administration officials. In the most egregious cases, such as retired Air Force general Thomas G. McInerney of Fox News, "analysts" operated just like employees of the Pentagon. McInenery assured the Pentagon in an e-mail in late 2006 that he would use in his on-air appearances the latest talking points that he had just been given. The story of the Pentagon's "media Trojan horse" should bring overwhelming public pressure for the immediate termination of any "military analyst" who has been compromised by links with the Pentagon and/or its business allies. The television networks should adopt transparent rules about who can and can't be hired as analysts on military issues that would keep out paid agents of the war system. Unfortunately the networks themselves appear to be such an integral part of that system that they couldn't care less about conflicts of interest.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2...ic_spendin.html McCain Blows by Public Spending Cap By Matthew Mosk Sen. John McCain has officially broken the limits imposed by the presidential public financing system, reports filed last night show. McCain has now spent $58.4 million on his primary effort. Those who have committed to public financing can spend no more than $54 million on their primary bid. So has McCain broken the law? The answer is far from simple. It depends on whether he has, in fact, withdrawn from the public matching program. McCain was certified to enter the matching program last year when he was starved for cash. But once he started to win primaries, he decided to step back from it. On Feb. 6, after his Super Tuesday victories, he wrote to the FEC to announce he would withdraw from the program. McCain's lawyers said that gave him freedom to spend as much as he wanted -- once he announced his intent to withdraw from the system, they say, he was released from the spending caps. But Federal Election Commission Chairman David Mason wrote McCain's campaign last month to alert him that the commission had not yet granted his Feb. 6 request to withdraw, and that the commission would first need to vote on the matter. A snag: The FEC has four vacancies and therefore lacks a quorum to consider the matter. There's little agreement on what the FEC would have done, had they been able to meet. In part, that's because McCain borrowed $4 million from a commercial bank, and promised to pay the money back through his fundraising efforts. If the campaign went badly, he told the bank, he would use future matching funds to help repay the loan. The rules say that candidates who use matching funds as collateral have to remain within the confines of the system. The Democratic National Committee filed a complaint to the FEC about McCain's actions, but without that quorum, evaluation of the complaint has been stalled. Meanwhile, McCain's fundraising has roared ahead, now that he is the presumptive Republican nominee. His campaign announced yesterday that it repaid the $4 million loan last week, ahead of schedule.

I guess I must be making this stuff up!! LOL!! http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/elec...ll_N.htm?csp=34 Obama widens national lead in USA TODAY/Gallup Poll WASHINGTON — Barack Obama has widened his lead nationally for the Democratic presidential nomination despite a furor over his comments about small-town Americans, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds. Rival Hillary Rodham Clinton is getting more of the blame among those who say their contest has become too negative. As the candidates make a final push for votes in today's Pennsylvania primary, Obama leads the survey by 50%-40% among Democrats and voters who lean Democratic. That's a bigger edge than the 7 percentage-point lead he held in the USA TODAY poll last month. Efforts by Clinton and John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, to characterize Obama as elitist for his remarks at a San Francisco fundraiser seem to have failed. Seven of 10 say Obama "respects working-class Americans" rather than looks down on them — a slightly more positive reading than that for McCain or Clinton. In words he later described as ill chosen, Obama said earlier this month that economic hard times had prompted Americans from small towns in Pennsylvania and elsewhere to "get bitter" and "cling to guns or religion or anti-pathy to people who aren't like them." Meanwhile, President Bush set an unwelcome record, scoring the highest disapproval rating — 69% — in the history of the Gallup Poll, which dates to Franklin Roosevelt's tenure. Bush's approval rating is 28%, matching the low point of his presidency. Harry Truman still holds the record for the lowest approval rating, at 23%. A record number of Americans, 63%, now say the invasion of Iraq was a mistake. In the survey, Obama edges McCain 47%-44% among registered voters. Clinton beats McCain 50%-44%. Both leads are within the margin of error. Democrats are split on whether the continuing primary campaign is damaging the party's prospects in November. Half say it is hurting the party and leaders should get together and back one of the contenders; half say it isn't hurting the party and should continue until a candidate clinches the nomination. Democrats are divided, too, about whether the contest has become too negative. Among the half who say it has, 43% blame Clinton, 3% blame Obama. Fifty-three percent blame both equally. Both campaigns have sharpened their attacks campaigning and in TV ads in Pennsylvania, where today's primary looms as a crucial test for Clinton's campaign. Statewide surveys show her ahead, but her onetime 20-percentage point lead has narrowed. The telephone survey of 1,016 adults, taken Friday through Sunday, has a margin of error of +/- 3 points for the full sample. The error margin for the sample of 552 Democrats is 5 points.

Leave it to a thoughtful historian to construct in words my very intuition about monkey boy: “No individual president can compare to the second Bush,” wrote one. “Glib, contemptuous, ignorant, incurious, a dupe of anyone who humors his deluded belief in his heroic self, he has bankrupted the country with his disastrous war and his tax breaks for the rich, trampled on the Bill of Rights, appointed foxes in every henhouse, compounded the terrorist threat, turned a blind eye to torture and corruption and a looming ecological disaster, and squandered the rest of the world’s goodwill. In short, no other president’s faults have had so deleterious an effect on not only the country but the world at large.”

THIS is reason in itself to vote for Barack Obama. Because NO ONE SHOULD BE ABOVE THE LAW! http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/15/o...-r_n_96690.html Obama Would "Immediately Review" Potential Of Crimes In Bush White House Tonight I had an opportunity to ask Barack Obama a question that is on the minds of many Americans, yet rarely rises to the surface in the great ruckus of the 2008 presidential race -- and that is whether an Obama administration would seek to prosecute officials of a former Bush administration on the revelations that they greenlighted torture, or for other potential crimes that took place in the White House. Obama said that as president he would indeed ask his new Attorney General and his deputies to "immediately review the information that's already there" and determine if an inquiry is warranted -- but he also tread carefully on the issue, in line with his reputation for seeking to bridge the partisan divide. He worried that such a probe could be spun as "a partisan witch hunt." However, he said that equation changes if there was willful criminality, because "nobody is above the law."

These self-proclaimed "Patriots" are nothing but Bush deadenders saturated by Rish Limpie radio to the point where denial of reality becomes their standard..............contrast the following news article with the assertions in the post that started this thread.......... http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080418/ts_nm/...itics_time_dc_1 Obama keeps rolling as Clinton running out of time By John Whitesides, Political Correspondent Fri Apr 18, 1:37 PM ET WASHINGTON (Reuters) - After a tough six-week stretch of campaign gaffes, roaring controversies and heightened scrutiny, Barack Obama's presidential bid appears as strong as ever -- and rival Hillary Clinton is running out of time to change the script. Obama has expanded his lead on Clinton in many national polls and gained ground on her in the next battleground of Pennsylvania ahead of Tuesday's vote, despite furors over his remarks on small-town residents and inflammatory comments by his former pastor. Clinton's image appeared to take a heavier hit after wrongly claiming she faced sniper fire in Bosnia in 1996. A Washington Post poll this week found more Americans have an unfavorable impression of her than at any time since she entered the national limelight in 1992. "It hasn't been a bed of roses for Obama. He's had some problems. But she is the one whose negatives are going up," said Phil Noble, head of the South Carolina New Democrats group and an Obama supporter. Obama has a nearly unassailable lead on the New York senator in delegates to the August nominating convention and in popular votes won in the first three months of the primary battle. Clinton hopes a big Pennsylvania win ignites a strong run through the final nine contests, fundamentally reordering the race and giving her fresh evidence to argue she is the strongest candidate to face Republican John McCain in November's presidential election. But polls show Obama has whittled her once substantial double-digit lead in Pennsylvania to single digits. A Zogby poll on Friday put her lead at 4 points, a Rasmussen poll showed it at 3 points and a Los Angeles Times poll earlier this week had it at 5 points. A narrow Clinton win probably would be enough to keep her in the race, but would not stem another round of calls among Democrats for her to step aside and let Obama concentrate on the race with McCain. OBAMA LEAD GROWS Obama has expanded his national lead in several polls. A Reuters/Zogby poll released earlier this week put it at 13 points, and a daily Gallup tracking poll had it at 7 points, down from his high of 11 earlier in the week. Obama continues to steadily win endorsements from superdelegates, the nearly 800 Democratic Party insiders who are free to back any candidate and who hold the key to winning the nomination. "It doesn't seem like she has the power to alter the dynamic of the race anymore," said Simon Rosenberg, head of the Democratic advocacy group NDN. Rosenberg said Clinton's scenario for winning the Democratic nomination was no longer believable. "In every way you can measure it, he's won more delegates, he's won more states, he's raised more money, he has a better organization -- all the metrics one has of how to evaluate the race indicate he is winning and she is losing," he said. Obama, an Illinois senator who would be the first black U.S. president, weathered a flap in March about the controversial comments of his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, by giving a widely praised speech on race. He ignited another firestorm last weekend when his comments about small-town residents at a private San Francisco fundraiser became public. He said small-town residents were clinging to religion and guns out of bitterness about their economic struggles. In the six-week lull between the last contest in Mississippi, which Obama won, and Tuesday's vote in Pennsylvania, those flaps and Clinton's Bosnia controversy dominated the campaign debate. But so far, none of the controversies appears to have the strength to derail Obama. "Voters in the end may not be that agitated about these kinds of things," said Linda Fowler, a political analyst at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire. "They really are more concerned about the war and the economy and which candidate is more effective."

As a betting man, I would wager YOU think the United States of America WON Vietnam! LOL! Maybe you think the former Saigon is now named Richard Milhous Nixonville? LOL! (or LBJ Junction!!?? LOL!!!) Watch out for those WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION we seized and dismantled in Iraqnam.........heheheheheh! BOO!!! A TERRORIST BEHIND YOU !!!! CALL HOMELAND SECURITY!!!! HAW!!!!!

Imagine an ANGRY and FRUSTRATED John McCain next to the nuclear trigger! http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articl...10/182118.shtml Vanity Fair Tiptoes Around McCain's Explosive Temper Ronald Kessler Thursday, Jan. 11, 2007 WASHINGTON -- In its February issue, Vanity Fair questions whether Sen. John McCain has the temperament to be president, but the magazine ignores any serious examples of his out-of-control temper revealed in recent NewsMax articles. "Will John McCain's Temper Derail Him?" asks a teaser on the cover of Vanity Fair. "McCain's temperament may be the single most discussed element of his life and career," the story by Todd S. Purdum says. "In high school, his nicknames were ‘Punk' and ‘McNasty,' and a survey of senior Capitol Hill staffers by Washingtonian magazine last summer ranked McCain second for ‘Hottest Temper' in the Senate . . ." Conduct Unbecoming The story cites a well-publicized nasty letter the Arizona Republican wrote to Sen. Barack Obama, the Illinois Democrat, for "what amounted to little more than a misunderstanding over how Obama intended to proceed on the issue of lobbying reform — something that could have been cleared up with a chat in the corridor." Instead, the Vanity Fair story says, "McCain let loose, writing Obama the kind of missive, lacerating in its sarcasm, that Harry Truman used to compose late at night, but then prudently put in a drawer." The story in Vanity Fair with Demi Moore on the cover is the first in the mainstream media to raise the question of whether McCain's temper could undercut his bid to become president in 2008. But the story never cites the damaging, concrete examples of McCain's explosive temper cited by NewsMax.com stories that ran on July 5 and Aug. 30. Those who have dealt with him on a daily basis say McCain's out-of-control temper raises questions about whether he is fit to have his finger on the nuclear trigger, so states the July 5 NewsMax article, "McCain's Out-of-Control Anger: Does He Have the Temperament to Be President?" Nowhere is that sentiment stronger than in the Senate, where McCain has few friends or supporters. In fact, when McCain ran for the Republican nomination for president in 2000, only four Republican senators endorsed him. "I have witnessed incidents where he has used profanity at colleagues and exploded at colleagues," former Sen. Bob Smith told me for the article. A New Hampshire Republican, Smith served with McCain on the Senate Armed Services Committee, on a select committee on POWs missing in action, and on Republican policy committees. "He would disagree about something and then explode," Smith said. "[There were] incidents of irrational behavior. We've all had incidents where we have gotten angry, but I've never seen anyone act like that." McCain's outbursts often erupted when other members rebuffed his requests for support during his bid in 2000 for the Republican nomination for president. A former Senate staffer recalled what happened when McCain asked for support from a fellow Republican senator on the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee. More Bouts of Nastiness "The senator explained that he had already committed to support George Bush," the former Senate staffer said. "McCain said f*** you and never spoke to him again." "He had very few friends in the Senate," said former Sen. Smith, who dealt with McCain daily. "He has a lot of support around the country, but I don't think he has a lot of support from people who know him well." Senators are leery of speaking on the record about what McCain is really like. Bob Smith described his behavior reluctantly. A former Republican senator listed Chuck Grassley, Orrin Hatch, and Pete Dominici, fellow Republican senators, as being among those who have encountered McCain's outbursts, but none of them agreed to be interviewed on the subject. "People who disagree with him get the f*** you," said former Rep. John LeBoutillier, a New York Republican who had an encounter with McCain when he was on a POW task force in the House. "I think he is mentally unstable and not fit to be president." Andrew H. "Andy" Card Jr., President Bush's former chief of staff, told me he has observed McCain's outbursts. "Sometimes he was pretty angry, but I felt as if he was putting on a show," Card said in an interview for an Aug. 2 NewsMax article, "Andy Card: I Have Seen John McCain's Anger." "I don't know if it was an emotional eruption or it was for effect," Card said. Democrat Paul Johnson, the former mayor of Phoenix, saw McCain's temper up close. "His volatility borders in the area of being unstable," Johnson has said. ""Before I let this guy put his finger on the button, I would have to give considerable pause." In 1992, Robin Silver and Bob Witzeman, both medical doctors, met with McCain at his Phoenix office to discuss the endangered Mount Graham red squirrel. At the mention of the issue, McCain erupted. "He slammed his fists on his desk, scattering papers across the room," Silver said. "He jumped up and down, screaming obscenities at us for at least 10 minutes. He shook his fists as if he was going to slug us." After Silver pointed out that his behavior was inappropriate, "He apologized and was contrite," Silver said. Indeed, senators joke among themselves about their collection of "McCain Notes"— apologies McCain sends after he has unleashed a tirade. Many have thought that McCain might have developed his out-of-control temper while a POW. But as described in his military records, McCain's anger pre-dated his captivity. In one of the documents, Dr. P.F. O'Connell, a Navy psychiatrist who examined McCain in 1973, said McCain thought he had made progress in controlling his anger during his captivity. "He learned to control his temper better," the evaluation said, according to the Aug. 30 NewsMax article, "John McCain's Temper Preceded Vietnam." McCain's office did not respond to my requests for comment about his anger. However, when I appeared on Tucker Carlson's MSNBC show "The Situation" to discuss NewsMax's disclosures about McCain's anger on July 6, Carlson said on the air, "We got a call earlier tonight from McCain's Senate office suggesting that we not do this story. [They were] annoyed about it." Intimidation Tactics That hint at intimidation is one reason why major media outlets may think twice about revealing what they know about McCain's temper, which is widely whispered about in Washington. With the exception of NewsMax, no media outlet has been willing to suffer the possibility of lack of access to a candidate who could wind up in the White House by reporting the full story of McCain's dark side. In the past, McCain has alternately denied being prone to angry outbursts or admitted he struggles to control his anger or has claimed he only becomes angry over waste and abuse. But those who have experienced his anger say it does not erupt over policy issues or waste and abuse. Rather, his outbursts manifest themselves when peers disagree with McCain or tell him they won't support him. In his 2002 book, "Worth the Fighting For: A Memoir," McCain said, "I have a temper, to state the obvious, which I have tried to control with varying degrees of success because it does not always serve my interest or the public's." But the Baltimore Sun quoted McCain on March 20 as denying he had a temper. "Just because someone says it's there, you would have to provide some corroboration that it was," McCain said. "Because I do not lose my temper. I do not . . . for someone to say that McCain became just angry and yelled or raised my voice or — it's just not true," McCain said. Just two days earlier, however, McCain said at a forum in Scottsdale, Ariz., "I have had a bad temper in my life." Saying he displayed his temper in his early days in office, McCain said, "Every time I ever lost my temper, I regretted it since then." If McCain has trouble keeping his story straight, it has not detracted from his glowing press coverage. The media routinely portray McCain as an amiable war hero, a man of moderation and compassion. In part because McCain gives reporters access and charms them with his apparent openness, and in part because they relish his periodic criticisms of President Bush's policies and of the FBI and CIA, the media have largely ignored McCain's anger issues and a string of inappropriate, offensive comments he has made. For example, only a few news outlets, like the Phoenix New Times in Arizona and the National Journal, ran an Associated Press story reporting McCain's 1998 joke suggesting that Chelsea Clinton was ugly and that Janet Reno and Hillary Clinton were lesbians. "Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly?" McCain said at a GOP fund-raiser in Washington. "Because Janet Reno is her father." That joke was as offensive as Sen. George Allen's recent reference to a student of Indian descent as a "macaca," a genus of monkey, but because of the blackout by the media, few voters ever heard about it. In discussing Allen's "macaca" comment, the media referred to inappropriate remarks by other political candidates but never mentioned McCain's 2000 statement, "I hate the gooks," a racial epithet for Asians. McCain later apologized and said he was referring to his wartime captors. When McCain recently said it "grieves me so much" that the American people were "led to believe that this [the invasion of Iraq] would be some kind of a day at the beach," 177 news outlets ran the story. The Washington Post referred to McCain's criticism in 10 stories. The New York Times referred to it in three stories. But only two media outlets — MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews and Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume — referred to an AP story quoting McCain's March 2003 prediction on Hardball that U.S. forces would "absolutely, absolutely" be greeted as liberators. ‘Volcanic' at Times In a major exception to what it called the "fawning" treatment the national media give McCain, the Arizona Republic, in a front page article and separate editorial in October 1999, said it wanted the nation to know about the "volcanic" temper McCain had unleashed on top state officials. "McCain often insults people and flies off the handle," the editorial said. Moreover, he is often "sarcastic and condescending." The paper said that it was "time the rest of the nation learned about the John McCain we know in Arizona." The editorial said there is reason to "seriously question" whether McCain has the "temperament" to be president. Over the years, when people have come forward to relate their bizarre experiences with McCain, only minor local publications or the foreign press have run their accounts. The favored treatment is reminiscent of the way the press turned a blind eye to John F. Kennedy's dalliances — except that voters have far more need to know about evidence of instability in a candidate than about infidelities. The article in the February issue of Vanity Fair suggests why reporters love McCain. "What's so different about — and potentially risky for — McCain is his perpetual willingness to think out loud, unplugged and unfiltered," the article says. While the article raises the issue of McCain's temper and whether it could derail his chances in 2008, it never cites any examples. As the Aug. 30 NewsMax article pointed out, the letter to Barack Obama cited by Vanity Fair was an example of MCain's nastiness, not his out-of-control temper. "From what I can tell, McCain's temper is not so much worse than that of many other politicians I have known, from Rudy Giuliani to Bill Clinton," Purdum limply concludes in Vanity Fair. "He wastes no time on niceties. Each time I met him for a trip or an interview, he barely bothered to shake my hand . . . Nothing pathological there." The Big Question So far, no one has claimed that McCain's temper has manifested itself openly in front of a reporter such as Purdum writing a story about him. Nor does McCain's temper compare with Clinton's or Giuliani's. McCain displays what colleagues describe as vicious, irrational behavior when they disagree with him. Clinton and Giuliani get mad at subordinates in a more controlled way when they think they have not done their jobs. The question on the minds of many who know him well is not whether McCain spends time on niceties. Instead, the question is whether he has the character and temperament one would expect of anyone being hired for a job — particularly president of the United States. So far, the mainstream media have not seen fit to let voters make up their own minds. .................and here's MORE: http://prorev.com/2008/04/meet-other-john-mccain.html Friday, April 4 MEET THE OTHER JOHN MCCAIN MICHAEL KRANISH, BOSTON GLOBE, JAN 27 Senator Thad Cochran of Mississippi, who has known Senator John McCain for more than three decades, on Wednesday endorsed Mitt Romney for president. Cochran said his choice was prompted partly by his fear of how McCain might behave in the Oval Office. "The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine," Cochran said about McCain by phone. "He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me." McCain's run-ins with other Republican senators are legendary. Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa said in an interview that he was so upset by a McCain tirade that he didn't speak to him for two years. Grassley, who said he will make no endorsement, nonetheless says McCain is the most qualified among the five GOP candidates to be president. . . McCain supporters say the senator more recently has tamed his temper as well as his political style. For example, they note that while McCain in 2000 said some religious conservative leaders were "agents of intolerance," the senator made a point of courting some of the same leaders in this campaign. . . During McCain's 2000 campaign, his hometown newspaper, The Arizona Republic, published an editorial saying that the country should be warned about McCain's "volcanic" temper. In his memoir, "Worth the Fighting For," McCain provided what appears to be his fullest explanation of the subject, acknowledging his temper but writing that he sometimes uses it strategically. "My temper has often been both a matter of public speculation and personal concern," McCain wrote. "I have a temper, to state the obvious, which I have tried to control with varying degrees of success because it does not always serve my interest or the public's. I have regretted losing my temper on many occasions. But there are things worth getting angry about in politics, and I have at times tried to use my anger to incite public outrage. I make no apologies for that. . . . When public servants lose their capacity for outrage over practices injurious to the national interest, they have outlived their usefulness to the country." Grassley, the Iowa Republican, has often tangled with McCain over ethanol subsidies, which Grassley views as crucial and McCain has said he sees as wasteful. But the hottest disagreement took place when the two got into a heated argument in 1992 over McCain's contention that a former prisoner of war in Vietnam had been a traitor. McCain peered closely into Grassley's face as he shouted an obscenity at his Iowa colleague, according to reports published over the years. Grassley, asked whether the reports were accurate, acknowledged the feud and said: "We didn't speak for a couple of years. Then, one time, he came up to me and said, 'Chuck, we need to talk,' and we have had friendly conversations ever since.". . . McCain's feuds with other senators have surfaced regularly. McCain has written about how he screamed at Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama an inch away from his face after Shelby voted against the 1989 nomination of John Tower as defense secretary. "I was madder than hell when I accosted him . . . and the incident is one of the occasions when my temper lived up to its much exaggerated legend." While that encounter happened years ago, the Washington Post reported a similar outburst by McCain last year when he shouted an obscenity during a confrontation with Senator John Cornyn, the Texas Republican, over an immigration bill. By his own account, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the front-runner for the 2008 presidential race, had trouble controlling his anger long before he was a prisoner of war in Vietnam. RON KESSLER, 2006 Back in 1999, McCain allowed reporters from the Arizona Republic, New York Times, and The Associated Press to review 1,500 pages of his medical and psychiatric records from his service in the military. McCain would not allow reporters to copy the records. Only a few papers ran details relating to his temper. The documents, which include the results of annual psychiatric exams after he was released from a North Vietnamese prison in 1973, indicate McCain was not diagnosed with any psychiatric disorder and had adjusted well to his ordeal. McCain's imprisonment began in October 1967 when he was shot down over Hanoi. However, in response to the question, "What traits do you have that others object to?" McCain answered, "Quick temper.". . . A July 5 NewsMax article quoted former Sen. Bob Smith, a New Hampshire Republican who served with McCain on the Senate Armed Services Committee, as saying, "I have witnessed incidents where he has used profanity at colleagues and exploded at colleagues . . . He would disagree about something and then explode. It was incidents of irrational behavior. We've all had incidents where we have gotten angry, but I've never seen anyone act like that." McCain's outbursts often erupted when other members rebuffed his requests for support during his bid in 2000 for the Republican nomination for president, the story said. "People who disagree with him get the f*** you,'" said former Rep. John LeBoutillier, a New York Republican who had an encounter with McCain when he was on a POW task force in the House. "He had very few friends in the Senate," said former Sen. Smith, who dealt with McCain almost daily. "He has a lot of support around the country, but I don't think he has a lot of support from people who know him well.". . . At other times, McCain is simply nasty, those who know him say. Last February, McCain sent Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., a mocking letter, saying he wanted to "apologize" for "assuming" Obama's private assurances of working together were sincere. "I'm embarrassed to admit that after all these years in politics, I failed to interpret your previous assurances as typical rhetorical gloss routinely used in politics to make self-interested partisan posturing appear more noble," McCain said sarcastically. "Again, sorry for the confusion, but please be assured I won't make the same mistake again.". . . Democrat Paul Johnson, the former mayor of Phoenix, saw McCain's temper up close. "His volatility borders in the area of being unstable," Johnson has said. "Before I let this guy put his finger on the button, I would have to give considerable pause." "I think he is mentally unstable and not fit to be president," former congressman LeBoutillier said. Many have thought that McCain might have developed his out-of-control temper while a POW. But as described in his military records, McCain's anger pre-dated his captivity. Only a few news outlets, like the Phoenix New Times in Arizona and the National Journal have run an Associated Press story reporting McCain's 1998 joke suggesting that Chelsea Clinton was ugly and that Janet Reno and Hillary Clinton were lesbians. "Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly?" McCain said at a GOP fund-raiser in Washington. "Because Janet Reno is her father." In a major exception to what it called the "fawning" treatment the national media give McCain, the Arizona Republic, in a front page article and separate editorial in October 1999, said it wanted the nation to know about the "volcanic" temper McCain had unleashed on top state officials. "McCain often insults people and flies off the handle," the editorial said. Moreover, he is often "sarcastic and condescending." The paper said that it was "time the rest of the nation learned about the John McCain we know in Arizona." The editorial said there is reason to "seriously question" whether McCain has the "temperament" to be president. WONKETTE - In 1995, at the Capitol, McCain had a "scuffle" with 92-year-old Republican Senator Strom Thurmond. That's right, McCain tried to beat up the one person who was even older than McCain himself. . . . When two Arizona medical doctors met with McCain to discuss a local endangered squirrel, "He slammed his fists on his desk, scattering papers across the room . . . He jumped up and down, screaming obscenities at us for at least 10 minutes. He shook his fists as if he was going to slug us." and then get a load of this, from 1999: http://www.csbsju.edu/uspp/Election/mccain112899.htm We as a nation made a MAJOR MISTAKE giving a dangerous nut 8 years in the White House. BEWARE YOUR CHOOSING THIS TIME. Barack Obama for PRESIDENT!! The only reasonable vote.

I believe you are thinking "Iraqnam" concerning carbombs. There hasn't been a carbomb used against Zionland by militants in recent memory. If I'm wrong, name the date and location in Israel please. You can't and much less can you CONFIRM a RASH OF CARBOMBS that would precipitate (as you imply) the latest Zionland apartheid law as reported by Haaretz. There IS no problem of car bombings recently/currently in Israel. Get informed: http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/terrorism/terrisrael-10.html There HAS BEEN NO CAR BOMBINGS IN ISRAEL SINCE BEFORE 2006. (I didn't trouble to go back beyond that just to educate a shmuck) Guesteroo, your irresponsible speculation adds to the myth of championing a vile apartheid at the cost of countless lives and U.S. taxpayer dollars and should be called for the racist, dual standard mentality that it is. "JOOOOOOS" is spelled, "Jews," and they are no more evil or good than any other human beings. I (and I expect all decent people) resent your attempt at anti-Semite insinuations in a dullard's retort to what I posted. It will be a curiosity to refer to your silly post next week at the Passover gathering I will attend with my Jewish girlfriend and her family in Great Neck, New York. "MAZOL TOV!!!"

(Mr. Orwell, are you aware of this where you are?) http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=970367 Last update - 23:04 31/03/2008 Law sets 3-year jail penalty for car-owners who go to mechanics in PA By Zvi Zrachin, Haaretz Correspondent A penalty of three years' imprisonment will be imposed on Israeli vehicle-owners who take their vehicles to mechanics in the West Bank under a law passed by the Knesset on Monday. The new law, presented by Likud MK Moshe Kahlon, prohibits Israeli-registered vehicles from being repaired by mechanics in territories under Palestinian Authority control, including those that are towed there by another vehicle. The law will empower police officers to confiscate any vehicle in violation of it, as well as the vehicle license from its owner, and the vehicle that towed it to the Palestinian territories. Police statistics show that around 50 Israeli vehicles are dismantled by mechanics in Palestinian territories each day after accidents, and their parts are then transferred to Israeli mechanics or used-car dealerships. The police will advise vehicle-owners of the new law through an advertising campaign as well as by placing signs at checkpoints at the entry points to the territories. The law will initially be implemented for two years and Defense Minister Ehud Barak is currently discussing its extension for another two with the Transport Ministry and the Knesset Economic Affairs Committee.