Law School Discussion

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - jeffislouie

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 50
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« on: October 05, 2008, 09:48:43 AM »

Here's the thing that folks like you fail to recognize - perhaps it's ideological pride, perhaps it is partisan hatred that has caused this to happen:

... or perhaps it was Harry Reid telling McCain and Obama to stay away.


Harry Reid?  You mean the king of dirty politics and pork?  You mean the man who made himself rich through dirty deals only possible due to his power?  You mean the man who would do anything to hurt the republican party?

Do you mean the Harry Reid who said:

“The Iraqi war is hopeless and the situation in Iraq is same as it was in Vietnam.” (patently false)

“I believe myself that the secretary of state, secretary of defense and — you have to make your own decisions as to what the president knows — that this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq.”

"the ethnic cleansing has taken place all over Iraq.”

"“President McCain even called the Obama approach naive”"

"The history of the last hundred years has been a toxic mix of oil and war"

"Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor, the Nazi invasion of Russia, Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, and countless other conflicts have been based in whole or in part on the world's addiction to oil." (US involvement in WWII was ALL about oil, right?)

Do you mean the Harry Reid who said No Nuclear plants, No clean coal, No Oil exploration and No to Windmills (they ruin the scenery)?

Harry Reid wants people to believe in their hearts that all republicans are evil and all Democrats are perfect.  He is a joke and, quite frankly, I wonder about any poster who would use him as a source.....

General Off-Topic Board / Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« on: October 04, 2008, 05:02:01 PM »

McCain returned to Washington so people would think he's a lot more important than he is.  He did jack poo, and the polls reflect that no one bought into his charade.  If you were actually fooled by that, you're dumber than any of us, Democrat or Republican, thought you were. 

The rest of that list is nothing more than recycled garbage from a Fox News-set completely panicked that their reign, which was built on years of misinformation and manipulation, is coming to an end.  Not worth comment.   


It's funny, but the liberals on this board seem okay with the idea that a sitting US Senator refused to come to Washington and instead told everyone to call him if they need him.  Perhaps what he meant to say to his constituents was "Screw you, I'm trying to win an election."

Here's the thing that folks like you fail to recognize - perhaps it's ideological pride, perhaps it is partisan hatred that has caused this to happen:

When the *&^% hits the fan and something needs to be done, John McCain responded and proved once again that he is committed to his country first.  He had a job to do - he is an active US Senator and this is a crisis.  Maybe folks like you don't care much for duty, but I assure you that folks like me do.

I hate the bailout.  I think McCain should have opposed it.  It very well may have guaranteed an election.  It is a pork laden bailout of the greedy who were required by a law introduced then strengthened by the democrats to give awful loans that got us into this mess to begin with.  Instead of responding to our financial crisis, Barrack Obama chose to blame it on the republicans (which is ridiculous, though a certain amount of blame should be directed to those Repubs who ignored the mounting crisis over the past 4 years or so) while John McCain once again rallied to avoid the blame game and get a fix in place.

Saxby, I simply cannot believe that you could honestly believe the sort of nonsense you spew.  You can try to minimize the questions that need to be asked, but in reality you should be outraged that the media completely failed you because they, much like you, want Obama in office no matter what he's done (or not done) and no matter what he says (or lies about).

Why is it that folks on your side (maybe you too?) simply couldn't wait to make false accusations and launch a massive investigation into Sarah Palin, yet even the mere mention of any possible impropriety by Barrack Obama get's characterized as 'recycled garbage from a fox news - set'. 

It is also clearly obvious from your statements that you are still sore about losing to Bush.  Twice.  Hey, I voted for Gore, then Kerry too.  The difference is that I don't live in the past and have learned to accept the fact that Bush won, fair and square (well, maybe the second time anyway).

So tell me, Sax - where is the conclusive investigation into the questions raised about Obama?

It doesn't exist.  Simply put, the media let you and me down.  They simply refused to investigate, that is until right wingers pushed hard enough so that they had to (remember Reverend Wright?  That story was broken by conservative, right wing radio.).

I guess you must be one of those Howard Dean lovers who believe in a win at any cost.  Who cares about the careful selection of a President?  One of the reasons I left the Democratic party was exactly this sort of 'anyone is better than a republican' mindset.  We are supposed to be electing the best man for the job, and instead folks like you don't care if he's actually the best for the job.  As long as he's not a republican, he's good to go.

That a very intelligent way to make a decision.  Bush evil.  Got it.

General Off-Topic Board / Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« on: October 04, 2008, 12:32:49 PM »
Don't worry too much, Blue.

Word from the McCain camp is that the Senator intends to ramp up his rhetoric and challenge Obama during the upcoming debate.  It should be interesting because it is townhall style, a forum type that McCain excels at and Obama tends to bumble through.....

Expect McCain to discuss:
- Obama's propensity to vote present, made glaringly obvious during the financial crisis we saw recently.  While McCain suspended his campaign and headed back to washington to try to bring politicians to the table, Obama's response was a documented "call me if you need me."  Who does America want to lead, the guy who takes a chance, drops his campaigning and heads back to get involved or the guy who tells America that the enormous financial meltdown is 'above his paygrade' or some other such nonsense.
- Obama's ties to radicals, unrepentant terrorists, and Chicago based dirty fundraisers.  Obama has some explaining to do and the media has been largely passive about investigating any of this, often taking the Obama camps word for it.
- Obama's ridiculously socialistic and unrealistic spending plans.  We're in a financial crisis and he STILL refuses to consider reducing his spending plans.
- Obama's lie that taxing corporations and the wealthy won't have any effect of middle America.  One simple question will illustrate this:  If we raise taxes on business and businesses in every industry pay existing taxes by including that tax into the cost of goods and services, won't that mean that EVERYONE will pay more for EVERYTHING?
- Obama's desire to ignore the fact that the top 10% of earners pay 90% of the tax load already.  The middle class already pays a low tax burden.  His promise to raise taxes on the top earners does not include any tax cuts for the poor or middle class.  In fact, he has no plans to reduce the tax on the lower and middle class, instead promising that "anyone earning less than $250,000 won't pay a single penny more than they pay now".
- Obama's dirty campaign practices like having other democrats make sexist statements and his insistence on playing the race card, then claiming the right is racist.
- Obama's admission that he would be happy to entertain meeting with the leaders of Iran and North Korea (as well as heads of terrorist ststes) without preconditions.
- Obama's own VP nominee's own stated belief that Obama is not ready to lead and that this is "no time for on the job training".
- Obama's ties to ACORN and all the scandals involving that group.
- Obama's record of voting present, unless he had been told to vote the party line.
- Obama's racist remarks in his books, aimed at white people.
- Obama's celebrity status in the US Senate where he did nothing, then ran for President.
- Obama's lack of any actual record of real change
- Obama's total lack of leadership experience (running for President isn't executive experience)
- Obama's world tour where he dissed the US on foreign ground to crowds who showed up to hear a free rock concert.
- Obama's hideously negative campaign
- Obama's history of winning election through dirty political maneuvers (He wouldn't have been elected the Illinois Senate had he not insisted that certain embarrassing divorce documents came to light, which he said shouldn't be an issue after he had made sure it was made public).
- Obama's inability to actually reach across the aisle to accomplish anything.
- Obama's refusal to admit that the surge not only worked, but was essential to winning the war when he and his democrat buddies had declared the war lost.
- Obama's refusal to denounce the statements of his democrat allies regarding our military bombing civilians and raiding villages in the dead of night (including his running mate, who by the way wanted to segregate Iraq into individual areas, an idea wholly rejected by the Iraqi's themselves).

and much, much more.

Don't worry - now is when the McCain camp steps forward and shows the country what leadership and integrity look like.

Change and hope are not strategies, they are 'just words'.

General Off-Topic Board / Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« on: October 03, 2008, 01:33:41 PM »
there is no "list" -- the truth of the matter is that it was a hypothetical discussion, which lead to the firing of the wasilla librarian, according to both public records and reported in the anchorage daily news, september 4, 2008.  the librarian was reinstated the next day due to public outcry.

as to the rape kits, public records show that palin shifted the cost on budget documents from the police department to the victims.  you can find these documents on the city of wasilla's web site

these are public records. rather easy to find, too. 

I will repeat myself because I have researched both rumors (I was curious).

The book banning question was a hypothetical, framed in a way more like "How would you handle a request to ban a book?" than "How can I get this specific book banned?".  She was a new Mayor and wanted to know how that sort of thing is handled.  She never, not once, made any suggestion that she intended to ban a single book.  There is absolutely no record of any attempt to ban anything.  The story was fluff and nothing more than a short blurb piece.  There is no record whatsoever that Palin attempted to or intended to ban a single book ever.
So that charge is still a politically motivated hit as far as I am concerned.  If someone could produce a single example that documented such a request, I'd be very interested to hear it.  I love the first amendment too.

As for the rape kits, the story linking Palin to rape kits doesn't even include a reference to her statement on the issue.  She wasn't interviewed and it is a non-issue.  To date, not a single citizen ever paid for a rape kit under Palin.  The city wanted insurance companies to pay the cost of forensic health investigations, which is commonplace all over America.

Here's some documentation to ease your minds:

"The policy sought to have rape victims’ health insurance companies reimburse the city for the $500 to $1,200 cost of a forensic exam that is conducted after a sexual assault. Presumably, some of the cost might have been passed along to the victim through requirements for deductibles or co-payments, although victim advocates say they don’t know of anyone in the small town who had to pay such a fee.

The policy generated little if any controversy during the first four years after Palin became mayor in 1996. Anne Kilkenny, a civic activist in Wasilla who has written a widely circulated e-mail criticizing Palin, told PolitiFact she does not recall that the issue ever came up.

The policy came to light briefly in 2000 when the Alaska Legislature passed a law that required state and local law enforcement agencies pay the full cost of the exams.

“We would never bill the victim of a burglary for fingerprinting and photographing the crime scene, or for the cost of gathering other evidence,” then-Gov. Tony Knowles said when he signed the bill into law. “Nor should we bill rape victims just because the crime scene happens to be their bodies.”

Legislators and activists have said the law was prompted by Wasilla and several other communities with a similar policy.

But a search of the committee minutes for the bill found no mention of Wasilla or Palin. Nor could we find any indication that city officials spoke up about the bill until after it was passed, when Police Chief Charlie Fannon was quoted in the local newspaper The Frontiersman saying he opposed it.

“In the past we’ve charged the cost of exams to the victims’ insurance company when possible,” he told the newspaper. “I just don’t want to see any more burden put on the taxpayer.” He estimated the new law would cost his department $5,000 to $14,000 per year.

His comments suggest the city sought the money more from insurance companies than the victims themselves. The paper quoted him as saying that "ultimately, it is the criminal who should bear the burden of the added costs.”"


To date, not one single victim has come out publicly to state that they were charged for a rape kit.  Not one, and doing so would be disastrous to the ticket (and easy to do anonymously - journalists could keep such a persons identity confidential if they could find such a person).

The 'controversy' isn't worth a thing in light of the fact that there is no evidence that any rape victims have ever been charged.

It's a hit piece, plain and simple, and is without merit.

She did well; but as naturally noted above, this rather brings Palin's score back to 0 than bring it up into positive numbers. I was surprised to hear that before last night 25% of potential voters thought she had the ability to run the country--25%?? Who are these people? Last night's performance showed me she's clearly not as incompetent as she has heretofore appeared to be--but that does not mean she is competent to lead the country.

Don't get me wrong, I respect her. I thought her RNC speech was impressive, articulate, sharp in just the right ways, and effective. And I continue to marvel at her general poise and ability to maintain composure under pressure (usually). jeffislouie says she has "good intentions and leadership qualities"--maybe so, but neither of those are enough. People look for "leadership qualities" when hiring a kid out of high school to head a youth group. It is simply not sufficient in a VP or, god forbid, a president.

I do see passion, I do see poise and a commitment to her beliefs, and I respect her for all of those things. But she has still failed to convince me that she is even marginally capable of performing in the executive capacity.

On a slightly different note: Palin and Biden both stated quite clearly that they are opposed to gay marriage. I wasn't surprised to hear it from Palin; but both of them? I think that was the only moment of the debate that really gave me pause; not to reconsider my opinions of the better candidate, but to consider why it is people can reasonably believe it's not in the best interests of our country to acknowledge a broader and more inclusive understanding of marriage. What about Loving v. VA.? How is this any different?

The Democrats dirty little secret - they aren't really for gay rights per se, even though they tend to pander to that community.

Back when Kerry was running for President he made all kinds of promises to the gay community.  The girl I was dating at the time had a lesbian sister who was so pro-Kerry and anti-Bush based solely on this issue alone - so much so that she slammed her fists on the table when she found out that her own parents supported Bush (I didn't - I voted for Kerry).

So, let's look at what Kerry did to follow up on those promises with the power he retained even though he lost....
Answer?  Nothing.  He continues to 'support' gay rights but has failed to follow through on a single promise he made to homosexuals during his campaign.  I guess the only way to make legislative change is by becoming President - oh wait, he's a senator and has that power now.

I've always said that marriage is defined as between a man and a woman.  It is a religious notion and isn't likely to change anytime soon.  That said, I think gay people should be allowed to have the same committed relationship heterosexuals have, but they need to find a new term for it. 

Don't be surprised that both platforms refuse to support gay marriage.  An issue like that is too polarizing and would likely lose them the election.  Most Americans don't support the notion and most American's wouldn't support a candidate who supports the notion either.

What is the MSM? 

I admit that Palin often sounded better than Biden.  However, IMO Biden did a much better job addressing the actual questions and managing to throw a couple punches at McCain and Palin (although I don't think any landed too well).  It's unfortunate that our politics relies so heavily on HOW things sound, rather than WHAT substance underlies the message (and the probability of the candidate actually bringing said message to fruition).  But since that is what drives our politics, I must admit - Palin may have just turned the tide.

The MSM is the Main Stream Media.

The New York Times, Chicago Tribune, CNN, NBC, CBS etc.

Glad to see you have an open mind about Palin - it is genuinely refreshing.

General Off-Topic Board / Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« on: October 02, 2008, 11:09:36 PM »

Did you, in your anxiety to decry concern over abortion rights, miss the part where, while Palin was mayor, women in her town were required to pay for their own rape kits? That is, women bore a financial cost for the gathering of evidence when they reported a rape.

Yeah. She cares a lot about rape.

In response to the rest, see generally frybread's post above.

are you sure that rape victims don't have more than an issue of a potential pregnancy on their hands?

You don't even know what a rape kit is, do you?

palin did not make victims pay for rape are reaching...and that is a false statement..

you are are are digging...keep it up, are running out of time.... ;)


In 2000, she was mayor. She had been for four years. The police chief was her appointee, and unless you can show me somewhere that she said "oh hey, that statement you made about how it's too expensive for tax payers to pay for the collection of forensic evidence in rape cases? Yeah, not cool, cut it out," I'm holding her responsible for, at the least, not giving a poo. There's no way she didn't know about it, and I'd say the chances that she didn't approve, given what we know of the way she operates, are pretty slim.

I'm STILL waiting for a shred of proof that Palin ever forced a single woman to pay for her own rape kit, just as I am still waiting for a list of books Palin banned.

Is that going to be another example of an undocumented, yet widely held belief invented by a hysterical left-wing media trying to stir up controversy?

I'd like one example of a book she banned and/or one example of a rape victim paying for her own rape kit.....

Stop listening to the Obama lie machine - try looking into it yourself....

Palin was great and if you managed to escape CNN's ridiculous commentary afterward, it would be tough to argue otherwise.

Palin proved to be smart and accessible.  The pundits and media on the left decided she was an idiot and have been working nonstop to try and make this a reality.  Showing who she really is, she definitely changed the game.

Even CNN's polling data showed some interesting data at a time when politician is a dirty word.
70% said that Biden came off as more of a 'politician' than Palin.

I was pleasantly surprised to see that Gwen Ifill was a fair moderator, especially in light of her not so inconspicuous book "Breakthough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama" and it's ridiculous release date - Inauguration Day.  If you don't see this as a conflict of interest and highly suspect, I would ask that you consider if the moderator was a conservative with a book coming out on Inauguration Day called "Breakthrough: Politics in the Age of McCain".  Again- I thought she was fair and balanced and didn't see any apparent partisanship.

Personally, I can't wait for the fact checkers to find the lies told by Biden in the heat of the moment.  I respect Biden even though I disagree with him, but he was dead wrong on a few of his points about McCain (the vote on the authorization of force could not have been construed as anything but and Senator Fred Thompson flat out stated that McCain talked him into supporting action in Kosovo personally, amongst others).  Biden is a spin peddler and has a tendency to say things that sound nice in the moment, but are ridiculous.

Palin did a good job, even though I detected a little bit of evasiveness, and if people can put aside irrational hatred should have had their eyes open - this is no empty suit know nothing, but a serious, passionate woman with good intentions and leadership qualities.

Of course, I fully expect a negative reaction from the partisan left-wingers out there and more disrespectful untruths and lies about her, but that's how it works when you are a woman in politics that isn't a democrat.

People expected Palin to lose and big and she may have saved the McCain campaign.

Many say that McCain has been too harsh, but most conservatives I speak with find his campaign to be way too civil.  Expect to see stronger stances and tougher talk.  I'm still waiting for the McCain ad to come out consisting of Biden saying that Obama isn't "ready to be President" and that this "is no time for on the job training" from his pre-primary debates, followed by "I'm John McCain and I approve this message."

The MSM was hoping this debate would end the race.  Instead, it just got interesting.

General Off-Topic Board / Re: why obama win
« on: September 24, 2008, 12:07:25 PM »
Slug -

It's obvious you are new here (welcome).  My ad-hominem attack is well deserved.  Go read anything Julie has posted anywhere if you want to see a definition of ad-hominem.  What I wrote was less an attack than a compliment.

So you know people who have participated in polls?  Yes or no.  I still haven't spoken to anyone that has actually participated.  I am surrounded by professionals - mostly lawyers.  Not one has taken part in a poll.  I used to work at a fortune 500.  My team was a fair representation of the average voter - some were rich, some were poor, some had lots of education, some had little.  There were people from every background.  Of the 15 or so on that team that I used to talk politics with, none had participated in a poll.  So I will say it again - polls are relatively meaningless.  They are a snapshot of a group of supposedly random people who agree to be polled and take the time to take the polls, some of which do so with malicious intent to skew the numbers.  Scott Rasmussen was interviewed by a local talk host and he said 'even the a-holes should be represented'.

Don't make the mistake of interpreting my message as being anti-poll.  It isn't.  But like Scott Rasmussen, I understand that polls are a glimpse into a possibility and in no way are actual reliable predictors of anything.  Polls are random.  Some (i would wager quite a few) take the poll with either an intent to skew them or simply don't actually vote.

The economy DOESN'T shut down nights and weekends.  But the average single 9-5 employee is at work during the day.  When they get home, most don't want to talk to pollsters.  If you want to look at polls to try and predict trends or to try and see how a random group feels, that's okay.  But it is clearly more intelligent to view those polls with a grain of salt.  The most important poll we know of is the actual election, which as we both agree is relatively unpredictable.

My theory about housewives is that they tend to skew liberal.  Most of us have priority issues.  Some of us are single issue voters.  The appeal to the lazy for Obama is palpable - he gets the most positive coverage and many in the media have decided to glorify his holiness and attack McCain.  The fact is that many of us simply don't think the media has given McCain a fair shake.  They pretend that they are hard on Palin because they feel it is important to vet candidates.  Unfortunately for them, the facts bear out that these same media outlets all but refuse to vet Obama - to this day.  Obama coverage tends to be favorable, forgiving, and chock full of spin while McCain coverage tends to be critical, harsh, and negative.

The NYT printed a column by Obama which contained no preconditions.  When McCain responded with his own column, all of a sudden preconditions existed.  The NYT leveled unproven allegations against Sarah Palin while ignoring unproven allegations about Obama and Biden.  Hell, the NYT printed a ridiculous hit piece claiming McCain had an affair with a lobbyist.  They knew their source was crap and that the story wasn't true.  Did they print an investigation into Obama's ties with Rezko or Ayers?  Nah, they ignored it until they decided to make excuses for these stories.

And that's just the NYT.  

What about CNN's coverage of the republican convention vs. the democratic conventions?  CNN talked over speeched at the repub conventions and showed images of white people in suits.  Contrast that to the dem's convention, where they showed celebrity after celebrity and ignored the minorities who were hidden in the wings.  Then they complained about a lack of minorities at the repub convention, which they covered with an all-white male panel.

It's theater.

Polls are part of the theater.  Leaders lead.  Followers follow.  The left seems to want to follow the polls.  The right tends to resist it.

It's an observation, nothing more.  The same points are being made.  When I was SURE Kerry was going to win, I was one of those people who didn't understand how the polls showed he was up and the vote returned a different result.  Think what you want, but this thing is going to be a close one, polls be damned.

It IS interesting, however, that the polls don't reflect the enthusiasm the Obama camp claims exists.  If you listened to these folks talk about it, you'd think Obama was up 20 points.  He isn't.  We are looking at a close race.  Does that mean they are deluded?  Possibly.  It might mean that they are trying, with the media behaving like lapdogs, to convince people who don't care enough to find out for themselves that Obama is not only going to win, but the inevitable next POTUS.  Hence, when I say there is an appeal to the stupid I don't mean that true Obama supporters are stupid, but that you average American who DOESN'T care reads and hears every day that Obama is the next coming.

I live in Chicago.  I read both papers.  Neither has bothered to do much investigating of allegations regarding Obama.  Both have jumped in to criticize McCain and investigate Palin.  The media has an important role of impartial investigation to play.  Sadly, they don't care about that anymore and have chosen instead to use their positions to get Obama elected.  There is no impartial media.  Even Hillary admits that Fox news gave her the most fair and balanced coverage.  I think Fox's commentary is skewed right, but that's one station.  NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC and most newspapers tend to skew left.  So why the hubub?  Is it because they have a larger audience base?

The left thinks that the power play is to attack Palin as an awful choice.  Palin reenergized the party.  If she was such a bad choice, why is the race this close?  Because the left seems to think that she is a serious threat.  That choice undermined the faux feminism inherent to the overtly sexist democratic leadership.  Theater.

Both sides are guilty.

General Off-Topic Board / Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« on: September 19, 2008, 06:59:48 PM »
As the only true conservative on this board I feel I must say what can’t not be said by our party’s leadership: This whole McCain/Palin thing is yet another example of how McCain is not a true conservative. For Christ’s sakes he nominated a woman for VP. A WOMAN. WTF? Where are the religious right, the base of the party, this is a sin in the eyes of god a woman place is in home caring for the children. Its this kind of mindset and liberal thinking that has ruined the party for me. Now that Strom Thurman is dead, I guess I’ll just have to write in Pat Buchan’s name when I vote.  That or I’ll switch back my affiliation to Tory.

While some may see that McCain's choice of Palin is an abomination, it was a masterstroke designed to counter the effect of the true minion of evil, Hillary Clinton. May the world come to an end before that ilk sets foot in the White House again.

And Piggy, command experience is command experience.  While it may not be general officer experience, I will still take it as superior to Obama's demonstrated lack of fitness for the position.

this is weird to me. everyone claims that the media is being sexist in its coverage of palin, but where were all these people when hillary's hair, suits, and tone of voice were fair game to all pundits, conservative or liberal? i was a hillary fan who switched to obama, but after palin got picked in what stephen colbert called a "historic pandering", there is no way i'm trusting mccain's judgment.

We were there, upset but silent.  The democrats didn't exactly rally around that fight.  Makes you wonder which party is more sexist, doesn't it?  It should.  Besides, most of the conservative pundits were talking about bad Hillary policies and history, not what she wore.  Most of the sexism came from the left leaning media.

What I don't get (still) is why the democrats care.  If Palin was such a bad choice, you'd think that the dems poll numbers would be way up and the left would be celebrating McCain's stupidity.  It turns out, the left can't stop talking, thinking, and attacking Palin.  For close to two weeks (or was it three), all the left could do was compare Palin to Obama.  Frankly, Obama's relevant experience is minor compared to Palin's, and Palin is the VP candidate.  At least Palin ran something.  What did Obama run?  And don't say his campaign, because that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.  That means McCain is FAR more experienced than Obama because he's run for President more than once.  It's stupid.  Obama never had to make executive decisions.  He's voted with the party virtually every time he actually chose to vote.  And some of those votes are flat wrong to begin with.  Did you know Obama voted against a bill that would require doctors in Illinois to provide care for babies born alive after botched abortions?  It's true.  Nice decision.  The Obama camp says it's an 'out of context' vote.  Please tell me the context such a vote is acceptable.  Here's the context:  An abortion is attempted.  It fails.  The baby is born alive.  Obama refused to vote to for legislation that would require a doctor to provide care for the very much alive baby.  So a doctor can just let it die slowly, painfully, and horribly in Illinois, if Obama has his way.  A good issue vote for him, don't you think?  

Let's assume he had a problem with some other aspect of the bill - did he introduce another bill that made sure that a botched abortion baby received medical care?  Nope.  He did nothing.

Now I'm no single issue guy, but I will say that like McCain's military experience, it speaks to his character.  The question is - what does it say?

ok, seriously, if we're taking votes out of context like that, we could point to sarah palin inquiring about the process to ban library books OR voting against someone who wanted the city to absorb the cost of rape kits. these are all scare tactics. just as i don't agree with your perception of obama's born alive vote, i also don't buy it when the news media claims that sarah palin voted to make victims pay for their own rape kits. there may be some small nugget of truth in both cases, but they're both blown out of proportion and taken out of context.

i'm not the biggest obama fan ever. i agree with saxby that he will disappoint people who are convinced he's going to create "real change" in washington. i actually really liked and respected mccain in his 2000 campaign because he WAS a maverick. but the john mccain running this campaign has gone so far right that there's no way i can see him as anything else but another bush.

and by the way, i'm hopeful that conservatives will be able to maybe understand why hillary kept talking about media sexism after, and to a lesser extent, during her campaign. i don't condone sexism in any form, whether against hillary or palin. i do have a problem with mccain and palins' issue positions (abortion, drilling in ANWR, teaching creationism, denying global warming is at least exacerbated by humans, and approaches to foreign policy) so i support obama. i do appreciate that you recognize and hopefully take a stand against media sexism toward any female candidate, regardless of their partisan identification; i attempt to do the same for palin.

I'm not going to argue over Obama's voting record.  If you are really interested, here's an article about that vote:

It turns out, Palin didn't ban a single book.  That charge was ridiculous too.  I'm glad you saw that.  Sarah Palin didn't vote to make rape victims pay for their own rape kits either, and to date not one single Alaskan has.  Another empty scandal.

I have always believed that women can do anything a man can do.  Some things, they do better.  

They are better at the having babies thing, but other than that men rule.

So there isn't really a person in there hiding, huh....
Too bad.

Not. Funny.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 50