Hey Wicher, Yeah, so?  Apples and apples, like Red Delicious and Green Delicious?  We can compare a free democracy like the United States where its guiding documents were carefully crafted to avoid religious verbiage except the First Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the United States Bill of Rights that expressly prohibits the United States Congress from making laws “respecting an establishment of religion” or that prohibit the free exercise of religion, laws that infringe the freedom of speech, infringe the freedom of the press, limit the right to peaceably assemble, or limit the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.  So if a government embraces atheism, or one prohibits a national religion, what exactly is the difference except for a little different perspective?  I’ll answer.  It is “or that prohibit the free exercise of religion…” part that is the big difference.  One could rightly say they were both policies, China’s and America’s.

Re Shenonymous, September 21 at 10:45 pm #

A policy is a wide-ranging course of action used to guide a federal government in pursuing its goals.  China is a society which embraces a policy of “official atheism.” Unknown to many western readers of the popular press, China is drenched in movements like the Buddhist Falun Gong. Faith healing, apocalyptic sects and a myriad of assorted religious groups populate that huge country which is currently in the midst of a convulsive economic and social transition into contemporary times. China is also threatened with a political balkanization similar to which redrew the map of Europe; Muslim groups in the western part of the country are calling for secession. Within China itself, the warnings of Marx and Mao have taken on a peculiar relevancy, as an impoverished peasantry coexists precariously with a rising class of young technocrats
——————————————————————————
Shen,

So, China has a policy of discouraging ideologies which compete with the official state ideology which is still Communism, one of whose tenents is atheism. Compare that with the United States Constitution, the first ammendment of which succinctly state, run “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Tony Wicher, what exactly is the credo that China makes everybody say, i.e,, like the Apostle’s Creed, or the Athanasian Creed?  Atheism was a national policy in China, like the Council for National Policy (CNP), which is an umbrella organization and networking group for social conservative activists in the United States. It has been described by the The New York Times as a “little-known group of a few hundred of the most powerful conservatives in the country,” who meet three times yearly behind closed doors at undisclosed locations for a confidential conference.

A policy is a wide-ranging course of action used to guide a federal government in pursuing its goals.  China is a society which embraces a policy of “official atheism.” Unknown to many western readers of the popular press, China is drenched in movements like the Buddhist Falun Gong. Faith healing, apocalyptic sects and a myriad of assorted religious groups populate that huge country which is currently in the midst of a convulsive economic and social transition into contemporary times. China is also threatened with a political balkanization similar to which redrew the map of Europe; Muslim groups in the western part of the country are calling for secession. Within China itself, the warnings of Marx and Mao have taken on a peculiar relevancy, as an impoverished peasantry coexists precariously with a rising class of young technocrats

By Shenonymous, September 21 at 12:58 pm #

China did not and does not have an atheist ‘religion.’ Such a thing does not exist.  Taken from the following website:
http://www.cbbc.org/china_guide/religion.html
Religion in China is a complicated matter. The Chinese Communist Party - the ruling party in China - for a long time discouraged the practice of religion, officially because it was atheist but in reality because it believed religion was a dangerous alternative credo to communism.
—————————————————————————-
You call Communism a “credo”, as opposed to a religion?  Would you accept this way of putting it: Communism is an atheistic “credo” which is still the official state credo. Perhaps it is not taken seriously anymore in China. In our Constitution there is no statement of either the existence or the non-existence, but rather concerns rules of conduct to which all must adhere regardless of their religious affiliation or non-affiliation.

Do you think there were any parents who were atheists (raging or not, that wasn’t my question anyway) that put their children in the educating care of your Christian school

I am not sure, and since someone who remembers the families pretty well says ‘No’, then I will have to agree. 

But I dare say I know firsthand of home schooled kids who could not even get their foot in the door of a college without remedial or supplemental courses to bring them up to standard

Absolutely. So test them to find out!

If they do well on the SAT in English, then do not ‘remediate’ them simply because you dont agree with the homeschool (or Christian school) English text book that was used.

If homeschool (or Christian school) kids do poorly on the SAT in whatever subject then of course they need remediation. In short, treat them like other kids. No favors and no penalties.

Anything else looks like discrimination. Which is what I think happened. 

Given that Christian schools have a dogma to which students are taught, just as they would claim secular public schools follow the scientific-based curricula as dogmatic

I would not claim it is thoroughly scientific based. Particularly History and English. How could the public schools teach a ‘scientific based’ History class?

Could you give me an example of a Great Question please?

I know it happened. Just like I know they said funny things. Just like I know everyone laughed. But I dont remember what the jokes were. Not a single one. I am not trying to evade your question, I just dont remember. 1/2 hour every day of small group bible study with 8th graders. that alone offered plenty of chances for Great Questions. But I dont remember a specific thing that they or I did.

You may think Christian schools are freer philosophically speaking than public schools that teach the secular world view but as you say, it is only philosophically speaking and I highly doubt it is in reality speaking.

I see what you mean, but I think it was real. For example, my 8th grade science kids had to understand evolution. You cannot sweep things under a carpet. Or reject a theory that you dont understand. They had to know it better than the public school kids.

I gotta go!

China did not and does not have an atheist ‘religion.’  Such a thing does not exist.  Taken from the following website:
http://www.cbbc.org/china_guide/religion.html
Religion in China is a complicated matter. The Chinese Communist Party - the ruling party in China - for a long time discouraged the practice of religion, officially because it was atheist but in reality because it believed religion was a dangerous alternative credo to communism. Despite this, people in China continued to practise their religious beliefs - often at great personal risk. During the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s, large-scale religious persecutions were carried out and thousands of temples and churches destroyed.

With the gradual liberalisation that developed with Deng Xiaoping’s open door reforms, religion was no longer proscribed. In 1982, the constitution was amended to allow Chinese people considerable freedom of religion.

The three main traditional Chinese religions are Daoism, Confucianism and Buddhism. Islam and Christianity have also been present in smaller numbers in China for centuries. The government is still anti-‘cult’. This stems from the large numbers of cults which helped to bring down past Chinese governments - the Boxers, Yellow Hats and so on.  (If I may comment here that a key point to note) is that the communists are suspicious of any group that could claim people’s loyalty.  Religions fall into that category. The Falun Gong remains banned.

Also taken from http://www.cfr.org/publication/16272/
The Council on Foreign Relations

Religious observance in China is on the rise. According to a survey published in a state-run newspaper, 31.4 percent of Chinese adults are religious, a figure that is three times the initial government estimate. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is officially atheist, but it has been growing more tolerant of religious activity for the past twenty years.

Some people think anything, rightly or wrongly.  Atheism is not a religion.  It is ridiculous to say that.  Banning religion may be due to atheistic beliefs (belief that it is impossible to prove the existence of a god), one must be clear to see the distinction.  Some people are unable to make such distinctions.

Re: Tony

“First of all, my point concerned state sponsored religion, not religion in general. I pointed out that China’s official state religion is atheism, and that they have persecuted non-atheists, such as Tibetan Buddhists and the Falun Gong, in precisely the same manner as state religions have always persecuted people of other religions, including atheists.”

~~~~~~~~

I didn’t know this!!! I definitely didn’t know that China’s ‘official state religion was atheism.

Now that IS very interesting, (Shenonymous can provide the scoop on this far better than I) because my own ‘concept’ of atheism has never been as a ‘religion’ in and of itself.

Now I know that China doesn’t like ANY organized religion, but I never considered dismissal of all religions to be a religion itself. In fact, I’ve always believed their own policy about religion to be similar to Saddam’s, or any other country that is autocratic or otherwise. Bottom line, all forms of religion, (in the opinions of many social scientists) are a form of social control. Dictatorships rarely want to compete with any other entity for control of the population. So, anyone representing or even speaking of a religious affinity is persecuted in China. And, yep, that includes Chinese people. Like I said, they don’t just hate foreigners, they won’t tolerate anybody who might disrupt the social order of the state mandate.

Still, it’s an interesting topic to consider atheism as a religion unto itself, and if China actually states atheism as their ‘official’ religion, it would be interesting to explore that more. (probably not now, seeing as we’re going to hell in a handbasket, and China is as they’ve always been, so that’s probably not gonna change anytime soon).

Wait a minute OzarkMichael.  Apples and oranges syndrome.  Asking questions and being grateful to be in a Christian school are not even closely related.  Neat shift there, sign of a skilled con artist.  Do you think there were any parents who were atheists (raging or not, that wasn’t my question anyway) that put their children in the educating care of your Christian school (we will limit it to your school as it would be unfair for you to speak for all Christian schools.  One sample however does not give a clear picture of the quality of Christian school education.), especially since the doctrines would be infused in the teachings? 

I’m not saying your school isn’t a good school. Also many people home school and do a superb job, their kids get into colleges.  I know some.  But I dare say I know firsthand of home schooled kids who could not even get their foot in the door of a college without remedial or supplemental courses to bring them up to standard. 

Many public school children are also put into Catholic schools, and by the same token, many Catholic schooled children are put into public school.  All school environments and curricula are not the same. I also know this first hand being a public school teacher and having taught in two different states.  Also children are put into school environments for various reasons a lot have to do with behavior problems or learning disabilities, not for economic reasons as private schools are expensive, but probably proximity to residences.

The answer to my hypothetical is not quite answered.  I have had a lot of experience with children, and adult students as well (a University prof for many years).  Most children, students in general, do not like school and being made to learn anything.  It is difficult for most.  There are the few that do.  Whatever is the case, most of them do respect authority (although there are the few that do not), and if told they should be grateful their parents might be sacrificing for them to be in a school they may understand that or they may not and behave accordingly.  Children’s minds are very malleable.  Hence the very reason for childhood education.  Not many, if any, would ask searching questions.

Could you give me an example of a Great Question please?  And possibly how it would be answered?  Given that Christian schools have a dogma to which students are taught, just as they would claim secular public schools follow the scientific-based curricula as dogmatic, there is likely to be some disparity when Christian-schooled children get to colleges that are secular.  Also, what agency provided the standardized tests?  A fair question.

You also say the Christian school teacher has the freedom to discuss secular views.  But in fact do they?  Would it not be most difficult to hold a secular position objectively for rational discussion?  You may think Christian schools are freer philosophically speaking than public schools that teach the secular world view but as you say, it is only philosophically speaking and I highly doubt it is in reality speaking. 

Fact is that every public school I have taught in, all secular, a Bible was found in every classroom, but of course no Qur’an.  So on that score, I would say there was some non-objectivity.  Of course, Bibles are not supposed to be there either.  I cannot count the number of classrooms I have been in and taught classes in. 

But I thank you for this discussion.  It is quite civil and appreciated.

the original question: Can raging atheists or moslem’s and other faiths attend the Christian schools? Not that they would want to…

my answer was: I can answer the question about who was admitted to it and who was not.
Anybody could attend, including atheists.

Shenonymous asks: Did that ever happen?

my answer: No. No parent went so far as to identify themselves as atheist or Moslem for the 2 years that I was there.

However, some of the parents were not interested in the Christian part at all, but chose us because we were a good school. The parent checking us out asked, “Will college accept the graduate? Will the kid get good SAT scores? If I bring my kid there and then next year take him out, will the public school accept the year the kid was at the Christian school?”

We had records of twice yearly standardized tests to prove to them that our school was much better in advancing students than the public school. Kids who went back to public school invariably noticed that it was easier, that they ‘already knew everything’, and so even the families who left would admit we were educationally superior. They were our best advertisements.

Many parents with public school failing/expelled kids ended up at our door. They never announced themselves as athiest, but neither did they self identify with Christian beliefs. We did those kids a lot of good.
 
Shenonymous: I would have to ask a hypothetical, if one did attempt to attend and was allowed entrance, what would your school have done if a challenge were given to the instructor and/or school doctrines?

well, the hypothetical isnt so hypothetical, because kids ask questions. But frankly, most kids are grateful to be in a Christian school because they know that their parents are sacrificing for it. Furthermore, most children everywhere go along with what they are taught, and do not rage against the system. True?

But sometimes Great Questions were asked. When questions were asked with the impetus of budding reasoning behind them, asked with the sincerity that impresses any teacher anywhere, everything else stops and we discuss it. We Christians believe that our worldview is coherent and reasonable. I never saw any child’s question shut down. I never saw a child disrespected for disagreeing.

By contrast in secular public schools there are questions and discussions that might have to be shut down in order to maintain secularity. True?

The same sort of authority of a public school teacher to teach the secular world view is found in the Christian school teacher to teach a Christian worldview. Plus we had the freedom to discuss secular views. So philosophically speaking we were freer than the public school.

OzarkMichael says. I taught at a Christian school so I can answer the question about who was admitted to it and who was not.
Anybody could attend, including atheists.
Shenonymous asks: Did that ever happen?  Did an atheist ever attend classes at your Christian school?  If so, what happened when the atheist challenged the teachings?  If not, it was an irrelevant answer.  Or did you mean there was nothing ever written that said atheists could not attend.  Then I would have to ask a hypothetical, if one did attempt to attend and was allowed entrance, what would your school have done if a challenge were given to the instructor and/or school doctrines?  And of course, it could logically be assumed as certain (in a non-Cartesean manner) that would happen.

Wicher.  Of course belief is subjective, that is its definition, being a mental act of acceptance, whether it is true or not since truth has no relationship to belief.  What you have described is relativism in beliefs.  And you are right, there is nothing provable in beliefs except some beliefs are based on a pile of scientific research and are more legitimately believable than others.  Belief in god(s) is not one of the latter kind.  Atheists do not go about trying to prove god does not exist.  Believers are simply unable to prove god does exist.  But again I agree free thinking boat floating is the appropriate sailing disposition in a guaranteed free society.  The only action atheists take is to defend their unassailable right to not believe what another does.

Re cyrena, September 17 at 11:35 pm #

Tony,

I generally share your mindset on most things, but I definitely do NOT perceive atheism as just another religion. I’m an atheist myself, though agnostic may be more appropriate, (I have a tendency to get hung up on the definitions) since I do believe in a “Higher Power.”

But, that’s it. I can’t say that I believe in God, and neither do atheists. Like Shenonymous says, there might be degrees, (and definitely distinctions) of those who claim to be atheists. But I’ve never come across any atheists with any dogmatic ideology that lends to their non-believe in God. That’s kind of like trying to prove a negative.

Atheists don’t try to prove that God doesn’t exist.
——————————————————————————
cyrena,

This should be an interesting discussion. First of all, my point concerned state sponsored religion, not religion in general. I pointed out that China’s official state religion is atheism, and that they have persecuted non-atheists, such as Tibetan Buddhists and the Falun Gong, in precisely the same manner as state religions have always persecuted people of other religions, including atheists. So what’s the difference? Whether you want to call it a religion or not, the result is the same.

Atheism is defined as the belief that there is no God, whatever “God” means to the believer. Another believes there is a God, whatever that means to him. It’s merely a subjective belief in either case. Obviously there is nothing scientifically provable here. Whatever floats one’s boat, is what I say, as long as people don’t impose their beliefs on each other.

By Leefeller, September 18 at 5:15 am #

All thanks for the input and comments, sorry I may have not made myself clear, I was focusing on the Fundamental Christian Colleges which supplied Bush’s incompetent support for the attorney generals office.  We had heard some flap about this during the Valerie Plane episodes.

~~~~~~~

Ah Leefeller…I missed this. I understand now. You’re right of course…the Monica Goodling type…there were lots of them. (Remember she questioned one applicant on whether or not he had ever cheated on his wife…he should have slapped her - Monica that is, not his wife).

Anyway, with THOSE schools, I think it would be impossibly to get in, unless one was a fundamentalist Christian. But, who would WANT to?

Liberty University is the main supplier of the White House and Justice department staff, and that’s a Pat Robertson school. (I think, I could have him mixed up with another one of those whackos). Anyway, Liberty University is like next to the bottom of the bottom of so-called accredited schools. So, the only thing anyone could do with a degree from that school, would be to work for the Bush-Cheney Admin.

Or, maybe they could move to Alaska and work for Palin.

Continuing with my pig metaphor:  Here are a couple to chew on…

“A pig has its own nature; no one can take that away from him, it can’t be changed, why blame the poor thing?”

“Good manners are spoiled by wrong relationships; don’t make friends with pigs!”

Hacking emails and publishing them on the Internet is pig behavior.  It doesn’t help the cause at all.  It gives justification for the Patriot Act, fools!

I see this thread has wandered off into a religious/metaphysical bent, so I offer this:

“There was a door to which I found no key,
There was a veil through which I could not see.
A little talk awhile of thee and me,
There was… and then no longer any talk
of me and thee.”

All thanks for the input and comments, sorry I may have not made myself clear, I was focusing on the Fundamental Christian Colleges which supplied Bush’s incompetent support for the attorney generals office.  We had heard some flap about this during the Valerie Plane episodes.

Leefeller,

I can’t answer for all, but I can weigh in to ditto Ozark Michael about my own experience. I attended Catholic School (yeah, they are Christians) grades K through 12. Non Catholics were accepted and perfectly welcome.

Tony,

I generally share your mindset on most things, but I definitely do NOT perceive atheism as just another religion. I’m an atheist myself, though agnostic may be more appropriate, (I have a tendency to get hung up on the definitions) since I do believe in a “Higher Power.”

But, that’s it. I can’t say that I believe in God, and neither do atheists. Like Shenonymous says, there might be degrees, (and definitely distinctions) of those who claim to be atheists. But I’ve never come across any atheists with any dogmatic ideology that lends to their non-believe in God. That’s kind of like trying to prove a negative.

Atheists don’t try to prove that God doesn’t exist.

Leefeller, some people are capable of making distinctions and others are not.  When it comes to atheists, there are different species as much as there are different cults and sects of over 400 religions recorded as existing in the world today.  Anyone who considers atheism a religion is ignorant of both atheism and theism and cannot speak intelligently of either.  These uncultivated should rightly be ignored. 

“If it looks like a pig, sounds like a pig, acts like pig, don’t be mistaking, it is a pig!”

A She modification:  If it looks like an atheist, sounds like an atheist, acts like an atheist, don’t be mistaking, it is definitely an atheist!

Tony Witcher,

Yes, you made yourself clear, thank you.

OM,  Thanks for your reply.

By Leefeller, September 17 at 2:20 am #

Also I find it amusing, you corn holed the atheists and not the religions?
——————————————————————————
To me atheism is just another religion as dogmatic as the rest and state-sponsored atheism is no better and no worse than any other state-sponsored religion, Christian, Jewish, Muslim or other. Do I make myself clear?

I taught at a Christian school so I can answer the question about who was admitted to it and who was not.

Anybody could attend, including atheists.

Tony Witcher,

I was not promoting a state religion, my question was asking would the Christian schools allow,  non fundamental Christian members in.

This reminds me of the big flap about the air force academy and its alleged Christian fundamental demands on it’s students.

It is very hard to get to the truth even on TD.

Also I find it amusing, you corn holed the atheists and not the religions?

Tony Witcher,

I was not promoting a state religion, my question was asking would the Christian schools allow,  non fundamental Christian members in.

This reminds me of the big flap about the air force academy and its alleged Christian fundamental demands on it’s students.

It is very hard to get to the truth even on TD.

Also I find it ammusing, you corn holed the artists and not the religions?

She seems quite a cannibal I would say
Looks like Ms. Piggy of Muppet fame
Loves her pork, just the same

Wicher - there are atheists and there are atheists.  They are not all of one stripe.  Please make distinctions, thank you.  Or maybe you don’t know enough about atheism to say much.

By Leefeller, September 16 at 9:44 am #

OzarkMichael,

Can raging atheists or moslem’s and other faiths attend the Christian schools? Not that they would want to and I know it is not the same thing, but just curious.
——————————————————————————
Leefeller,

Let us not forget that atheism was the official state religion of the Soviet Union and still is the official state religion of China. It is just as oppressive as any other state religion.

OzarkMichael:  ”If you approve of this attack on the Christian school, what is to prevent the State University of California from ‘finding’ that the Catholic schools are ‘deficient in critical thinking?’ Certainly an atheist could have the opinion that there is some lack of critical thinking in Catholic schools. Catholic school textbooks in some subjects(maybe all subjects) arent completely secularized, are they?” Shenonymous;  Yes, that would be an atheist’s argument when it comes to scientific matters.  Particularly if these students brought the bible in as truth to science classes, but I haven’t heard that the catholics do that.  Have you?  I would say there is some lack of critical thinking in Catholicism in general.  But you know where I’m coming from.  I’d say that is even more descriptive of Islam and Evangelical Christians.  So there you go, three with one blow.  I need to get a belt to notch.

OM “.....outperform the public school kids in everything.”  Shenonymous:  Everything?  Where do you get your statistics on this?  I’d be very interested in seeing them.

OM But an unproven belief is a prejudice no matter how educated someone claims to be. And to act upon that prejudice is discrimination.  Shenonymous:  Agreed.  All religions are based on unproven beliefs.  For McCain and Palin to keep lying about Obama is prejudicial discrimination.

The Pig
The Pig, if I am not mistaken,
Gives us ham and pork and bacon,
Oil drilling subsidies and bridges that go nowhere.
Let others think his heart is big,
I think it deceitful of the Pig.

by Ogden Nash with some slight modification by Shenonymous

OzarkMichael,

Can raging atheists or moslem’s and other faiths attend the Christian schools? Not that they would want to and I know it is not the same thing, but just curious.

per shenonymous:Catholic schools get their students into big four year colleges and UC all the time, so it isn’t Christianity per se. It was particular Christian schools that are deficient in their teaching of critical thinking skills…

I remind you that these kids have fine SAT scores and that children from this school had done just fine at the U. of C. in years previous. These children were accepted to U of C. But when they showed up their counsellor informed them they needed remediation because of the school they came from.

If you approve of this attack on the Christian school, what is to prevent the State University of California from ‘finding’ that the Catholic schools are ‘deficient in critical thinking?’ Certainly an atheist could have the opinion that there is some lack of critical thinking in Catholic schools. Catholic school textbooks in some subjects(maybe all subjects) arent completely secularized, are they?

So the State University could decide to ‘remediate’ the catholic school students. Nevermind that these Catholic school kids(just like the independant Christian school kids) outperform the public school kids in everything and never had problems performing in college in previous years.

I remind you that it wasnt just creationism. It was history and even english that all these Christian school kids have to be ‘remediated’ in. Not because their scores in science or history or english were low. No. For no reason except that some atheist faculty member didnt like the Christian message in their history and english textbooks.

Were American people really so poorly educated 100 or 50 years ago before the public schools were secularized? Would you not say instead that American education generally and critical thinking in particular has taken a nose dive since our education went secular?

So is this really about critical thinking or is it about something else?

The idea that education from a christian worldview produces poor scholarship or leads to fascism is becoming prevalent, even though it is easily proven false. Yet the teachers at the state University of California teach it in their classrooms. Dont misunderstand, they are free to do so and i want them to have that freedom. And they are free to write books about it. And you are free to believe it.

Its all good.

But an unproven belief is a prejudice no matter how educated someone claims to be. And to act upon that prejudice is discrimination.

She,

Biden is waiting and going to pounce on her like a polar bear. He will surround her like a pack of wolves and devour her like a lame over weight carabu, where only her bones will be left for the buzzards, (do they have buzzards in Alaska)?. 

On the other hand, Biden may be quite the gentleman and help her into her new tanning machine at the cozy Trollup office.

Sorry I couldn’t help myself, the hell with the olive branch, gloves are off. My word and promises are useless, she is just made for funning at,  I hope she wins, I will be glued to Comedy Centrist and the other reality shows for the next four year and I do not usually watch he Telie.

Beerdoctor,

” McCain’s face reddened and he responded “At least I don’t plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you cunt.”

Thanks for that, I had the whole quote out of context, I thought he called her a F-ing C. word instead of trollop, so it was not near as bad as I thought.  Now his face turning red may be more important and have a connotative connection.

Where is Biden in all of this?  Why isn’t he counteracting with forceful issues and arguments to Palin?  Does he think he will just pounce at the debate?  That will make him look contemptible (there are other words but I just washed out my mouth).

re: Cyrena, Leefeller

from 1913 Webster’s: Trollop Trol"lop, n. [from Troll to roll, to stroll; but cf.also Trull]
A stroller, a loiterer; esp., an idle, untidy woman; a slattern; a slut; a whore.

“I thought trollop’s lived under bridges, but maybe I have got it wrong.”

~~~

Oh Leefeller, you’re thinking of TROLLS, not trollop’s. It’s TROLLS that live under bridges.

Oh Shit! I may be wrong myself. That was in the old days. THESE DAYS…any and everybody lives under bridges..or freeway overpasses, or trees, or apartment complexes, (the parking garages) or on the side of the highway, or….

It’s not just for trolls anymore….

re: Leefeller

(from 1992) At one point, Cindy playfully twirled McCain’s hair and said, “You’re getting a little thin up there.” McCain’s face reddened and he responded “At least I don’t plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you cunt.”

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/McCain_temper_boiled_over_in_92_0407.html

In Praise of a Pig
A pig is a jolly companion,
Boar, sow, barrow, or gilt—
A pig is a pal, who’ll boost your morale,
Though mountains may topple and tilt.
When they’ve blackballed, bamboozled, and burned you,
When they’ve turned on you, Tory and Whig,
Though you may be thrown over by Tabby and Rover,
You’ll never go wrong with a pig, a pig,
You’ll never go wrong with a pig!

Thomas Pynchon, Gravity’s Rainbow

Hold on, everything has changed, McCain has just announced or admitted that Obama did not call Pailin a pig, don’t you feel better now?

Beerdoctor,

When did McCain use the word trollop?  Palin has come on board all of a sudden the word appears? I thought trollop’s lived under bridges, but maybe I have got it wrong.  Trollop: A women perceived as sexually disreputable or oozing fertility? Not sure if this is correct, but does sound like someone in the news recently.

It ain’t no trick to get rich quick,
  (even when the Dow, et al falls down)
  If ya Dig, Dig, Dig on Wall Street with a shovel or a pick…
  ...Or an oil rig…
  Or in a mine, in a mine, in a mine,
  In a mine where a million backs sweat to make your pocketbook fat.
  Shine, F’sure…Shine On Columbia,
  We Dig, Dig, Dig, Dig Dig, Dig, Dig, Clicking our tongues to the beat of… politics?  Though We Don’t Know What We Dig For. WHO GETS THE BUZZ?
  We Dig to our Souls’ content, while The World Is Dying…and People.
  A Thousand Reasons A Day are given us to keep the faithby Those who are safe in white houses, American classical domes, and five-sided compounds.  Why?  For the sake of belief!  For what other reason?
The Hollow Sound Never Stops As We…We Dig, Dig Dig-A-Dig, Dig

      HEIGH-HO, HEIGH-HO
  HEIGH-HO, HEIGH-HO, HEIGH-HO
    IT’S HOME FROM WORK WE GO .

Ideas are something not important to people who have their own comfort zone, enamored in their own belief system one that uses religion to guide them to make decisions.  People who feel threatened by logic and reason, instead they drape themselves in the flag and accept war as normal. Surrounding themselves in like thinking people pursuing a similar agenda.  A way to live ones life with a certain feelings of security by attacking differences of ideas with gusto.

No, ideas are not even in the room with these people and when they see something that even looks like and idea, it is perceived as a threat.

re: Cyrena

Thank you Cyrena for picking up on what I was pointing out. It is indeed troubling that someone within the McCain/Palin team is enamored of Pegler, rather archaic come to think of it, like John McCain’s use of the word trollop.
Peace and blessings.

Good morning,  We shall be civilized! (my new bumper sticker)

I think libertarian you are onto something.  And this is the first time I have ever agreed with a libertarian of any kind.  But then, these are desperate times.

I trust while I am off to work today HEIGH-HO, HEIGH-HO
  HEIGH-HO, HEIGH-HO
    IT’S OFF TO WORK I GO… y’all will keep this forum red hot, ya hear?!

We dig, dig, dig, dig dig, dig, dig
  in our mine of politics
      we dig, dig, dig,  the whole day through
  to dig, dig, dig, dig dig dig is what we like to do on Truthdig,   
      dig, from early morn ‘til night
    we dig, dig, dig, dig dig, dig, dig up…
    everything in sight,.
Next verse next time.

OzarkMichael writes in response to thebeerdoctor:

“…my comment: Lets see if I follow it.
“op-ed piece by NY Times guy quotes some other guy from the WSJ… who identified(whatever that means)… a portion of Palins speech(an idea? a phrase?)… by Westbrook Pegler… Westbrook Pegler?… Westwood Pegler?… my dad said… a columnist…nasty piece of business… opposed unions… hated FDR… like Senator McCarthy… theres always somebody needing deportation.”
Aside from the meaningful father-handing-knowledge-down-to-son part, what did it all mean?
~~~~~~~
OzarkMichael,

Here’s my interpretation of what thebeerdoctor wrote:

Sarah Palin’s speech at the RNC was PLAGIARIZED. I suspect that it probably wasn’t plagiarized by her directly, because as I believe cann4ing pointed out, it’s unlikely that she wrote any of the speech. It’s unlikely that Sarah Palin writes ANY speeches. (or as unlikely as it is that GW Bush writes any of *his* own speeches). So, that’s the ONE thing that I picked up from thebeerdoctor’s comments.

He may also have been relaying a secondary message regarding the ideology of whomever put the speech together, that Sarah Palin was perfectly willing to regurgitate. Now since Obama has already been accused of repeating a single phrase from the speech of a friend and colleague, (with the permission of the friend/colleague) that really would be enough to slam onto Palin, if there were not far more serious things to be concerned about with her. And, that was, I suspect, thebeerdoctor’s other point. Maybe even his main point.

The ideologies that are borrowed, coined, plagiarized from ANYONE, ARE in fact important for the population to know about in selecting a president or other political leader.

The addition of Sarah Palin to the republican ticket has literally scared the shit out of me for two very serious reasons. First, her personal ideology is life threatening to our overall society, because we know that she could not govern detached from it. Maybe even more frightening is that fact that she could not govern, AT ALL. Not the US of the 21st Century. Maybe Wasilia, Alaska, (though I understand she’s had troubles with even that) but not the USA at the Federal level.

Ozark Michael, I say this with ALL sincerity, *I* could do a far better job than either McCain or Sarah Palin, and I’m willing to bet that there are at least 100 million other natural born US citizens over the age of 35 that could as well.

Re: By Dan M, September 14 at 1:43 pm
1 of 2

•  “…and there we go again pointing fingers at each other, all the while forgetting that the ones who made out could care less about political parties and boundries but more about lining there own filthy pockets out of greed.”

Dan, you seemed to hit it right on the head with this, and this has been often voiced on these forums here. (well, at least I have…some others as well). In the lead-up though, you say that such blame cannot be placed on specific *political parties*. I can sort of conceptually agree with that, at least in part. It would be true to say that at least here among the masses of us, the greedy that you describe are certainly as scattered among parties, or not connected at all. In short, they’re just greedy, and it has nothing to do with anything but them.

However, that isn’t the case with the ones who REALLY ‘made out’. IOW’s, the guy you know fixing the mortgage loans because ‘everybody does it’ is a lightweight. Like the difference between holding up a 7-11 or a Wells Fargo truck. The ones who have ‘really made out’ have managed to do the equivalent of draining Ft. Knox, or whatever else it is that the real loot is stashed. That they’ve actually looted the national treasury is somehow scarier, (for me) because it just shows how overwhelming the swindle has been. THIS has been accomplished by a Cabal of the Elite, and the bottom line is that most of them ARE republicans, and are involved as actors in US political affairs, and have been for decades. And, if we had to come up with a list, I’m willing to wager that we could keep it at or under 100 names, and still cover most of the ones that have benefited from what has been nothing more than a PLANNED GRAND HEIST!!!

IOW, I don’t see this depression as the standard cycle in what has been a ‘free market’ economy. I’m also not an expert the topic of economics, though I do know the fundamentals. Political theory is something I’m far better at though, and I can say that what has occurred has been the victimization of 300+ million Americans, at the hands of less than 1% of the population, and that IS political. The measures that have been taken in order to accomplish this Grand Theft, are very dependant on the manipulation of our political system. Because, at the foundation, the *economy* of any society is ALWAYS part and parcel of the political system, regardless of what form the political system takes.

2 of 2

Be that as it may, I understand the Catch in the attempt to make this upcoming presidential election ‘about’ the ‘economy’, because while I could argue that there HAVE been some elections where the economy has been a primary factor, (and more recently than 8 elections ago) I still don’t believe that it is the ‘economy’ itself that has collapsed. Others might argue otherwise, because of inflation, and the restrictions on lending. Add to that the highest unemployment we’ve had in decades, the collapse of not just the housing industry, but the overall infrastructure and the transportation (air and rail) industry collapse. Then there is the huge trade deficit, (we import nearly EVERYTHING now, exporting only weapons and related components) which all signals a bottomed out economy.

Still, this isn’t the same as the fundamental cyclical nature of a free market economy, or even the economy as it has existed in the US. It’s not your standard ‘recession’, because it’s a Grand Theft!! We are actually far closer to the conditions of a depression, but not because the market has crashed in the manner it did in the early decades of the 20th Century. No, this has been far more manipulated as a mechanism to enrich a few by obscene measures, at the expense of the rest of us, and an entire system.

The Wars have been just one vehicle by which they’ve managed to do this. The outsourcing of the Corps, (NAFTA is *very* POLITICAL, and so is the IMF and the World Bank) and the swindling in the banking/housing/energy industries have been other vehicles of the same grand heist.

re: OzarkMichael

To clarify. I do not think Governor Palin even knows who Westbrook Pegler was. The reason she inserted his comment about the kind of people we grow in small towns, reveals that some hired gun speech writer does. In other words, she is just mouthing what is put in front of her. Rather fraudulent wouldn’t you say? At least when Senator Obama uses the phrase “the fierce urgency of now” he acknowledges that the source was Dr. King.
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2008/09/sarah-palin-and-westbrook-pegler.html

You are too fast, I couln’t get away…oh oh oh too bad for me.
I thought facts weren’t necessarily what swings voters but that emotional values issues do. And since the measure never made it out of the Illinois Senate committee I guess distorted facts can qualify for false truth but then false truth is a truth of a sort in the realm of truths by some distortion of logic. And we are all becoming expert at distortion of truth, aren’t we?  Doanchaluvit?

Truth not a false truth: Fact: Bill 0099 was a sex-education bill introduced in Illinois, which Mr. Obama did not sponsor and which never became law.  See the NYTimes article for reported truth (whatever that could be).  Already cited by me below at.

Emotion:  At that time, Mr. Obama stated that he understood the main objective of the legislation, as it pertained to kindergarteners, to be to teach them how to defend themselves against sexual predators. 

Fact:  {The McCain} advertisement, then, also misrepresents what the bill meant by “comprehensive.” The instruction the bill required was comprehensive in that it called for a curriculum that went from kindergarten and through high school, not in the sense that kindergarteners would have been fully exposed to the entire gamut of sex-related issues.”  Emotion:  Let’s get real here.  If reality is what you want.  Otherwise stay in your fantasy land of distortion.

So!  What IS the truth?

I’m outta here til dark.

As we look at the current state of the union, we find ourselves at idealogical crossroads. The three current problems facing our nation economically are: Housing, Fuel and War. Please note that a lot of people will put in the mix that the presidential race also has a lot to do with the economy, but I am going to dismiss that idea as studies have shown that our economy in the last 8 elections did not suffer.
I am of the opinion that two of the three problems we face are a direct result of greed, and that no political party is more or less absolved of the nature of these crimes.
The war in itself is a political bombshell, and as it progresses, we fall deeper and deeper into debt. This, of course, hurts our dollar and so forth it goes.
As I stated earlier, fuel prices are killing our economy, heck, even Starbucks is feeling the affects of this. People are actually foregoing their morning cup of java for the extra gallon of fuel they will get. Fuel prices have already taken their toll on almost every business in America.
Now, couple this with the housing industry collapse. I remember Alan Greenspan commenting a few years back that the collapse of the housing market would shake the very foundations of our nation (I am ad libbing here as I am not going to do the research to bring his exact statement for your eyes).
You cannot blame a political party for what has taken place. The “free” market was in place and the end results are from that process. Should it have been put in check while it was happening? Yeah, it should have, but it didn’t because of greed. Now, I know the liberals will say the current administration should have stepped in long before the problems got out of hand and the conservatives will say that initiatives were presented in congress but nothing could get through and there we go again pointing fingers at each other, all the while forgetting that the ones who made out could care less about political parties and boundries but more about lining there own filthy pockets out of greed.
I know personally of mortgage lenders falsifying loan applications so they could get their reserves (the amount over their buy rate at the banks)because “everyone else is doing it”.
While all this is going on real estate prices were soaring and Americans left & right (pun intended) were out there re-mortgaging their own homes and spending like never before. Greed, pure and simple, where in the heck was common sense? How could the property you lived on for 10 plus years all the sudden be worth twice it’s value? And there they went…into debt.
Fuel, now there’s a hot bed. How can a futures broker make over a billion dollars in one year? If you can’t answer that question then go ahead and google “Mafia Oil”, and then follow the links. When our own Attorney General comes out and states that there is a definite link between oil speculators and the mob, and within three or so days later has his Assistant Attorney General counter those statements. It’s the money. Billions and billions of dollars are traded in oil each year. If you don’t think that a horses head could wind up on somebody’s bed you would be sadly mistaken.
It’s time we all got together and stood united in the fight against corruption on both sides of our political system and stopped our own rhetoric about who’s damn lipstick we should we be wearing.

From the original document that Shenonymous took the time to link for everyone. Thanks to her we get to the bottom of things:

Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades K (6 crossed out on the committee worksheet and ‘K’ underscored)  through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread
of HIV AIDS… etc.

Technically the attack on Obama is factual, the words ‘comprehensive sex education’ are right there in front of grade ‘K’ on a piece of paper that came out of a committee that Obama worked on. He voted to approve that piece of paper. 

Even if he is the one who crossed out grade 6 and changed it to ‘K’, we all know Barack is a decent guy who wouldnt want anything inappropriate to be taught to kids. But a liberal’s interpretation of inappropriate might be different from the viewers and thats why the ad might work.

The Obama/kindergarten ad is the stuff that politicians throw at each other routinely. And its hard to put up with it when you are the one on the hot seat(except if its the other side. then its so true and funny that it ends up on Olberman’s Countdown and Truthdig!)

Whether these attack anything substantial is a separate issue from how factual they are.

It is on par with Gibson asking unanswerable questions to Palin in an interview. In both cases you can scream foul, but you are better off taking it as a test of your mettle. Explain or clarify or deny or ignore… its not easy to know how to handle it.

And I suspect that is what the moderates place alot of stock in, they watch for candidate’s reactions to ‘unfair’ attacks. And both sides will have plenty of opportunity to show how they deal with ‘false’ attacks in the next month or two.

Just one more pricklepost then on to more aesthetic endeavors, please indulge me:

Here is a good history of the creationist/evolutionist argument

http://www.talkreason.org/articles/HistoryID.cfm

If you think there is something wrong in this account please let me know. 

Bob, what makes you think Pelosi and Reid are there forever?  And you mistake trust for worship, you must be a true Republican.  Uh, why not let some of the wealth accumulated by the Massa-Successfuls pay a decent wage to the laborers who sweat at demeaning and lowpaying jobs just so they may continue to be successful?  The non-working is mostly that 6.1% now unemployed that your president and his administration has given us instead of a flourishing country we once had.  You mistake equitable and egalitarian society for failed communism, a picture you conservative would love to paint as the liberals, but you know what?  It just won’t work.  We out number you.

Our positive ideas are coming from the very bright Obama and too bad for you.

Lunch break and great topic!  Liberals rejoice indeed!
Here are the flaws in your argument OM.  Catholic schools get their students into big four year colleges and UC all the time, so it isn’t Christianity per se. It was particular Christian schools that are deficient in their teaching of critical thinking skills, and I can see why they do. Their own students would begin to question the bases of their creationist beliefs and that would undermine and cause to decay the entire fundamentalist right wing agenda of forcing an untestable theory. The arguments against teaching creationism in public school is now history and well documented. 

Second problem, the comparison is made for other student achievements is not comparable to Einstein who might have failed English since his skills in that subject was sorely lacking. Using Einstein as an example is good though since he represents what a genius is as one in particular subjects.  He most definitely was not a genius in language skills and while a musician was not a genius at music. We could give a fairly comprehensive list of things at which he was not a genius, but that distracts from the argument presented here.

Third, nothing wrong with ‘remedial’ courses, students do it all the time for various course material in which they are deficient. All graduating high school students who apply to college are not accepted.  Nothing new. The only problem is that conservative Christians are smarting because they are producing less than educated individuals who can think for themselves.  And that is too bad since the strength of any dogma is how well it can stand up to scrutiny. Even Catholics have the Jesuits who question their doctrines all the time.

Fourth point - there are plenty of religious people who would vote Democrat for the reasons that it is crucial to keep religion and the state separate and is precisely against why Ozark says some would vote Republican.  Hence, in effect that is not a good reason to reject progressivism.

Creationism is not an acceptable theory since it is not testable.  It is untested opinion not well argued.  When convincing argument happens then it should be included.  You obviously interpret the “founding fathers of democracy and the republic” a special way.  For there are those who wrote the documents that guided this country purposely to eliminate the tainting of religions, all religions, not just your flavor.

I suggest that if you want creationism to be acceptable at the university level that you provide supportable evidence that can stand up to similar tests in science to which all science is subject.  And like science has to accept that it could be wrong.  Science is always open to renewed vision based on new data.  Where in creationism is that permitted?

The old ideology of scientific creationism is now called creationism or intelligent design theory which are in effect anti-biblical accounts that explain the origins of the universe.  Biblical literalism can be disproved easily just by looking at what it is exactly that creationism wants people to believe.  Leaving aside the notion that the universe was created by a god, creationists demand that the world was created less than 10,000 years ago and in six 24 hours days all of life was created in its present form ignoring hundreds of years of archeological and anthropological evidence to the absolute contrary.  Do take a look at all the evidence for and against creationism not just take the word of someone who is emotionally attached to one side.

I declare right here and now that if any compelling argument could be made for both a supernatural god and creationist dogma to which I could not argue well against I would be willing to review my own beliefs and revise them accordingly.

OzarkMichael,

From what I understand Bush filled the Attorney Generals office with so called graduates from these selected colleges and their abilities and qualifications were in question, but not their loyalty to the President. 

Critical thought would be a handicap serving under Bush, I follow your point with the U.C. decision, but do not agree with the idea Obama should pander for the blind votes of faith fallers.

When and if Palin becomes president, this will change, Critical thought will become history.

per thebeerdoctor: A recent Op-Ed piece by Frank Rich in the NY Times, pointed out that the portion of Governor Palin’s RNC speech about small town America, was identified by Thomas Frank of the WSJ, as being written by Westbrook Pegler.
Westbrook Pegler? Who the hell was Westbrook Pegler?
I have my late father to thank for that. He revealed to me very long ago, what a nasty piece of business, this once upon a time famous, syndicated columnist, actually was.
Westbrook Pegler opposed labor unions as store front communist entities. He hated FDR and the democrats with zealous passion. And, like Senator Joseph McCarthy, there was always somebody needing deportation.

my comment: Lets see if I follow it.

“op-ed piece by NY Times guy quotes some other guy from the WSJ… who identified(whatever that means)... a portion of Palins speech(an idea? a phrase?)... by Westbrook Pegler… Westbrook Pegler?... Westwood Pegler?... my dad said… a columnist…nasty piece of business… opposed unions… hated FDR… like Senator McCarthy… theres always somebody needing deportation.”

Aside from the meaningful father-handing-knowledge-down-to-son part, what did it all mean?

If anyone wants to defend that series of statements as if it builds to any significance about Palin, be my guest. Except if you go for that sort of thing I will try to play a similar riff for you about Obama.

per shenonymous: And militarism is made a game, just look at how many computerized war games there are.

Dooh. Nicely tagged. Im ‘it’ now. I got a whole closet full of old war boardgames, and I buy a computer game every month. Usually they are strategy/war games. But let me set aside Shenonymous(she is hard to win against).

Regarding the thought process of the electorate and our education sytem, which so many of the people on this forum bemoan:

Rejoice, liberal america! Better days are coming!

Here is the story: the University of California accepted some students from a Christian school based on their grades and SAT scores. Which isnt anything special or new, students from this school routinely were accepted there and did just fine. Until someone in the faculty decided to check on the textbooks which the Christian school used.  And they found -horrors- that the high school science books were tainted with creationism. and American History texts were tainted with the notion that God has blessed America. and Civics was tainted with the notion that our first duty is to truth and to God and not merely to the state.

from the LA Times: Historians testifying for the university said that a history class titled “Christianity’s Influence on America” failed to teach critical thinking and relied on a book that attributed historical events to divine providence.

All of which, yes I know, you guys think is stupid. Palin embodies this stuff, yes I know. Stuff which one of you said ‘had more in common with Muslim fundamentalists than with the Founding fathers of the USA.’ 

Which is an ignorant thing to say! Most of the things taught in the Christian textbooks and which you are on Palin’s back about.. was acceptable to and encouraged by the Founding fathers of the USA.  But you can rest assured: our secular public education will eventually succeed (ie sink low enough) in washing away even a remembrance of that fact.
Anyway, to get back to the story, the state University of California won in the California federal court, so they can still ‘advise’ this year’s Christian school students that they are not ready for college because they ‘dont have critical thinking skills’.

Compared to Einstein, yes. But compared to other kids… from public schools… U of C has got to be kidding.

Not because of any defiency in the particular student, not by any objective criteria of his/her ability, not by standardized tests, not by past performance of similar students. The kids might even be geniuses. Their ‘flaw’ is that they recieved an education from the Christian worldview instead of the state-sponsored secular worldview. So the state is forcing them to take remedial courses.

Next on appeal I guess is the US 9th circuit(we know what they will do and that is nothing) so the kids have to take the remedial courses or not go to the college.

While Truthdiggers may rejoice at this little persecution as ‘progress’, they shouldnt. Because this is the sort of thing that steers many religious people to vote Republican.

When state power acts with bias against Christians, Democrats pay at the ballot box… whether Eugene Robinson thinks there are any issues or ideas at stake or not.

Palin might bring this U. of C. story up, perhaps at the debate. I know, I know. You guys wont be impressed. But unless Obama or Biden defends those Christian school kids, this is the sort of thing that solidifies that 5 to 10 point shift that has swung to McCain.

Here is a chance for Obama to show he cares more about what is just even if a lot of folks on his side might disagree with it. And lets make it a chance for you, too:
Would you want the next Supreme Court appointee to be the kind of person who would defend the Christian kid’s rights(even though you disagree with their views) or instead defend the right of the state via the U. of C. to ‘remediate’ the Christian world view?

Just one more thing for today, or maybe much later (there is a life outside of Truthdig, No?)

For a most objective and researched insight into why people vote the way they do, Republicans and Democrats alike, including yourself, you might spend the time to read the articles at these two sites.  Almost a guarantee that you will be much more informed than you were before and might help you regardless of your position figure out what you can do to affect how you talk to others about political matters:
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/haidt08/haidt08_index.html

http://www.edge.org/discourse/vote_morality.html#harriss

Jack appointed Bobby because of personal safety and with that insane Hoover on the prowl, John Kennedy needed the protection of Brother Bobby.  Except there were more pathological enemies than they could watch out for.  Both were murdered anyway.  However that may have been the case, Bobby was probably the best choice as Attorney General as he was detachedly ruthless.  Not that I didn’t support Bobby when he ran.  Ruthlessness in politicians is the Machiavellian motive and may or may not prove one to be a good leader.  It just could mean being aware of reality particularly the strength of the opposition.

Most wonderful parable Sambadaddy, most appreciated.  Worthy of printing out, which I did.  It now holds a place of honor on my fridge.  Could you go to work for Obama?

Big Scoop intelligently adds further evidence (description of the actual bill) to my intuition that the attack by McCain on Obama and sex education was to deflect attention away from the Palin daughter premarital sex pregnancy fiasco.  Here is a little more information to round it out if anybody cares about truth.
Illinois Senate bill 0099 and the absurd claim about a bill that never passed:
Mr. Obama voted for the State of Illinois in 2003 bill in committee, where it passed, but it never came to a full and final vote. The proposal called for “age and developmentally appropriate” sex education and also allowed parents the option of withdrawing their children from such classroom instruction if they felt that it clashed with their beliefs or values.

In referring to the sex-education bill, the McCain campaign is largely recycling old and discredited accusations:  For a fair assessment of Obama’s involvement with that bill and the misrepresentations by the McCain reckless attack ads, see the NYTimes article at
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/us/politics/11checkpoint.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

For the full text of the bill so you may check it out for yourself and be able to decide for yourself instead of relying on hearsay go to
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=3&GA=93&DocTypeId=SB&DocNum=99&GAID=3&LegID=734&SpecSess;=&Session;

I don’t know who would have expected better of McCain.

I remember a maverick, common-bred, common-raised mom raise her voice against the war back in 03. She voiced her personal opinion that she was ashamed that Bush the Lesser was from her home state of Texas.

That “one-of-us” woman was attacked by that machine of personal destruction called the conservative movement, and the “maverick” McCain never raised his voice to call for common decency, or that any US citizen should have the right to freedom of expression.

Heck, he is, this very minute, surrounded neck-deep by some of the very ones that turned Natalie Maines and the other Dixie Chicks into focuses for hatred that serve only to distract attention away from the truly important.

Recently, as we all (may) know, he even assigned the very person responsible for shaping the swift-boat style attacks against McCain himself in the 2000 race as Palin’s top strategy adviser.

Constructing straw men (sorry, that may be a sexist referent: “straw people”) upon whom to focus hatred is their very lifeblood. Avoiding the issues—because “common” people would flee in terror if they were told what is the real intent of plans they hope to put in place by maintaining the power of a newly-minted imperial presidency—is their sole purpose for being.

McCain has collected around him that Orwellian “Ministry of Truth” assembled by the very same Rumsfeld/Cheney/Delay/Abramoff/Scowcroft/Bush think-tank-campaigning-cabal 80% of the country theoretically wants to be rid of—down to, and now including, Karl Rove himself.

And yet. And yet. The MSM continues to transmit the continuous effluent of McCain lies while simultaneously focusing on Obama negatives. The pollsters only talk to “likely voters”—which tends to completely miss the vast ranks of never-before-having-participated voters energized by both Obama and a dawning understanding that McCain’s regime is leading this country straight down the toilet, and that this election may be the last chance to shake the handle. Polls ignoring this new invigorated voting bloc show the race as close, or McCain slightly ahead.

Of course.

McCain and the other actual neo-cons would not know the truth if it came up and bit him in the ass. If it did, he would not even say “ouch.”

He would just smile and say, “My friends… Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain (that monster under your bed). Noun. Verb. POW. And I approve this message.”

Leefeller, Careful on crony ism as I am sure Jack didn’t pick Bobby because he was the best qualified candidate at that time.

@ Sambadaddy;

Nicely done; I got a good chuckle when sorely needed.

After reading the article on Palin in the NYT, my first impressions of her were verified, she has the fine attributes of what certain segments of the Republican party want.  She provides an ability to use Religion as a tool to obtain and control. She bolsters and feeds on hate a tool used to obtain differences between her and others.  Welding vendetta, to destroy opposition coupled with the other handy tools in her basket, she surrounds herself with cronyism, helpful to bolster and enforce her grand plan of stepping on anyone one who is not with her or against her. 

Sadly, we see lies made into truths, vendetta’s supported by a pack of cronies.  Stoking fires of ignorance and feeding religious hate to fulfill and achieve her goals.

The only real change is how clearly it has become,  the opportunists without impunity preform their feeding of just another round to getting the masses to vote against their own best interests.  It does not look good for the living.

A recent Op-Ed piece by Frank Rich in the NY Times, pointed out that the portion of Governor Palin’s RNC speech about small town America, was identified by Thomas Frank of the WSJ, as being written by Westbrook Pegler.
Westbrook Pegler? Who the hell was Westbrook Pegler?
I have my late father to thank for that. He revealed to me very long ago, what a nasty piece of business, this once upon a time famous, syndicated columnist, actually was.
Westbrook Pegler opposed labor unions as store front communist entities. He hated FDR and the democrats with zealous passion.And, like Senator Joseph McCarthy, there was always somebody needing deportation.

Has anyone seen the latest attack ad from McCain against Obama about teaching Sex Ed to Kindergarten age children. This is so low and nasty from McCain I cannot believe it (actually I can, never trusted McCain’s beady eyes just like Bush’s).

The bill that Obama voted for was a bill that teaches young children skills to protect them from Pedophiles / Sex molesters. It teaches them about in inappropriate touching. These are things we want to protect children from. Obama has two little girls himself, so for McCain to try to distort Obama’s intentions into something so very perverted is SICK.
I am so tired of McCain’s lies, distortions, and smear / fear tactics. Does he really think the majority of Americans are so stupid that we can see his butt for what he is? He has used that POW badge as a shield for questioning his integrity. I think that badge has some nasty holes in it and we are seeing through those holes.

If you were being sarcastic with all of your comments jackpine savage (I love that username!), I won’t offer to kiss your feet but I will give a nod in your direction. I am definitely known for my sarcasm and mocking language.  In the Greek, sarcasm is sarkazein meaning to rend the flesh. It is sooo deliciously violent and fits our generation just right.  Levity is my friend, gravity my enemy is my bumper sticker. Sometimes I can be on the obscure side and unless you are an initiate wouldn’t get the humor intended.  Or felt the barb!  I have to side with Leefeller and go with the best of two weevils. I believe Obama is a good man and firm and will take us through the crap left to us by the Republican regime. It is going to take a sturdy boat captain, though, I will agree to that.  I hope he has his hip boots on.

I always sympathize with the workers of this country, and other countries too.  So sick of them; the masters, and us, the slaves, getting shafted by those self-appointed. Should I list how many ways we have been screwed?  Well maybe John won’t die, but for me risking the United States on a completely self-deluded fool of a woman is too much (although I am thrilled a woman has been allow to step up to where they belonged in the first place).  I like it that Obama has bi-colored genes. It is about time the demographics were represented.

Well I’ve been somewhat resuscitated, thank you Leefeller.  Whew, I almost had a heart attack!  I should have known better, but I didn’t.  Life is so iffy these days.  I don’t expect the RTs (Republican Trolls) to bring up legitimate issues, ever.  They hide behind a sky god and vacant look-like issues such as anti-christian homosexuality, or trying to rescind inalienable rights, or insidiously deprive women the right to choose, especially when they have been raped by idiots who then likely have to bring an idiot child into an idiot world.  It would be a lesson well learned if their own daughters could suffer such treacherous indignities.  No, they just hypocritically excuse promiscuous daughters that get pregnant out of wedlock then shame the father into marriage and still look the world in the face and go on to whine about sex abstinence as the solution to unwanted babies.  Is that the Republican base they are all talking about?  Not that the young man in question shouldn’t marry the pregnant daughter, but it should be their decision not the double-dealing politician mamma who is as embarrassed as she ought to be.  I don’t know how Palin could look the world in the face with that and with such a saccharine smile.  Because otherwise she will have to give up the abstinence platform.  And what could that mean?  That there is now a Vice President candidate giving open season on premarital sex, or show her blatant hypocrisy.  Oh my god.  Now that is more damaging than the perpetrated lie her and McCain’s campaign foisted on the public wrongly accusing Obama as supporting the notion of explicit sex education on Kindergartners.  Of course that ridiculous accusation was intended to deflect what was the truth about Palin and her daughter.  The slight of hand that I so often accuse the Republicans of committing.  Personally I don’t care about sex per se, thinking consenting adults ought to be able to do what they want, but it’s the two-facedness that permeates the entire Republican program that needs to be exposed with a stentorian voice, as loud as it can be said.  Their whole modus operandi is to take with one hand while trying to look like they are giving to the public with the other.  And what is it they are taking?  Every shred of dignity of the middle class and the poor of this country.  What they are giving, however, is every break they can to the wealthy with their completely unproven trickle down economics.  Well it does trickle down, no actually it streams down into the pockets of the wealthy.

It’s got to be time for a different kind of meal.  Dinner.

Shenonymous,

One or the other of us isn’t getting the intended sarcasm (it may well have been me).  He isn’t my Lord, and i’m as confused as you as to why the Prince of Peace would need an army.

Unfortunately, i’m not very good at ideology.  I do have firm political beliefs; however, i’ve yet to see a candidate on the presidential ballot that reflects them (or even comes close).  Because of that, i like to pick someone who doesn’t have a chance.  For example, in 1996 i went with the World Workers’ Party because they nominated women for both pres and VP. (i think that’s how it was…it was 12 years ago)

And that’s what i was going to do this year, except that i fear ole John will have a stroke or something on like day 63 and we’ll be saying President Palin for 4 years.  But it isn’t the lipstick.  It’s the Assembly of God membership, etc.  I didn’t really change my vote; i just decided that i would be forced to vote against something…again.

All right then, I will not vote for Hurman Munster and Mistress Palin, Anyway, I am not into whips and chains and especially stuffed heads.

Vote Obama/Biden  

Tony Witcher, the war is very high on my list of priorities which need drastic address, it just seems to me Obama is pandering as is Congress, at least I hope it is pandering.  I respect you comments and hope you are correct as you see it. 

Must say, blatant in your face lieing by the Republicans has become so obvious even imbeciles should see the hand writing on the wall. Of course issues are absent from the Republican side of the floor, so using outright lies is the best they can offer.

Republican Trolls, do you have any substance or issues to discuss?

The small minded have a hard time making distinctions.  Apparently Rus7355 you didn’t watch the Democratic Convention.  Looked to me like there were plenty of progressive and cohesion there.  Who are they leaving out on this “walk of life and attitude”

Leefeller, you struck me in the heart! 

Dan M has a crystal clear and quite intelligent view of the situation. Yes, looking for truth is not an easy thing to do, but if you want it then you have to do the hard work.  It is deeper than the surface, but most just want to be spoon fed even their thinking.

Gotta love that Republican Rebecca, she knocked me out!  Is it possible a Republican can be a truthteller?  Uh, Leefeller, these are just a few of the differences between Rs & Ds.

Thank you Tony Wicher, no one has expressed it so clearly before.

By Leefeller, September 12 at 3:05 pm #

Tony Witcher,

Looking at the campaign, both sides seem to be supporting the war and military complex and opportunist bull pucky with equal gusto. 
——————————————————————————-
That is not how I see it. The differences between Obama and McCain are starkly obvious to me. Obama does not eschew military force but wants to use it intelligently and only where necessary as a last resort where negotiations fail and not unilaterally but as part of a broad international consensus and in compliance with international law. McCain is a warrior who understands nothing but war and military force. I have never heard the word “negotiation” or “international law” cross his lips. Under McCain we will see nothing but more war and a continuation of Bush economic policies. Electing Obama will make a huge difference.

Don’t know about you guys, but I may be swinging my vote for Herman Munster! and Mistress Congeniality.

Well said Rus7355. Take note that perpetuating hateful rhetoric only makes people look smaller, and smaller….Come to the table with meaningful dialog and respectful commentary. Words such as “McSame” only show that you have fallen into a mindless trap of offensive and idiotic spin.
Look for the truth, not only in here, but other publications that may not suit your ideals, but may broaden your mind as to what is really happening. The insensitive attacks on any candidate almost always have a boomarang effect, and this is what is taking place. Stop talking about Palin, focus on McCain. Develop true divergent plans that separate the two candidates. Talk sensibly about the differences without the snide pitiful references of bias.

Hello and good morning jackpine savage.  If you and your lord want to help take care of me I could use the help, maybe.  Thank you for keeping me in mind.  But wait, just what kind of temptations are you talking about?  There are some that I’d fight to keep being able to be tempted with and succumbing to!  Well, I’m known for hyperbole.  I am as moral and humanistic a human as any religious follower.  Well, maybe a whole lot more than some (you know, the hypocrites).  I would think your lord wouldn’t need an ARMY.  Good grief.  Why do you men always have to put it in terms of WAR?  It’s how you frame an idea that makes all the difference. (Ala Palin and McCain, and Obama/Biden).  How about “A Defense Team?”  This atheist (me) is benign and actually likes people.  Even Arabs (uh, Islamists).  I think they are crazy, but then I think Christians and Jews are too. That goes for the secular totalitarian dictator ideologues as well!  They will get their due someday when the people get tired of keeping their heads in the toilet.  You know, and I’m sure you do, water seeks its own level.  Ithinksalot.

The reason why most Americans don’t make the distinction between patriotism and militarism is that from K through12 and then higher ejumakashun they were never really taught.  And militarism is made a game, just look at how many computerized war games there are.  It takes its toll on the psyche.  And the media certainly doesn’t help (frankly I wonder if they know either).  And yes of course the politicians blur the difference, it is part of their bag of tricks.  But you know, I think people who do pay attention, and the numbers are growing because of technology, are beginning to see through the veils of deception.  Proof of this are all the whiners and complainers on the Internet.  The numbers are staggering.  And I totally agree with you about who should be in charge of the debates!  Wish I knew how to make it happen.  Could you maybe enlist your lord to help?

You are kind of mindless to have switched your vote however, in my humble opinion, since whatever ideology you were working on before cannot have been so much pablum that some lipstick would blind you. Or maybe that’s all it took, a hypocrite with lipstick?  Try cooking the oatmeal next time so you can be firm in your beliefs.

Yes deflection is the trick of the political trade, remember Tricky Dick (another Republican).  People deceive even behind the shroud of their gods.

We should be careful about reading too much into polling data.  For one, an overall poll does not reveal what will happen in an election decided on electoral votes.  For two, they aren’t very reliable…and they’ve become even more unreliable in the age of people without landlines.

I realize that Dems are terribly worried that Obama isn’t blowing McCain away.  However, recent history has the Dem candidate leading by large margins during the inconsequential months and then losing that lead.  Perhaps the Obama camp noticed this and is taking a different approach, ready to put the majority of their fight into the month of October.

Jim Yell,

Unfortunately the distinction between patriotism and militarism is one that is completely lost on the majority of the American public…more unfortunately, that distinction has been purposefully blurred by the political powers that be.

David Model,

Indeed, indeed, indeed.  The very first thing i would change about how we do politics in this country would be to put the League of Women Voters back in charge of presidential debates…as well as including all candidates who appear on the ballot in at least 2/3’s of the states.

Leefeller,

I’m with you on the “distinction” between the two parties.  I was all set to vote minor party for President (as i would prefer to do) this year…until the Republicans decided to put Gov. Palin one 72 year old heartbeat away from the most powerful orifice in the world.  Congrats, Sen McCain, you just picked up a vote against you.

And i love the Muppets analogy.  I’ll be hoping against hope that Sarah give Johnny a good karate chop at some point.

Shenonymous,

Apparently you don’t believe that Islam is evil and wicked yet…even after almost eight years?!  Why must you continue to think for yourself?  The Lord’s Army needs you too, and remember that the good people are just making sure that you’re aren’t led into temptation.

JB-W,

Issues?  Maybe you haven’t noticed, but issues rarely win elections in America.  Though it is true that the Republicans have suckered the Democrats (again) into getting way off track.

One last prickle before the Friday night movietime, The PBS program NOW tonight interviewed the author of “The Political Brain,“ Drew Weston, a psychologist and Democratic political consultant made some extraordinary but not already unnoticed points.  If interested go to PBS/NOW and check out the video Obama in Danger?
: http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/436/index.html

Now for the popcorn! or is it popcorn after NOW?  Happy Friday evening to one and all the civilized.

I just got home and read this whiney piece of shit by Robinson. Where the hell has he been for the last 7 presidential elections? The dimmos have bored the dim american electorate with issues, all the while the repugs have done nothing but reload the old “god, guns and gays” argument, and fire it indescriminatley at the american people.
And it works!
Until the dimmos figure out that they have to hold the election standards bar a little lower, they will continue to lose.
Hey, i don’t like the idea of a dirty campaign either, but you can have the best ideas in the world for fixing america, and the only way you will be able to implement them is to WIN!
It seems the dimmos have put all their eggs in the debate basket. Lets hope Mac fucks-up big time, because that’s what it may take. Well, that and Barry turning white.

Isn’t it about time?

Since the guys aren’t doing it, Hillary will have to save the day.  Now we really are talking about a goddess, a huntress, a…well…forget the dripping sexuality business, that is a Republican porn fantasy, as usual.  We can let Bill take care of that part.

See article in “Watching America”
http://watchingamerica.com/News/5968/mccain-and-obama-out-to-conquer-the-undecided/

L’Orient Le Jour, Lebanon
Obama and McCain Out To Conquer UndecidedBy Rania Massoud
Translated By Ashley Bell
September 11, 2008
We expect that the senator (Hillary Clinton) from New York will return to the forefront of the scene in order to neutralize Sarah Palin, who has positions and political thoughts completely opposed to those of Clinton.

People all around the world, but especially in Europe think we are idiots again because the race for president is so close.  In France, Obama got 80% in a recent poll; McCain got 8%.  In England people are in disbelief that that the race is so close.
http://www.watchingamerica.com

Tony Witcher,

Looking at the campaign, both sides seem to be supporting the war and military complex and opportunist bull pucky with equal gusto.  The differences between the two parties seems to be a setup, for in the end we may see change but not what some of would hope for. 

Biden seems a war hawk to me, am I wrong, please I hope I am wrong and Obama has moved in the same direction, very disappointing to me. 

So, in your partisan eyes I may be in cahoots, in my eyes I get to vote only for the best of the worst again. What war?

The USA is owned & run by whatever the Corp’s want; the PEOPLE have no rights, and are ignored except to PUNISH by DARING to ASK for anything; LOOK at the “balancing of the budget”; everything on it was done AGAINST the people; “supposedly” we are in Afghanistan for “women abused”; LOOK here in the USA; $25 per every $400 paid in child support to singles parents (mostly women) who are lucky if they get minimum wage $5.95 an hour; 41% of it going to Fed Gov; God knows HOW much more being taken out in “taxes” for clothing, essential needs; and no health care; they are FORCED to get credit cards which are CRMININAL & FRAUD per the Fed Reserve: the usury laws PROTECTING the people; along with Corp laws PROTECTING the people; everything PROTECTING the people including the DEFENSE of the USA has been OUTSOURCED folks: our Gov (Congress included) of whom the 2 candidates are: are involved past their eyeballs; it is ALL fraud; fake; & the SCHOOLS are shambles; everything is geared to CORPS and WE get to pay the taxes; including the poor struggling abused single women & women of all races, colors, sizes & shapes; and we are FREE? This nation was SET UP for all taxes being paid by the people to be paid for by BIG BUSINESS PROFITS folks! Talk to me about FREEDOM cuz all I see is ENSLAVEMENT to Corps same as the rest of the world; and because they have “gotten away with it in America” for years: they are taking it globally. SHAME ON AMERICANS!

By dale Headley, September 12 at 11:23 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

John McCain is smart.  He knows, deep down, Americans don’t care as much about the war(s), health care, the environment, climate change, jobs, the deficit, the collapsing economy, our incompetent government, torture, the evaporating Constitution, etc. as they do about the fact that Barack Obama is black with a muslim name; and that Sarah Palin is an attractive white person who believes Jesus has already booked his return to earth
——————————————————————————-
This sounds just like something a Republican with total contempt for the people WOULD say. Do they pay you or what?

By Leefeller, September 12 at 12:21 pm #

troublesum,

Do not agree it is fear, the democrats do not fear the Repubs., they seem to be in cahoots with them. Impeachment is off the table and what war?
——————————————————————————
Are they in cahoots with the Republicans or are you?

Ahs hopes jeezus cn only gets de ticket ta come down ouda de sky on American Airlines an be able ta fly over de pigsh*t!  Oh how punny.  Oh crap, dats right, jeezus doan needs no airplane!  Well I still hope he misses the pigsh*t.  I know I know, I don’t have no respect, and of course I know it’s any respect!  Gotta keep it light folks. And if Jesus doesn’t show up, maybe the Flying Spaghetti Monster will! I hope I hope I hope

What does happen next, Leefeller?  Don’t tell me somebody is going to kiss the pig!

Has anyone ever put lipstick on a pig besides McCain. Guess what happens next?

troublesum,

Do not agree it is fear, the democrats do not fear the Repubs., they seem to be in cahoots with them. Impeachment is off the table and what war?

oops I meant pigsh*t.

New kids on the block always steal the show, but first bloom does fade fast when we find out the new kid is a shill with a right wing smell.

Fear is not only in the province of the Democrats.  It is definitely in the Republican camp which is why censorship abounds everywhere. 

Third party candidate right to participate in preesidential debates.  In a wide google search of the pros and cons of allowing third-party candidates to participate in presidential debates, There were tons of argument for inclusion of third-party candidates and very little against.  So what are we to do when there is virtually no opposition among those intelligensia and the common people but is only forced by the media hosting the debates?
A few sites of interest are:
http://www.opendebates.org/news/crtics.html
and
http://www.opendebates.org/news/pressreleases.html
for the public arguments for and some against.

It is my personal mission to seek the truth regardless of whether or not I find information that supports my own views.  I am open to change if reliable information is obtained that presents contrary yet supported arguments.

Also as I was researching I found that an Islamic site was completely blocked on every browser I have, I have four major browsers although the article was listed on google.  That is suppression in spades my dear fellow Americans.

An open voice is sacred and guaranteed by the constitution.  This is the google reference exactly as published that was censored:
IslamOnline.net - Muslim Affairs
The first Arab American to ever participate in presidential elections in the US, ... Ralph Nader was and remains a champion of the third party movement, ...
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&cid=1209357142307&pagename=Zone-Engli...
- 53k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
I bet a popscicle flavor of your choice you can’t get it to open either.

Hey, neat couple of posts Leefeller!  I love that humor, it is the best!  Levity I always say, less gravity, will get us fly over the pigshit.

Ideas?  I thought the republicans always had only one idea - that they should help the rich get richer and make the poor fend for themselves.  As long as democrats are afraid of them they probably don’t need ideas.  Democrats have the fear of republicans the way Flannery O’Connor’s backwoods christians have the fear of God.  Their candidates won’t follow their better instincts for fear of what republicans will do about it.  Obama had some young, inexperienced governors on his vp short list - people who would have enhanced his message of change - but he was afraid of what the republicans would say about it, so McCain chose a young, attractive, inexperienced governor and stoled the show.

David Model,

As the worm turns, some of us have been aware for sometime now of what you suggest, just not knowing the background.  For me the two party system is very much really a one party system using divisive techniques to create bogus differences.  So we get to choose between the best of the worst again.

A campaign without ideas needs a new format for debates and a neutral organization in control. Despite the manipulative, ostensibly superficial character of the medium, debates potentially can serve as the most probative, revealing, heuristic and discursive mechanism to distinguish the leaders from each other in terms of policies and leadership qualities.

Unfortunately, the debates fail to meet the above expectations for a number of reasons but one, in particular, violates the basic principles of a fair, equitable and efficacious election process by excluding legitimate leadership candidates from the debates thus denying them visibility and credibility.

In very simple terms, the Democrats and Republicans exercise complete control over the debates including place, timing, participation, format, questioners and frequently the questions to be posed to the candidates.  There is something fundamentally undemocratic about the two leading parties, both financed by corporate money, making critical decisions about the elections that will clearly serve their own interests.

The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), funded by tax-deductible corporate contributions, was created in 1987 by the Republican and Democratic Parties to capture control of election debates to protect their own interests.  Heading the CPD were the former heads of the Republican and Democratic Parties, Frank Fahrenkopf and Paul Kirk respectively.

There are at least three presidential candidates from parties other than the two major parties including Cynthia McKinney of the Green Party, Ralph Nader an independent, and Bob Barr, a Libertarian.  Who you say?  Exactly the point in that third party candidates are trapped in a Catch-22 where they are unknown and lack credibility because they are excluded from corporate media coverage, from paid advertising due to insufficient funds, and from participation in the debates.  They are excluded from the debates because the CPD created a criterion whereby parties need 15% in national polls to participate.

The criterion is flagrantly fraudulent and its only purpose is to exclude third party candidates from appearing on stage for the debates who might pose a threat to the entitled major party candidates.

The CPD’s criterion is rife with flaws and exposes its real intent.  A criterion based on polling results of an arbitrary 15% of how people might vote at a particular point in time in the upcoming election is inferior to a criterion based on whether they want a particular candidate to be invited to the debates.  The fact that 75% of eligible voters wanted Perot to be involved in the debates is considerably more significant than a poll that reflects the lack of exposure of that candidate.  The voters should decide who participates in the debates, not the leaders of the two major parties.

Another fair and equitable criterion would be to allow any candidate to participate in the debates who is registered in a sufficient number of states where the electoral total is above the minimum number of votes to win the election.  This criterion will ensure that only serious candidates who have at least the potential to win the presidential race will be invited to the debates.

In both countries, third party candidates who have a legitimate claim to be included in the debates are being denied the opportunity based on political reasons rather than on sound democratic principles.  These candidates’ contribution would be to broaden the voter’s understanding on a number of issues and to present a different analysis of American society.  Voters are not only entitled to hear all points of views from serious candidates but will be incapable of making an intelligent, informed choice inside the polling booth without their input.  Apparently the Democrats and Republicans are afraid that the voters may become “to-well” informed.

https://stateofdarkness.com (State of Darkness: US Complicity in Genocide since 1945)

It’s this…

Run an ad questioning a blackman’s sexual ethics, then run an ad about how a blackman was disrespectful to a white woman. SOMEONE please say something. Is this not totally and obvious.

Jess Bart-Williams,

You have never seen the Muppits?

Are you just a reader Jess Bart-Wms?  Haven’t seen any comments from you covering the issues yet.  Wanna try giving one?  One of the issues is Mrs. Paliin and her non-  qualifications to be a Vice President of the United States. Her stint with a PTA or as Governor of a state with very few people with whom she has piggily taken money from a national resource (uh, oil) and given small chunks of it to buy votes, because even a paltry bit of money dazzles the eyes of the ignorant, and to support building bridges to nowhere with federal funding until it looked like a piss in the wind then recanted but didn’t give the money back to the guvvamint, and does a two-faced line dance we now call the McCain Waffle that is so typical of both of them.  The doseydoe they do is esquisite.  How do pigs do that?  With cloven hooves even?  Hmmmm.  Guess if you put a long skirt on them it doesn’t show.

Cran Berry where exactly are you getting the poll numbers that they are winning?  God I love cranberries but jeezus, could you help yourself to some reality.  Obama has it hands down.  Stats can be spun however you want but it ain’t da trooth.  And they change mercurially from day to day anyway.

dripping sexuality, fertile…”.  Such vivid comments conjure up visions as intended.  Though, not sure about the accuracy on the dripping sexuality part though,  I prefer refer that to someone else.  Now fertile, may be appropriate, except for the fact pigs have litters.  As an ex small time hog farmer, I know pigs are very intelligent and make nice pets and can even be very affectionate, I quite raising hogs because my kids kept giving them names.  Never thought about or tried the lipstick thing.  One could believe that McCain may have tried it, because his use of the Lipstick on a pig line, is one he used very often.

Lipstick on a pig, brings to mind Mrs. Piggy of “Muffets” fame.  Looking back, I see the glaring similarities between Palin and Mrs. Piggy, more ways than one, but especially looks and personality.  Is it possible McCain got the idea from the Muppet’s?

  McCain seemed genuinely offended by the lipstick line being used by Obama.  Have you notice, after using the lipsick comment, McCain would smile and his eyes glazed over momentary.  McCain usually reserved the comment referring to a woman,  one case he used the reference to Hillary.  Possibility of envisioning McCain having dalliances with a pig is something I prefer to shy away from and for sanity’s sake let’s keep it singular.