Sorry, I was referring to a link from your name. We had discussed this word before and I thought you might comment on its use here. To imply that one should vote for a person based on skin complexion is racism.

H, your link isn’t showing a video in my browser. Can you link to the youtube version or a transcript? I’m curious to see if it is the same speech sourced in the AP article.

Zsa Zsa explains:

People with racist beliefs might Hate certain groups and try to create threats against someone because of their race. I don’t expect Hannitized to understand what I have been saying.

People with racist beliefs might do a lot of things Zsa Zsa, like accuse others of voting for a black man because he is black.

Or maybe people with racists beliefs might falsely accuse others of threatening them.

You have demonstrated a lot of racism by you ignorant remarks. You just don’t realize it.

Personally, I think you are simply an idiot and you can’t comprehend the complexity of the issue.

Hey Hannitized, Palin was quoting Lincoln

What do you have against Lincoln, anyway?

Oh Yeeeeeea, that’s right! Obama has plans for Hope & Change? AND what are those plans? To make the USA into a Socialist Country? To have the Federal Government interfere in all aspects of our lives? What a lovely plan!

In college, Obama explains to a girlfriend, Regina, that reading Joseph Conrad’s 1902 classic, “Heart of Darkness” was important, not because the book was about Africa and the black people in Africa, but because it taught him about the white European who wrote it.

“So I read the book to help me understand just what it is that makes white people so afraid. Their demons. The way their ideas get twisted around. It helps me understand how people learn to hate.”

Dreams From My Father-page 103

By contrast, Again in Dreams From My Father, Malcolm X’s autobiography “spoke” to Obama. One line in particular “stayed with me,” he says.

“He spoke of a wish he’d once had, the wish that the white blood that ran through him, there by an act of violence, might somehow be expunged.”

Has anybody bothered to read this book? Inasmuch as the book reveals Obama to be a flabbergasting lunatic, I gather the answer is no. Obama could be our next president: You might want to take a peek. If only people had read “Mein Kampf” …

No wonder PP doesn’t bother to pay attention to what people actually say.

If it’s Obama saying it, it’s probably a lie.

I still don’t see any “great accomplishments” by Obama.

Chief,

I am not sure what the point of the quote was, I have no insight to the context or situation.

Nobody here is talking about racism.

In the context of which I spoke, all of the things I had listed. You might do yourself some good if you actually paid attention and stopped cruising your way through life PP.

H,

This is exactly the sort of typically smarmy stupidity that works against any intelligent commentary you might make. The question is simple enough: What has Barack Obama accomplished in his life? Not what has he done. Nor where was he employed. But what has he DONE.

The only accomplishment you’ve listed is being selected as head of the Harvard Law Review. Now that is most certainly an accomplishment, but that hardly qualifies an individual to be President of the US. In fact, Harvard Law has chosen a president of the Law Review every year since the Review was started over 122 years ago.

Of note are these comments by the whimsically-handled “Ferry Pellwock”, in a discussion on point some while back at Professor Volokh’s site (here):

My impression is that although Obama was well liked by most of his fellow editors on the Review (a main reason he was elected president), by the end of his presidency in spring, 1991, Obama was regarded as:

1. having presided over a general “dumbing down” of previously observed standards for defining scholarly material worthy of publication in the nation’s leading law journal (with unconventional, sometimes sloppy, sometimes even profane, material now counting as publishable “scholarship”); and

2. having been somewhat indifferent, even lazy, in the execution of his day-to-day editorial responsibilities, with a concrete result: the final published content of the Review was not as rigorously thought out, and tightly edited, as had previously been the case with the Review.

And later:

As to sources, having served as an editor of the Review myself (indeed, having direct knowledge of the time period in question), I am relying for my impressions mostly on various nonpublic sources.

In terms of published material on point, you might take a glance at the book written by Eleanor Kerlow shortly after the events in question, which devotes considerable detail to the problems which broke out on the Harvard Law Review during the two years following Obama’s “dumbing down” of standards at the Review (my terminology, not hers), thereby emboldening the radical element on the Review to challenge efforts to reinstate traditional scholarly standards. The book is Poisoned Ivy: How Egos, Ideology, and Power Politics Almost Ruined Harvard Law School (1994) (see National Review piece on it here).

It’s no great work of literature, but it does convey the basic facts. Even though Kerlow comes at the subject from a heavily liberal perspective, Obama doesn’t come off looking particularly good.

As I said previosly, it’s clear most people on the Review liked Obama (he was “likeable enough,” one might say), something Kerlow acknowledges. However, that’s not to say that Obama’s fellow editors thought he diligently carried out his responsibilities, as president, to ensure that the material published by the Review was of the highest possible quality.

Quite the contrary: as Kerlow recounts, the editors in the class behind Obama, in electing their own president, rejected the Obama model and elected someone with high standards and a strong work ethic who they thought could reinstate traditional editorial practices. As she explains on page 11 of Poisoned Ivy:

“Obama was friendly and outgoing, but the class succeeding him wanted a tougher editor to lead them. [David] Ellen, quiet and fair-haired, had graduated summa cum laude in history and science from Harvard College in 1987. He had worked at The New Republic in 1989, the summer before starting law school, and was seen as someone who would be a more rigorous blue-penciler.”

The president of the Harvard Law Review is seems to be about the only executive or managerial experience Obama can point to. How well he actually performed those responsibilities, however, seems to be seriously at issue.

Interesting opinion H.

Justice, I believe, is God’s will for government. War is a necessary means at times. Generally speaking, God’s will is accomplished when justice is carried out, even in war. Personally, I don’t think we have ever acted militarily when or where we did not believe our cause just and our actions right. By that standard alone it could be said:

“our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God.”

Or just as well:
At the close of a scientific convention in Washington, the members called upon the President [Lincoln]. One of them said: “Mr. President, we trust during this time of trial in which the nation is engaged, God is on our side, and will give us victory.” The noble Lincoln replied: “Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side. My great concern is to be on God’s side. For God is always right!”

That is the essence of racism.

The essence of racism is the leftie insistence that black racism is justified, and white racism is evil. The truth is, all racism is evil, no matter the skin color. You lefties have institutionalized racism by all sorts of mandated social engineering programs based on the assumption that only white racism is significant, and black racism is justified. Shame on you, racist!

If Obama can not communicate his message in a way that convinces you then he either failed or there is something wrong with our country that is preventing people from believing what they hear.

It’s much simpler than that; Americans don’t want the “changes” he wants to make to this country. His “message” is wrong for America. Even all the Dem propaganda can’t cover up that fact.

Zsa Zsa blames me for her racist comments:

You encourage Racism by fueling hatred.

You are the one who said blacks are racists and they threaten the lives of principles and teachers. You don’t think that fuels racism???

By accepting the actions of those who choose to torment and ruin the lives and careers of Teachers.

Where did I ever “accept” your accusations? Hint: I didn’t.

Racism is alive and well!

Yes it is. You have demonstrated by your words and actions that you think blacks are racists and are violent while whites are not. That is the essence of racism.

Chief,

I have seen Mr. Obama’s suggestions and can not agree with a single one. In summary, he would, IMO, send us down a steep slope into state run and mandated regulations enforced by law which is close to communism.

I can certainly appreciate that you have the right to your opinion and you should certainly vote that. That is what makes this country great.

If Obama can not communicate his message in a way that convinces you then he either failed or there is something wrong with our country that is preventing people from believing what they hear. Propaganda in the new media for instance?

My brother was a teacher in a predominately black school. My sister was a principal in a predominately black school. They both received death threats and bodily harm from the children and parents.

Because blacks are bad…..whites are good! Thanks Zsa Zsa.

We all need to step back and look at comments like Biden made and review what that really means. Voting for someone because of skin color is a pathetic statement. Joe Biden should be called on it and Obama should be called on his comments on ” A vote for me is a vote for blacks.”

If your reading comprehension skills tell you Biden said to vote for someone because they are black, I doubt anything else you say because you clearly are an idiot.

My argument is that to many blacks and African Americans in this country could be moved or transformed by Barack to believe they can accomplish more in life. Not that his achievements give him the experience needed to be president.

Thanks for making our point; if his “transformative” effect is only for the blacks and African Americans in this country, how can you claim he is qualified to be the President of all Americans? Is this the “historic” aspect of his candidacy? If so, it neglects the vast majority of our population.
Pure identity politics, which is the entire point of this thread. It took you long enough to admit it.

John McCain’s nomination is historic, only not as historically significant as Obama’s.

Really? Why is McCain’s candidacy historic, and why is Obama’s candidacy “more” historic?

Please explain.

That would be Hillary. Just about every other sentence was: “I am a woman” (it is my turn, I earned it)

He is not simply exciting others because he is “female”, like Sarah Palin, but because he demonstrated his ability.

To his credit, Obama has not overtly played the race/gender card as much as Hillary did.

In my opinion, he has played it covertly with comments about folding money and the like.

John McCain, in my opinion has not and has not only avoided it, but has spoken out, and taken action against anyone on his staff who has.

…and practiced as a civil rights attorney before serving in the Illinois Senate…

And did he actually DO anything during this period? What cases did he work on? Did he do any trial work, or just research? Did he win any cases? Were any of his cases noteworthy? Why? Who were his clients?

Considering alll the digging that has been done into the background of the GOP’s vice presidential candidate, why do we know so very little about any legal work done by the Democrats’ presidential candidate?

If it is worth noting in his autobiography, on his campaign website, on his c v, and in Wikipedia, why is it not important enough to provide the public with any details?

Chief,

Hannitized. Whoever is elected will be historic.

That is exactly what I said Chief. You need to convince Robert, not me.

Like I said, anyone of the three might be historic. They all just aren’t as historically significant as Obama. The first female VP is a tight second though.

Let’s just be real and honest about this.

Ok, you don’t agree with his policies. Big surprise /sarcasm.

But the bottom line is by saying why somebody can be transformative is not the same as saying that is why you should vote for him.

H,

I understand that “transformative” is a very important buzz word to those on the “progressive” far Left who prefer not to engage in detailed discussions of policy… kinda like the phrase “Change We Can Believe In,” which epitomizes a candidacy that is mostly world-class fluff and damn little substance.

Still, I’m not sure just what you mean by “transformative” if not the fact that Obama is the first racially mixed, major party candidate.

Do you really think his policy pronouncements qualify as “transformative”? Barack Obama’s policy proposals are no different than those of George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, or Walter Mondale… all of which, by the way, were soundly rejected by the American electorate. Hardly what I would consider “transformative” in any case.

Obama is going to “bring us together”, which is why his supporters always engage in damaging race baiting.

It’s all about “Hope” and “Change”.

Which is more racist?
A few people not voting for Obama because he isn’t white,
or millions of people voting for Obama because he’s black?

Which is more racist?
A few people not voting for Obama because he isn’t white,
or millions of people voting for Obama because he’s black?

Excuse me; that should have been “…all the Dem racist identity politics and propaganda…”

He’s beige, at best.

Mocha latte…decaf!

If Ken changes his comment to replace “quoting” to “paraphrasing” there are any number on Lincoln quotes that apply.

I don’t even think you can say she was paraphrasing Lincoln. At best I think you could say she was speaking with the spirit of Lincoln’s ideas in mind. But that looks like maneuvering to me. I doubt Palin is informed enough to accurately refer to anything Lincoln has said.

Besides attacking Sarah Palin over her religious beliefs, much as the “progressive” Left has tried to do to President Bush these past 8 years, is a dangerously stupid tactic.

I used it as an example to show that anyone can quote someone and make an argument that might not be at all related to the point the person who was quoted was trying to make.

On a more practical level, these sorts of personal attacks on Palin (not unlike your personal attacks on Rob, H!) are very likely to do nothing more than piss off the very blue-collar, swing-state undecided voters that Obama needs desperately to win in November.

You mean like all of these blue collar workers?

I think you are drinking too much Palin Kool-aid. She isn’t the saviour for the American blue-collar worker you think she is.

Hannitized. Because you do not have a profile, I am sending this here in the open. Focus on the word OUR, used by a racist journalist.

from Leilani Albano
to writemalkin@gmail.com
date Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 4:06 PM
subject don’t forget you’re brown

and i have to say, from one pinay journalist to another, you embarrass me and you embarrass our people.

The racists are coming out of the woodwork and they are mostly Democrats, liberals and communists.

HG,

I think it is a very dangerous road you are traversing when you use the government to deliver God’s justice. This is the very line of attack our enemies are using against us.

I think God gives us the ability to discern right from wrong. Sometimes we are wrong or misguided and when we do things that are wrong or misguided and claiming that you are delivering God’s justice or will, you are doing him a great disservice.

I think Lincoln was right when he said that we should hope he is on our side. But our actions should not be in his name, only that our goals are good and just.

I think Sarah lost sight of what role God plays in our lives and how he could be called upon for guidance.

H: I’m still waiting for your explanation of why a leftie running for President on the Dem ticket is “historic”. What’s the “historic” part? Hmmm?

right, eb, he ain’t all that black. I have friends that are whole lot blacker than him.

HG trips over his own feet, thinks he made a long jump.

Because you provide another persons interpretation as proper context, does not make it so.

I demonstrated that anyone can say anything about a politician by quoting them out of context.

You can’t find the entire discussion from Biden.

As I have said above. If people want to know how Obama can be a transformative Politician, it is reasonable to list those reasons.

Because you single one out does not mean that is why Biden said vote for him.

Hell, he could have even been talking about something else

He could just as easily of said:

“If you are looking for reason’s to vote for Obama, there are plenty. His plan for the economy, his plan for healthcare and education alone are reason’s to vote for him. If you want to know how he can transform this nation, if his plans are not enacted, that is easy to answer.

Having a president who inspires hope and encourages the youth of America that they can take themselves from a single parent home all the way to the presidency can transform the face of the nation. That will be a transformative event in American politics and internationally,” Biden said. “That all by itself will be significant.”

Now, where is the full Biden quote again?

Because nothing is scarier then Obama’s crappy poll numbers…. aside from his financially disastrous campaign spending.

This is the same type of quota/AA that I encountered in the mid 1970s. Racism, pure and simple. What a salient quality to focus on. Is it really this desperate?

Actually, that is the only reason I can think of to vote for Obama. Other than that affirmative action, ethnic color of skin thing, he has nothing. Zero, zilch, nadda, nit, non, Nobody is home, huh uh, no way, nothing!

H,

I did respond a few comments ago.

H,

Considering your candidate’s stark lack of any substantive achievements, a fact which he acknowledges by stating that his campaign isn’t about accomplishment but about judgment, do you honestly think it wise to disparage the achievements of his opponents and thus point to the whole question of accomplishment? I thought you were smarter than that!

For the best squirrel:

Skin, then quarter then like a chicken. Roll in flour, then brown in a skillet.

Then place the little critters in a dutch oven and bake at 250 degreees for about 90 minutes.

Them’s good eatin’.

Not worth a crap at political analysis (as you can see above), but they sure are tasty!

Proof,

I used to love Squirrel.

To add enjoyment to the pursuit of the elusive little critters, we always hunted them with a .22 calbere rifle. Blasting them off a limb above your head with a shotgun, seemed a bit unfair. They never got to shoot back.

My mother would always cook them up for us, but would not gnaw on his little bones. She never ate them.

It was not till years later, that I realized a squirrel is a rodent. Shave the tail on a good-sized grey squirrel and you would have to put him in a police lineup to distinguish him from a Boston Wharf Rat.

Never ate a squirrel since then.

Have plenty in my yard now. They don’t crap on my car, gnaw the wood off my house, or try to bite me.

Hannitized, As usual you don’t have a clue on reality. AND you certainly don’t offer any kind of answers. You encourage Racism by fueling hatred. By accepting the actions of those who choose to torment and ruin the lives and careers of Teachers. Racism is alive and well! The Democrats have selected a candidate in hopes that people would see past his lack of substance and capability with all of their HOPES of CHANGING our country into a Socialist country. Many Dems. are realizing Obama is not the answer to their dreams of a Socialist society. They are waking up to the Nightmare Obama is because of his lack of substance.

It is a sad day in America when I have to explain…

Agreed. H trying to explain anything is a sad day. H having to explain something (especially given his inability to do so) would be a really, really sad day.

So since he’s half black/half white, when I vote against him will I be racist or self loathing?

Oh and by the way Rob. It is a sad day in America when I have to explain that someone’s mis-interpretation of what Biden says acts as an actual quote from Biden in dumb-asses minds.

The fact of the matter is that you are taking someone’s interpretation and acting like Biden said it when he did not.

It is easy to respond to people who are looking for an answer how a politician can change or transform the face of this nation by stating how he can change the nation. How can you be so dumb?

Is it possible that Joe Biden was talking about reasons to vote for Obama, that had to do with his policies and then also speak about how Obama can be transformative for our country and the political system, and those being two different subjects yes or no?

1. Joe Biden isn’t nearly that smart.

2. Raising taxes, all kinds of taxes, during an economics downturn isn’t “transformative.” It’s counter-productive at best and witlessly stupid at worst.

3. Ditto for complaining about the irresponsibility of large federal deficits on the one hand, while proposing all sorts of new spending initiatives on the other.

The context:

Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden, campaigning in North Carolina where black votes could help swing the state to the Democrats, said today that electing a black person to the White House would be transformative.
But he particularly singled out the meaning of electing someone who is black.

The content:

“That will be a transformative event in American politics and internationally,” Biden said. “That all by itself will be significant.”

The meaning:
Dear black voters of North Carolina whose vote in this election could carry the state for Obama,
Electing the black candidate (Barack Obama) will be a transformative event. Just electing the black candidate will be significant.
Obvious:

“Vote for Obama because of the color of his skin.”
-Rob

Zsa Zsa does mental backflips:

In her effort to make herself feel proud for being a white person who never complains about racial abuse or racism, she comments:

BUT not everyone shouts racial abuse.

However, earlier she cried:

The fact that the death threats came from black parents is just a symptom of Racial hatred.

So lets sum it up kids. For Zsa Zsa, it is ok to talk about racial abuse and racist black people. Thats bad!

But when black people call whites racist….well, well now….that is a horse of a different color. That just can not be tolerated.

Sheesh!

B1

This is exactly the sort of typically smarmy stupidity that works against any intelligent commentary you might make.

I understand why you “feel” this way. But what you are neglecting to do is compare the context of my recent comments to my previous comments on this matter.

My argument is that to many blacks and African Americans in this country could be moved or transformed by Barack to believe they can accomplish more in life. Not that his achievements give him the experience needed to be president.

Please re-read my previous argument:

What is transformative is how people view their possibilities in life. And it is not because of Obama’s “skin color”, but because of his achievements.

What his achievements do to some blacks in this country is show that with hard work, commitment to education and devotion to country, you can go anywhere in the world, including to the White House as president of the United States.

As you can see, PP is every bit of deserving of the criticism he received.

The only accomplishment you’ve listed is being selected as head of the Harvard Law Review. Now that is most certainly an accomplishment, but that hardly qualifies an individual to be President of the US.

Mabye, but that certainly wasn’t my argument Bat.

It is not a statement that says that is why you should vote for someone.

See what I mean Rob. Ignore the context (a campaign speech) and claim Biden to be impartial in his reference to the significance of electing the first black candidate.

Rob, I hate to say it, but you asked for it.

Z
Read: Comment leads to call for the dismissal of the nation’s longest-serving school superintendent.

Why are you so against recognizing the achievements of Obama?

There are none to recognize.

PP arrogantly suggests:

Hannitized cannot reveal why he thinks an Obama presidency would be ‘historic’ even though he knows why he thinks that.

What blather. Obama’s nomination is already historic. Why is it an issue to elaborate on why a presidential election is also historic? John McCain’s nomination is historic, only not as historically significant as Obama’s.

To do so, Hannitized would have to reveal that his devotion to Senator Obama’s ‘historic’ run is based on race,

My “devotion” to Obama’s run is because he preached a less partisan presidency, because he knows many of us Americans, wish for a less partisan country. You don’t see me creating stupid partisan posts….do you?

I also happen to like his policies and I think he is intelligent. I trust leaders who can think intelligently, not emotionally.

and thereby his credibility as an apologist would evaporate.

What the heck are you talking about delusion boy?

He blithley pronounces that 92% of Blacks are voting for Obama solely on the issues, while arguing that whites who oppose Obama are doing so out of racial bias.

You are quoting me incorrectly. I said 90% of blacks voted democratic….and they have for decades. Now we have an additional two percent that you can easily attribute to the fact that we are at war with a new kind of threat and that many of them would rather vote for a guy who gets it, and not a guy who will give us more of the McSame.

He simply cannot afford to give an honest answer to your question, and he won’t.

I didn’t answer the question, because it is so patently obvious, I didn’t think it deserved one. Palin’s possibility of becoming the first woman VP would also be historic. It would be really stupid, but historic.

You are out of your rocker PP.

Why is Obama’s nomination historic?

Gee, I wonder?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26428950/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7586375.stm

Hannitized: There are so many African-Americans with similar or far better academic records than Senator Obama; men and women who actually went on the accomplish great things.

Your whole thrust on this thread boils down to one absurd argument: Barack Obama should be elected president because he would make a great role-model for under-achievers.

Fact: Not one piece of legislation in the United States senate bears his name, or was authored by him.

Fact: The majority of his votes in the Illinois legislature and the senate have been “present”.

Fact: He is rated the most liberal member of the senate.

These aren’t smears, they’re just the facts.

Hannitized: you are manuvering to use the highest office in the land to satisfy your deeply held conviction that the election of Senator Obama will somehow heal the racial divide in this country.

Hannitized: Ahh, so a ‘transormation’ will occur if Obama is elected, because of his ‘skin color’.

Finally, you come clean.

Really? Why is McCain’s candidacy historic, and why is Obama’s candidacy “more” historic?

Please explain.

McCain would be the oldest person ever elected to the office of president. Not really much of an accomplishment compared to Obama.

Hannitized: you are manuvering to use the highest office in the land to satisfy your deeply held conviction that the election of Senator Obama will somehow heal the racial divide in this country.

Unfortunately for “useful idiots” like H, were Obama actually elected President, his black liberation theology would increase the racial divide in this country, increase racial tensions, and move us significantly backward in our desire to create a true colorblind society.

PP belittles great accomplishment:

Hannitized posts Senator Obama’s biography and calls it accomplishment.

I guess when an education is handed to you without having to work for it, it might not seem like an accomplishment to some. Either that, or a Harvard and Columbia University degree is so meaningless to some snobs they don’t consider them accomplishments.

This is what some expect from privileged individuals who look down their nose at others who actually have to earn things in life.

No wonder PP doesn’t bother to pay attention to what people actually say.

Robert distorts, because that is all he has:

In the expected torrent of bullshit from you, you characterize Sarah’s qualifications as being only about her being female,

No, I said her only ability to excite people is because of her female attribute, and that’s a fact jack.

Nobody would be screaming about her if she didn’t;

Shoot moose a female
shoot an automatic rifle as a female.
say she was a pit-bull with lipstick

All of her accomplishments overlooked and are nothing to voters who intend to vote for her. The hysteria and hype she gets is because of her looks and because she is female.

Argue otherwise. I challenge you.

What “achievements”, pray tell? Please list them.

Go to Wiki and see for yourself:

Obama is the first African American to be nominated by a major political party for president. His acceptance speech was given on August 28, 2008 at the 2008 Democratic National Convention. A graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, where he served as president of the Harvard Law Review, Obama worked as a community organizer and practiced as a civil rights attorney before serving in the Illinois Senate from 1997 to 2004. He taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1992 to 2004. Following an unsuccessful bid for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives in 2000, he announced his campaign for the U.S. Senate in January 2003. After a primary victory in March 2004, Obama delivered the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in July 2004. He was elected to the Senate in November 2004 with 70% of the vote.

That is a pretty tall order for an intellectual.

Although you would like to dismiss this……it does not change the reality.

So Hannitized thinks the Huffpost is a credible source of information? You have got to be kidding. They are not more credible than the National Enq.

HG,

Credibility Check:

Is it possible that Joe Biden was talking about reasons to vote for Obama, that had to do with his policies and then also speak about how Obama can be transformative for our country and the political system, and those being two different subjects yes or no?

Is it possible he wasn’t even talking about the fact that he was black? Yes or no?

You are on intellectual par with a tomato

(H demonstrates his imagined intellectual superiority.)

I see “Hammerized” had completely monopolized this Blog with Idiocy..

However, here’s my 2cents:
Being Black would only be “Transformitive” if “Race” were not an issue. Truly, a Transformation.

Since Joe Biden seeks to “make” Race an issue, seems like the same old Crap, to me..

When Joe Biden was selcted by Obama, my Suspicions concerning Obama’s judgement were confirmed.

It is very poor..

I don’t think God has any interest in attaching his name to any bomb that may fall on innocent women, children and men who lived a peaceful life.

H,

And your perspective on God’s will is better than Palin’s because…?

HG,

Are you going to respond to the credibility check or not?

max
i think we are looking at millions on both sides of that bogus comparison. and both parties display racism. african american distrust of government is widespread, leading many of them to refrain from voting. i suspect it has to do with the fact that most of the GOP still jaunt on down to the ‘Southern Partisan’ to bemoan the fall of the south and describe slave owners as especially compassionate.