McCain taps Palin for VP!

[HATEFACE]

Oh that's a no brainer, California would make the best country.

Fox News is perferable to your droll social commentary

Depends on the audience.

You believe they sit doe-eyed at the television screen absorbing all they need. No, they're just ignoring your ignorant ass.

No, they really do seem to get comfort from the propaganda. It's a lot like religion. Well, they're old too.

Not all moderate republicans like Lieberman, we like him, but we don't like like him, if you get my drift.

You're not a moderate, not even close. Moderate Republicans think global warming needs attention, want evolution taught in schools, and are pro-Choice, but also believe in a strong military and that taxes should be minimal and policies should be pro-business, thus they vote Republican mostly on economic policy with a little military thrown in. Moderate Republicans are a dying breed. In the near future I suspect they'll be known as Obama Republicans, like the Reagan Democrats.

Go vote for your global warming denying creationist ticket, right-winger.

Bush has apologized...

LAWLS!
The president sets policy, and his policy was to invade Iraq, no matter what the excuse. He solicited misinformation. And faith based initiatives like abstinence only education and promoting Intelligent design is what you see as the highlight of his Presidency? Back to being a right-winger.

I agree that American Ideology came from the founding fathers, you know those Liberal Diests who hated Christianity and prepared the foundational documents for the country like the Declaration of Independence and in particular the Constitution. The Bill of Rights contain an ideology that is the law of the land.

You're not a moderate, not even close. Moderate Republicans think global warming needs attention, want evolution taught in schools, and are pro-Choice, but also believe in a strong military and that taxes should be minimal and policies should be pro-business, thus they vote Republican mostly on economic policy with a little military thrown in. Moderate Republicans are a dying breed. In the near future I suspect they'll be known as Obama Republicans, like the Reagan Democrats.

Go vote for your global warming denying creationist ticket, right-winger.

LOL. Well, sir, you sure got me square pegged. . .except your trying to fit it into a round hole.

Guess they're not the only old slow farts (parents no doubt, shame on you.) in your family able to be presuaded by propaganda. Mhm. Verbal butcher. Everything you say, is designed to further something leftist. I am on the killin' field and I am your latest victim, may the mass graves pile up, until we are no more. . . until there is only one agenda, yours. *smiles and wipes the drool off of Mulu's lip.* There there, I said faith based charities, not intelligent design you poor poor stupid motherfucker.

America is dead if we only have one party. If you must incite bullshit with your words, than be prepared for the worst. Obama says it, words matter.

What you are describing are Reagan Democrats generally, not moderate republicans. Moderate republicans don't give a shit about global warming AKA 'climate change' but they do care about conservationism and energy policies, nuclear, clean coal, natural gas, oil, wind, water, and dead last, solar. An energy policy that will get us out of the middle east. All republicans believe in a strong military and very good national security expenditure. Moderate republicans don't give a flying FUCK! about creationism AKA 'intelligent design' being preached or not being preached in schools. They are not pro choice, they're pro-life, and they are pro-small business.

Is McCain a moderate republican? In some ways he is, but no, that war-grisled terrorist curb stomper is a reagan DEMOCRAT brought in by the reagan administration. He is defined as republican because, well, he is. We accept libertarians, former democrats, republicans, conservatives, liberals, you name it. They are all defined as simply "republican" more often than not, and that can get confusing, especially if you like putting people into catagories to define them. Its nice with all this diversity, we can generally agree on a few things. My hopes is that McCain adopts T. Boone Picken's plan of energy policy, he has not ruled out drilling and Palin did give quite a speech so, here's hoping.

I agree that American Ideology came from the founding fathers, you know those Liberal Diests who hated Christianity and prepared the foundational documents for the country like the Declaration of Independence and in particular the Constitution. The Bill of Rights contain an ideology that is the law of the land.

Manipulation of truth is your ultimate goal. Ironic being a man of 'truth' but it goes with your view of moral relativism and ambiguation of our history, cute, pragmatic but by no means truthful. Those liberal diests did not hate christianity. It was an intergral part of their lives being the standard of the day much like racism and slavery. You use history as a weapon to support your goal of furthering atheism and human secularism, which is fine, but it will turn against you if you do it incorrectly. Another case of "YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG!"

YOUR liberalism, is not THEIR liberalsim, one thing you did eventually get right, is your eventual support of different races, cudos for that. *golf claps.* Mind the KKK members and racists still in your midst. May they grow old, die, be forgotten, and rest in pieces. . . just like Obama's teacher of hate, rev. wright.

[HATEFACE]

The Alaska secessionists are kind of dumb though, Alaska gets the sweetest deal anywhere. Oil profit-sharing and the Federal government pays you to live there, how can you b*tch about this.

I mean, sure, the Chinese are going to invade in the 2070s and start a nuclear war over you, but...

. . .war, war never changes. . .


Well, yeah those alaska sucessionists are dumb. What else do you expect them to do? Go to the nearest bed bath and beyond? My guess is that they're made up of fed up libertarians or a mix of both fed up democrats and republicans. On wikipedia it says that they are aligned with the conservative constitution party, which is also heavily liberatarian.

"At other times, party members have also proposed that the state explore the possibility of joining Canada. Other members have expressed opposition to joining Canada in its present form but are open to the possibility of joining an independent Western Canadian state comprised of the Yukon and Northwest Territories. Neither of these scenarios form part of the party's current platform."

Sounds like a moose club for moose.

According to the Alaskan Independence Party's web site:

"The Alaskan Independence Party's goal is the vote we were entitled to in 1958, one choice from among the following four alternatives:

Remain a Territory.
Become a separate and Independent Nation.
Accept Commonwealth status.
Become a State. (LOL! wut?)
The call for this vote is in furtherance of the dream of the Alaskan Independence Party's founding father, Joe Vogler, that Alaskans achieve independence under a minimal government, fully responsive to the people, and promoting a peaceful and lawful means of resolving differences."[7]
The Alaskan Independence Party maintains that Alaska's vote for statehood is "invalid" because "the people were not presented with the range of options available to them" and because "federal government has since breached the contract for statehood".[8] Their web site addresses many questions about Alaskan Secession, including:

If Alaska became independent, wouldn't we lose a lot of federal money? [8]
If Alaska were independent, what would happen to my social security check, federal pension, or military retirement?[8]
If Alaska became independent, would U.S. military bases leave?[8]
Under independence, what would happen to all the federal controls and regulations?[8]
Would I lose my U.S. citizenship?[8]
In 1990, Walter Joseph Hickel, a former Republican, won the election for governor as a member of the Alaskan Independence Party, along with Jack Coghill as his running mate. This was the only time since Alaska joined the union that a third-party candidate has been elected governor. However, Hickel never agreed with the party's call for a vote on secession, leading to demands from party diehards that he be recalled. He rejoined the Republican Party in 1994, with eight months remaining in his term."

Their website states that Palin was never a member. . . Mysterous? Maybe, maybe not? Who gives a shit? Democrats do.

http://www.akip.org/index.html

Oil profit-sharing and the Federal government pays you to live there, how can you b*tch about this.

Maybe for them its not about money? Maybe its about living free and being independent, your own man as it were, a cliche I know. Maybe its all about money and garnering these resources from the US. Speculation abound!

[Mulu]

I said faith based charities, not intelligent design

Liar. You said "faith based initiatives and charities." Intelligent design is a faith-based initiative. It sure isn't based on science or reason.

Moderate republicans don't give a sh*t about global warming AKA 'climate change'

How would you know right-winger? As to the rest, you have no idea what you are talking about.

You know, if McCain really cared about his country, he would have chosen a competent administrator as VP, not a creationist media darling. He's an old man, his number 2 should be ready to govern well, and follow his policies.

[ç i p h é r]

Wwwwooooooooowwwweeeeeee! Now THAT is an all American gal, my friends. Smart, cute, clever, charming, and TOUGH. Why don't we want women to govern our country, exactly?

I'm thoroughly impressed by what I saw last night. Depending on her ability to debate, which we'll find out soon enough, she could be the complete package. With more governing experience, as either governor or VP, we could also be looking at a future presidential candidate and a serious contender, especially if she retains her popularity by governing well. No joke.

Now, Obama Republicans? That only works if 2 + 2 = 5. And here's why.

Obama has a liberal record, not a moderate record. He's voted to the left more often than anyone else in the Senate. If moderates are centrist, how will this record appeal to them?

With a Democratic controlled congress, it's unclear how Obama intends to suddenly become a centrist and why he would when his record as a Senator demonstrates the opposite. The only legislation that will likely come before him are Democratic sponsored bills. So what's he going to veto?

Senator Obama also intends to cut military spending, and neither he nor his vice president have ever served in the military. If moderate Republicans favor a strong military, how will Obama appeal to them?

Senator Obama is in favor of increasing taxes on small businesses. These business owners are your moderate republicans, so how will Obama appeal to them by raising their taxes, especially in tough economic times?

On the issue of global warming, I'm not sure how McCain and Obama even differ, so feel free to expand on this one. I've just not paid much attention to all the media hype, and I doubt this issue is a priority for any moderate republican, in any case.

p.s. In retrospect, are there any Democrats regretting not nominating Hillary Clinton? I'm no fan of hers, but even I think that a Clinton-Obama ticket would have been very tough to beat. If they could have sold the ticket as a centrist ticket (take a page out of Bill's playbook), they would have broad appeal without the experience or credibility issues. Plus you have a woman and a black man on the ticket, doubly historic. Plus you don't get trapped into attacking a women VP on the other side, eroding the "equality" and "tolerance" image of the Democratic party.

[Mulu]

Wwwwooooooooowwwweeeeeee! Now THAT is an all American gal, my friends. Smart, cute, clever, charming, and TOUGH. Why don't we want women to govern our country, exactly?

You are the intended audience. I think there are very few who don't want *women* to govern, just the luddite "barefoot and pregnant" folk who tend to be Republican. Maybe this will be transformative for them. She may very well end up progressing women's lib with the people who need it the most, win or lose.

With more governing experience, as either governor or VP, we could also be looking at a future presidential candidate and a serious contender, especially if she retains her popularity by governing well. No joke.

Well, Bush Jr. was obviously a successful presidential candidate. Doesn't mean he was competent at governing. Unfortunately, elections are largely a popularity contest. Bush became president because he looked like he'd be fun at a BBQ, not because he looked like he could actually solve problems. Sarah is much the same; she's a female Bush Jr.

Now, Obama Republicans? That only works if 2 + 2 = 5. And here's why.

Actually the biggest reason why that's unlikely is McCain. He is a moderate, he's just willing to capitulate to the right to win. At 72, this is absolutely his last chance. He's come close before, and he's not going to let it get away this time, no matter who he has to appease. Picking Sarah was the decision of a political animal, not a person interested in good government. Her history is one of personal vindictiveness and the abuse of power. Just read the Wiki on her, which btw had to be frozen to prevent editing by her campaign staff.

With a Democratic controlled congress, it's unclear how Obama intends to suddenly become a centrist and why he would when his record as a Senator demonstrates the opposite.

The short answer is "filibuster." It really depends on the makeup of Congress. Democrats are not guaranteed to remain the majority, a lot of seats they gained were due to specific corrupt Republicans. They won't be running against the indicted candidates when they run for re-election, it will be someone new.

Senator Obama is in favor of increasing taxes on small businesses.

Not that I've seen. He favors taxing the wealthy, and oil companies.

On the issue of global warming, I'm not sure how McCain and Obama even differ

Sarah, at one heartbeat away from the big chair, is a vehement global warming denier. She won't be setting policy, but then again the right-wing loves her so much they may just be willing to hasten McCain's visit to god.

p.s. In retrospect, are there any Democrats regretting not nominating Hillary Clinton?

I would have taken either of them, and I agree a Clinton-Obama ticket would have been very powerful, though it does suffer from the double negative of excluding those who are racist and those who are sexist, not always the same people. Then again they mostly vote Republican anyway. But it wasn't in the cards for her. I don't see Obama as a "loss," especially if he manages to motivate the youth vote. Big "if" there, but they have some pretty inventive ideas, like text messaging them on Election Day to remind them to vote.

[Lusipher]

come on, how many ALFAns you know that are here for 7 years and actually like the place?

Not me


As this page has hit 14 can we get a lock? We could do this for centuries with all the liberal and right wing back and forth. Cipher and PD thanks for taking up the cause while I was away enjoying games in other communties. ALFA is a leftist shitbag (as Spider would say) and it wont ever change. So, we let them drone on.

LOCK IT DOWN PLZ, K, Thx.

[zicada]

I see absolutely no reason to lock this thread. Carry on. Enjoy those games Dan

[Mulu]

As this page has hit 14 can we get a lock?

ROFL. *You* lit this fire, and perpetuate it with your forum avatar.

[Lusipher]

Ahh Its not a big deal if its over 10 pages but we use to lock everything after 10. Zicada just likes to be a maverick. His Infra policy is there is no policy. Way to go, ALFA!

[HATEFACE]

I said faith based charities, not intelligent design

Liar. You said "faith based initiatives and charities." Intelligent design is a faith-based initiative. It sure isn't based on science or reason.

Moderate republicans don't give a sh*t about global warming AKA 'climate change'

How would you know right-winger? As to the rest, you have no idea what you are talking about.

You know, if McCain really cared about his country, he would have chosen a competent administrator as VP, not a creationist media darling. He's an old man, his number 2 should be ready to govern well, and follow his policies.

Idiotic moron of massive incompetence. faith initiatives =! creationism. It could mean, perhaps, getting people off of drug dependacies using faith based philosophies. Creationism is NOT prominant here in the North star state, nor would it ever be. That is testament to the type of people who live here! Creationism lies predominantly in the southern states. Don't fucking call it intelligent design either, call it for what it IS. Fuck off with your twisted ass bullshit. You only hear what you want to hear or maybe you're totally preoccupied with creationism.

And you would know what? Know about being a liberal democrat? As for the rest, I do know what I am talking about. To bad for you and your pitiful arguments to the contrary. Labeling me a right-winger is fine, it suggestively implies far right. I have no problem with labels that your kind espouse akin to hate, because I am so very used to them. Repeat a lie. That's your tactic. Your labelization just proves my point of how you function.

Now, you could argue that both sides do it. That they do, the political circus game, but the truth of the matter is you do it far more often on the grass roots level, and republicans, more often than not, sit back and take it. What do we call you? Liberal left wing lunatics. What are we called in the game? Rednecks, creationists, fundamental christians, racists, gun-nuts, right-wingers, fascists, bigots, unconstitutional, war-mongers, religous right, nazis, and authoritarians. Even all that didn't bring us down. All it took was one medicore president called George W. Bush to rally around and make him look like Carter's fecal matter when the first soldier died on foriegn soil. Your party was so totally owned when we used the term liberal to apply how you changed with what you were, to how you are now. Not that you were great what with the pro-slavery thing, but at least you supported old school liberalism Now you attempt to grab it back with progressive, but I hope people are smart enough to see through that bullshit. Pretty slick.

You know, if McCain really cared about his country, he would have chosen a competent administrator as VP, not a creationist media darling. He's an old man, his number 2 should be ready to govern well, and follow his policies.

She asks for a choice for creationism, and media darling, WELL, L-fucking-O-L - Obama totally wasn't a media darling. . . right? Hilarious. and, OH MAH GAWRD! Obama isn't a media darling!? A republican has captured media attention for once?! I have doubts about how long it will last, and go back on Obama, knowing the media as I do. What the fuck is that all about? Go off the handle lefty, here's your olbermanshovel, dig yourself a grave, roll over, and die.

If Democrats really gave two fucks about this country, not petty politics, moving forward toward bipartisanship, and problem resolution they would have chosen Hillary Clinton. But they did not. She's like lieberman, we like her, but we don't like like her, if you get my drift.

Okay, so I did some digging on the wikipedia Palin page. (which was no doubt as much protected from en mass edits from njubs and freaks than campaign staffers.) It brought me to the huffington post, a independent, totally legitimate looking blog-o-sphere. I listened to her prayer, shrugged a bit, tried to dig for the past sermons, but the link was missing.

Sometimes I do judge other people's religion rather harshly but at same time I believe that religous people should account for the shortcomings of their particular faith. On the plus side, it's not like the believers prayers will do anything. Only thing that will happen is Palin and her own motivation. I come from a little different background and have had encounters with faith differently. Primarily, lutheran. I've never heard of combining god and pipelines before or any political activism thereof, out of lutheran faiths. Neither have I heard racist babble from the likes of rev. wright either. Hmm. Danubus, do you ever go to church and hear political pandering? I know its common in the south. Snake handling, speaking in tongues, that sort of thing. Pomp & circumstance by religious.

Not that I've seen. He favors taxing the wealthy, and oil companies.

What does Obama consider wealthy, income-wise? Does it fall within the range of middle class? Poor?

[oldgrayrogue]

I usually don't get involved in political discussions, but what the hell.

Honestly, I never understood why most conservative republicans don't absolutely LOVE Obama. He is the poster child for everything they preach. He is an underprivileged black man from a broken family who came from nothing and worked his way up to earn scholarships and an ivy league education. He chose national service, beginning on a very grass roots level, over a very lucrative legal career based on his credentials. He is married -- once -- a family man, with a loving wife and two kids, and yes by even John McCain's standards he is rich. Oh -- and he is the first black man to ever be nominated president. So yeah basically your run of the mill American Dream come true, and ironically the very example of what most republicans say every minority child in this country has the opportunity to accomplish if they just work hard and apply themselves, even though Obama is like ... mmm ... the only one ever to actually accomplish it.

So republicans should love Obama, right? So why do they hate this guy so much? Hmmm I wonder ......

This, to me, is just the latest example of conservative republican hypocrisy. It is the party of hypocrisy.

Pro Life but pro death penalty.

Pro Religion but pro war.

Pro Freedom but Anti-choice, anti gay, anti civil rights .....

Sarah Palin is being unfairly attacked! .... and then she gives that speech last night.

Hypocrisy.

The nomination of Sarah Palin is simply a last minute gimmick, no more and no less, that was conceived to try to salvage what the rupublicans recognized was sure defeat in light of Obama's speach at the DNC. It was specifically designed to capitalize upon all the things that made Hillary Clinton so popular, but through a candidate who is actually anathema to everything she, and I dare say most women in this country, stand for. It is the latest example of cynical and hypocrital slight of hand by a party that manipulates the truth by playing upon people's fears and prejudices without integrity or conscience. It is also a huge gamble, which provides insight into the mind and judgment of the top runner in this republican campaign. Frankly, I don't want my world leaders to be people willing to roll the dice on a last minute hail mary pass that could win the big game or just might end up blowing us all up if you catch my meaning. I much prefer someone who uses hard work, intelligence, careful planning and preparation to acheive a seemingly unattainable goal. But that's just me.

[HATEFACE]

I usually don't get involved in political discussions, but what the hell.

Honestly, I never understood why most conservative republicans don't absolutely LOVE Obama. He is the poster child for everything they preach. He is an underprivileged black man from a broken family who came from nothing and worked his way up to earn scholarships and an ivy league education. He chose national service, beginning on a very grass roots level, over a very lucrative legal career based on his credentials. He is married -- once -- a family man, with a loving wife and two kids, and yes by even John McCain's standards he is rich. Oh -- and he is the first black man to ever be nominated president. So yeah basically your run of the mill American Dream come true, and ironically the very example of what most republicans say every minority child in this country has the opportunity to accomplish if they just work hard and apply themselves, even though Obama is like ... mmm ... the only one ever to actually accomplish it.

So republicans should love Obama, right? So why do they hate this guy so much? Hmmm I wonder ......

This, to me, is just the latest example of conservative republican hypocrisy. It is the party of hypocrisy.

Pro Life but pro death penalty.

Pro Religion but pro war.

Pro Freedom but Anti-choice, anti gay, anti civil rights .....

Sarah Palin is being unfairly attacked! .... and then she gives that speech last night.

Hypocrisy.

The nomination of Sarah Palin is simply a last minute gimmick, no more and no less, that was conceived to try to salvage what the rupublicans recognized was sure defeat in light of Obama's speach at the DNC. It was specifically designed to capitalize upon all the things that made Hillary Clinton so popular, but through a candidate who is actually anathema to everything she, and I dare say most women in this country, stand for. It is the latest example of cynical and hypocrital slight of hand by a party that manipulates the truth by playing upon people's fears and prejudices without integrity or conscience. It is also a huge gamble, which provides insight into the mind and judgment of the top runner in this republican campaign. Frankly, I don't want my world leaders to be people willing to roll the dice on a last minute hail mary pass that could win the big game or just might end up blowing us all up if you catch my meaning. I much prefer someone who uses hard work, intelligence, careful planning and preparation to acheive a seemingly unattainable goal. But that's just me.

Welcome to the discussion.

Honestly, I never understood why most conservative republicans don't absolutely LOVE Obama. He is the poster child for everything they preach. He is an underprivileged black man from a broken family who came from nothing and worked his way up to earn scholarships and an ivy league education. He chose national service, beginning on a very grass roots level, over a very lucrative legal career based on his credentials. He is married -- once -- a family man, with a loving wife and two kids, and yes by even John McCain's standards he is rich. Oh -- and he is the first black man to ever be nominated president. So yeah basically your run of the mill American Dream come true, and ironically the very example of what most republicans say every minority child in this country has the opportunity to accomplish if they just work hard and apply themselves, even though Obama is like ... mmm ... the only one ever to actually accomplish it.

*Arches eye brow and stares at gray a long time before answering.* We should vote upon race/gender/religion not issues? I completely loathe him because of what he stands for not what he is; rampant ignorant liberalism. He should take presidentancy because he has done so much. So as the first black man he is entitled to it? I could argue that you are the racist. Why would you sterotype as though a black man, isn't incapable of coming this far and he isn't the social norm in america. Egads man! This is 08' soon to be 09'. Don't get me wrong, I love the fact that Obama has accomplished all that he has and if republicans have proven one thing, it is that any man can reach high office regardless of color. So I'm proud of that fact. In a way republicans have changed the very nature of the democratic party - Somewhat. . . There are clear and profoundly revealing/disturbing instances within the democratic party still. Plus side though, at least you're calling black people "Uncle Toms" (lol read the novel liberals.) as a derogitory remark because of wealth and success. It's really unfortunate that I've heard the term used against republicans. ;(

You know what? They both represent the american dream. I hope that's a fair enough response.

[Mayhem]

Wwwwooooooooowwwweeeeeee! Now THAT is an all American gal, my friends. Smart, cute, clever, charming, and TOUGH.

and overflowing from the gill with Grade A Bullcrap?

Telling outright lies about your history and that of you ropponents, in an age of instant internet fact-checking, demonstrates that she is in fact somewhat less than "smart".

[oldgrayrogue]

Now I remember why I don't get involved in these discussions.

Congratulations HATEFACE. You now enjoy the distinction of being the first person to ever accuse me of being a racist. How ironic. I don't think you or anyone else should vote for Obama because of his race. But I do believe that the sad truth is that many people are not voting for him, and are voting for McCain, for that very reason.

Yes, it is 2009. Perhaps Obama and the American people will actually demonstrate in this election that racism and bigotry are a thing of the past. If the republicans want to take credit for it, that's fine by me.

I stand by my original post and now gracefully bow out of this discussion.

[Mulu]

faith initiatives =! creationism.

Bush has publicly supported teaching intelligent design, and faith based initiatives give money to the very same groups that push for ID in schools.

I'll put it into a context you can understand. Hezbollah builds schools. If you were to give Hezbollah money to build schools, you wouldn't just be supporting the building of schools, since Hezbollah does other things too. Get it?

More importantly the faith based versions of social programs are less effective. Sex Ed is an obvious one. Also they use federal funds to proselytize their beliefs in violation of the separation clause. Several of the programs have been shot down in Federal courts due to crossing the line.

And finally, and ironically, the faith based initiatives largely went unfunded. From a Christian website:

In June 2001, the promised tax incentives for charitable giving were stripped at the last minute from the $1.6 trillion tax cut legislation to make room for the estate-tax repeal that overwhelmingly benefited the wealthy. The Compassion Capital Fund has received a cumulative total of $100 million during the past four years. And new programs including those for children of prisoners, at-risk youth, and prisoners reentering society have received a little more than $500 million over four years--or approximately $6.3 billion less than the promised $6.8 billion.

Ultimately I'd have to agree with you though. Looking over his disastrous Presidency, faith-based initiatives qualify as the best thing he did.

Now, you could argue that both sides do it. That they do, the political circus game, but the truth of the matter is you do it far more often on the grass roots level, and republicans, more often than not, sit back and take it. What do we call you? Liberal left wing lunatics. What are we called in the game? Rednecks, creationists, fundamental christians, racists, gun-nuts, right-wingers, fascists, bigots, unconstitutional, war-mongers, religous right, nazis, and authoritarians.

Oh come now, *you* use more terms than that. Besides, the terms we use are factually accurate.

She asks for a choice for creationism

What if it was the Jihadist manual instead? Not all philosophies deserve to be taught to our young children. Creationism is a lie, it is factually false. It has no place in education.

Obama totally wasn't a media darling. . . right?

Voters choose the candidates, McCain and Obama. Choosing a VP is an executive judgement. McCain failed in his executive judgement from the perspective of good governance, instead choosing to energize the base for the election. Obama did the opposite, choosing a Senator known for making gaffes, and thus risking potentially damaging his election chances. Obama chose Joe because he's a hard-worker with excellent foreign policy skills, someone who will be an asset in governance.

If Democrats really gave two fucks about this country, not petty politics, moving forward toward bipartisanship, and problem resolution they would have chosen Hillary Clinton.

I don't see how there is any significant difference policy wise or governance wise between Hillary and Obama. Few did. Obama played the primary scheme better, which I suppose shows superior use of tactics. Hillary went in assuming she already had it, and when it became obvious it was going to be a fight had already lost too much relative momentum. *shrugs* Because they are so similar and were so close, who won is far less an expression of Democratic choice than it is simply a result of the system.

For that matter, Republicans had so vilified Hillary in the past, I don't know that she would be the best bipartisan pick. Too many prior attacks, too much bad blood.

McCain, OTOH, was clearly a choice, albeit one disliked by a vocal minority. A choice that spoke volumes given his moderate reputation. Too bad for him he didn't listen to that pro-moderate expression when he made his VP pick. A moderate ticket would probably have won. Conservatives aren't going to vote democrat no matter what, and no matter how much they whine about the centrist shift. He didn't have to placate them, and he may have just lost the middle.

You know what's interesting about this debate? Only the Republicans are cussing and making personal attacks. The morality party indeed. I think that speaks volumes about the relative outlooks and qualities of the parties.

What does Obama consider wealthy, income-wise? Does it fall within the range of middle class? Poor?

McCain thinks it's making more than $5 million a year. Obama uses the definition, upper 2 or 3%, which comes to $250k/year or more.

It's interesting that Republicans fail to realize just how much Bush damaged them economically. By increasing the debt and devaluing the dollar, your earnings are effectively much lower. It's like an extra tax.

@Oldgrayrogue: It was a great post. The thing to remember is to just skip over the portions where they start to swear or attack.