By Savanation

June 19, 2008 2:37 PM | Link to this

“The reason your perspective is so dangerous is you can’t even recognize the enemy.”(TRS) After 9/11, America had a true enemy to stalk and eradicate. Someone mentioned a “War on Terror”. Too bad they were just words. If President Gore had been in the White House, Terror would be on the run and Bin Ladin would be dead. Unfortunately, Mr. Bush, had other plans which had to come first. He had a nation to attack, for basically no reason, just to make himself seem bigger and better than his father. He said: the hell with the terrorists, I can lie and posture this country into bombing and killing thosands of people who had absolutely no part in 9/11, but it will look good to the slow witted people who elected me. So because he and those who elected him did not recognize who the enemy actually was, 4000 fine young men died for no reason and the terrorists laugh at us and plot in newed millions around the world. “Your assertions about this President is a gross exxageration at best and a downright lie at worst”(TRS)One would think that anyone who could type a post, would be able to look out a window and see for himself how right I am. What is it going to take for you to see reality? The economy totally selfdestruct? 5000 more soldiers dead for no reason? Religious fanatics controlling what you say and what you think? Corporate CEO’s making billions a month while real people can’t affort to fill up their tank? (Gee, that’s happening right now. Way to go TRS!) BTW, I hope your sister-in-law is giving out condoms and real birth control information( not that abstinence silliness). That/s what it takes to stop abortions, not incompetent presidents or bought and paid for judges like Bush appointed.

By TRS

June 19, 2008 12:46 PM | Link to this

Narrow view of “life” - tell you what, I’ll let you work with my sister-in-law one day. She works in a neo-natal ward doing her best to help pre mature babies alive, some who only weigh a couple pounds; yet, in your view its OK if another decides to end the same life based on inconvenience. That’s why I don’t need your lectures because there are great inconsistencies in your views as well. Read history - LBJ printed money and brought about the hyper inflation of the early 70s. His war on poverty, while well intentioned, created generations of underclass because it took away incentives. Your assertions about this President is a gross exxageration at best and a downright lie at worst; but, it is the typical liberal mantra. Want a duh - the instability in this world is because of our enemies. They crashed the WTC, the blew up the USS Cole, they blew up the Kobar Tower, they killed our troops in Somolia. The reason your perspective is so dangerous is you can’t even recognize the enemy. You think its Bush!ident. That has always been the problem with you libs on the fringe - you blame this country 1st for all the world’s. At the end of the day, you will hold your opinions and I will hold mine.

By Savanation

June 19, 2008 8:23 AM | Link to this

TRS: I do not like the idea of abortion and so counsel against it. BUT that is for me. Another person is another person. It is not for me or for you or for anyone to interfere with the decision a woman makes inconjunction with her doctor and her God. I do not need a religious fanatic pushing whatever narrow view of life he is cuurently selling, upon the majority of Americans who do not subsribe to a particular theological mantra. On another point you raise: Robert McNamara was never President , and is more than balanced by the gross imbeliclity of Donald Rumsfeld. LBJ at least had the advantage of being involved in a legitimate, albeit unltimately stupid, war. Mr. Bush’s war is not only stupid but also illegitimate. Plus I don’t think LBJ ruined our economy, refused to insure poor children, refused to allow scienitific research to save lives, created millions of terrorists, ignored terrorist criminals while being a terrorist himself, created massive debt where there was surplus before, placed the American nation in debt to foreigners at an unheard of level, refuse to do anything about, or to even acknowledge,the montrous calamity his backers had done to the stability of the natural world. But, hey, if you don’t think Bush is the greatest destroyer of life we have ever had as a President, OK, then you can think he is #2. You voted for the second worse man ever to be President. Does that make you happier? Duh!

By TRS

June 19, 2008 12:28 AM | Link to this

Alice - Hope we’re good entertainment. Good points RE viewership; but, I do think the George Mason survey reflects that Fox is not as bad as some think. I’ll check out the websites. Savanation - some time back, you indicated a pro choice position. I believe your statement was “it was between a woman and her doctor”. I am glad you do not condone abortion; but, as you have difficulty reconciling my position regarding the war, I too, have the same issue reconciling being against abortion and still pro choice. Perhaps we can agree that discouraging it as you do with your children will do the most to prevent it. For the record, the morality of war is a big deal to me. In my life, I’ve closely served with awesome folks who jumped into airplanes and did not return. I do not take war lightly; yet, I do not agree with pacifism. I believe there are times when war is justified for the greater good. Such times should be rare. Lets stipulate that we disagree on this next statement as I don’t want to get into a back and forth. Been there - done that. At the beginning of the Iraq war, I felt it to be just, as did many. In determining that, I looked at the information before me, I read the writings of St Augustine among others about just wars and I felt that the greater good would be served by eliminating the threat of Saddam and what appeared at the time to be a good chance of him supplying WMDs to terrorists to attack this country. Unlike you, I can see how others could arrive at different conclusions and can respect that. I don’t view them as stupid or buying into a bunch of “crap and lies” - I just think they have reached a different conclusion, however wrong in my view, and vice versa. Finally, one of your statements I do take great exception to - ( This president, whom you have voted for and supported, has done more to ruin lives and kill lives than any politician in our history) is an absolute exxageration and falsehood. The stupidity of LBJ and Robert Strange Mcnamara took 57,000 of my generation, some of them friends. The shear numbers prove this statement wrong.

By alice

June 18, 2008 12:51 PM | Link to this

Here’s another good report from AARP: http://www.aarp.org/research/financial/ira/auto_ira.html

By Alice

June 18, 2008 12:47 PM | Link to this

TRS, I usually am content with just reading your back and forths with MWM and Savanation for both the exchange of ideas (you all have had your moments of good points) and the entertainment value of the sometimes excess of the arguments. But I have to laugh at the FOXNews argument just as I have to laugh at HuffPost being referred to a McCain supporter as a source of balanced news. If you rely on viewership and ratings and statistics then you must also believe that there is a balance of information on Jerry Springer, Howard Stern and Rush Limbaugh because their ratings are high - they must know what they are talking about! Further, as much as I enjoy the occasional dip into HuffPost I realize that it is only to satisfy my selfish need for confirmation by my peers. OK - if you are serious about wanting to know more about Obama’s plan for automatic IRA’s, here is a link from The Heritage Foundation, a known “right-wing” think tank “whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.” This is a link to one article, but search their site and you’ll find some good commentary: http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed030806c.cfm

By Savanation

June 18, 2008 11:18 AM | Link to this

” I tend to believe the killing of the 20 million innocent lives in the form of unborn infants over the last number of years is immoral; yet, you seem to believe it no problem at all.”(TRS) I don’t believe the subject of abortion has been brought up so I don’t know how you know what my “belief” is. Since I know you support Bush I do know that “you seem to believe it no problem at all” that he and those who support him have killed tens of thousands, including 4000 of your own soldiers without caring about the immorality of it. I am against abortion. Therefore I counsel my children not to do it. But I would never waste my vote and my intellect on an incompetent and dangerous candidate just because that candidate says he will mediocre judges on the Supreme Court to shift it in the way religious fanatics want. I care about all life, not just the unborn. This president, whom you have voted for and supported, has done more to ruin lives and kill lives than any politician in our history. There is no “lack of perspective” involved here. Unless it is on your part. Bad is bad and incompetence is incompetence, and you having voted for such is not going to make the truth change. I do not understand your term “super biased”. I don’t understand the term “Bush Bashing”. I have never said one statement which is not absolutely true. I am sorry if that is viewed as a “bias” or as a “bashing” from your point of view. From my point of view it is just what it is - the simple truth. I heard someone say that there is way to much coverage of Republican misconduct in our media. Well, my answer to that would be - Please, Republicans, stop doing that s**t and maybe the real media will leave you alone, just like Fox does. By the way - most everyone “thinks” (Bush would be a glaring exception). “Thinking people” understand crap and lies when they see them. Those who don’t, watch Fox News and continue to be misled.

By TRS

June 18, 2008 12:58 AM | Link to this

Hmmmm….I’m guessing you don’t watch Fox News. Here are the results of an independent study done by Geo Mason University - “Fox News Channel’s coverage was more balanced toward both parties than the broadcast networks were. On FOX, evaluations of all Democratic candidates combined were split almost evenly – 51% positive vs. 49% negative, as were all evaluations of GOP candidates – 49% positive vs. 51% negative, producing a perfectly balanced 50-50 split for all candidates of both parties. On the three broadcast networks, opinion on Democratic candidates split 47% positive vs. 53% negative, while evaluations of Republicans were more negative – 40% positive vs. 60% negative.” Liberals have a grip on both the legacy press and networks and had the viewers/readers; yet, they lost them or are losing them. Folks went looking elsewhere for a reason. Lets face it, no news media is totally unbiased - after all it wasn’t a Fox commentator that said Obama sent shivers up and down his leg; yet, I believe Fox seeks to present a more balanced perspective than the others and the proof is in the survey as well as the viewership. I’ll take this evidence over your super biased opinion anyday. Besides, based on your comments, you don’t even watch Fox so how would you know? RE Morality - I tend to believe the killing of the 20 million innocent lives in the form of unborn infants over the last number of years is immoral; yet, you seem to believe it no problem at all. I believe they call that a difference in perspective. Now, for a News flash - just because you say it don’t make it so! People of good conscience do disagree on issues. Perhaps the biggest load of dung you piled on in your last post dealt with “thinking people” and those that arrive at views in a slovenly way. There is a certain arrogance in thinking and saying that “if peopel would only study the issues they would arrive at the same conclusions I do”. Many thinking, reasoning people, including myself, study issues and arrive at differing conclusions each day. Disagreement is part of the political process; but, disrespecting others shouldn’t be. You can either take the arrogant, angry, testy, condescending, look down your nose at, elite attitude or you could actually be civil and respond with some sense of decorum. Your last post corrected the record and made your point nicely and really was all that was needed unless you prefer to be contentious and antagonistic. That may satisfy your soul and some anger issues you have but it makes for some pretty unpleasant and unconvincing reading.

By Savanation

June 17, 2008 9:52 PM | Link to this

“Guess everyone that watches is stupid, eh?”(TRS) Yes, if they watch more than once, then they are extremely stupid. As to why “I feel the need to be testy and sarcastic”, I don’t see it that way. I am irritated because twice as many people (?)(as you point out) feel the need to have their slovenly thought out opinions legitimatized by people who are paid to do just that. People who think do not need that reinforcement, therefore not as many thinking people watch Fox’s competition. I guess you do feel that need. By the way, you can’t possibly believe what you said about Fox offering both sides of the argument. that would be absolutely foolish and that is not sarcasm. And since when is “moral vs. Immoral” an opinion? Something is either moral or it isn’t. Period. And people who condone immorality are not “reasonable”. “McCain has visited Iraq multible times” Yes, but it seems he didn’t learn anything. He stil;l wants to continue the killing and refuses even to grant our returning heroes the same benefits the nation granted to the heroes of WWII. Classy guy! As to my last post answering the question civily — The point there is, the question should never have been asked. Ethel was obviously told a bunch of crap from your Fox News and she actually believed it and repeated it. How many people did she repeat that silliness to? Until she met someone, ME, who set her straight. that is the insidiousness of Fox News. They will say lies without the least care in the world because they know there is a market for lies. That market for lies is there because the people who go to Fox News can’t handle the truth and will pay a lot of money to be told what they want to hear, and usually the only way to give them what they want to hear is to lie. I wonder if Ethel understand that the only reason she was wrong was because she believed liars.

By mwm

June 17, 2008 8:29 PM | Link to this

We are in a war in Iraq, A war based upon lies and propaganda. And yet, the conservative set thinks of staying in Iraq long term. Mainly for the oil reserves. And, at the expense of the American people. You Talk about trust? We have a president and administration that willfully lied and used selected propaganda to sell the war in Iraq. And, media outlets, specifically, FOX, Limbaugh, Hannity and other hate groups that were not impartial but, were velcroed to the Bush administration. There is no trust of Bush or the neocon set. Except of course for evangelicals that will be stuck voting for McCain; against their own best interest. As for the 4000+ american lives lost. They followed orders. And were/are engaged in a war based upon lies, deceptions and propaganda. Like the Gulf of Tonkin lies for the VietNam set. It is time for a change. The billions being spent on Iraq would be better spent on our own country and the veterans of this war. Wake up, McCain! The public can’t handle more garbage from the Republicans. It will take the dems to bring honesty and integrity back to the white house.

By TRS

June 17, 2008 7:46 PM | Link to this

Since you brought it up, Fox News doubles the viewership of CNN and triples that of MSNBC. Guess everyone that watches is stupid, eh? Folks know where they can go to get both sides of the issue and find a source that isn’t in the tank for whoever the Democrat may be, as say, MSNBC or CNN. To the point - your last post - concise, to the point and answered the question. No sarcasm - no talking down to someone - that was the point. Makes for nice conversation don’t you think? Don’t know what you feel the need to be so testy and sarcastic. As far as the war, this whole moral vs immoral is a matter of opinion that has been rehashed over and over - surfice it to say reasonable people see it differently. One thing that is known, once we were there, what would have been immoral is to simply say “never mind” and pull the plug. We were accused of walking out on the Iraqis after the Gulf War and to do it again would have handed them over to the militants - they would have never trusted us again. History shows we did that in Viet Nam and millions of people died (ever see the Killing Fields?). After some strategy blunders were corrected, much progress has been made and we stand a chance of handing Iraq over to the Iraqis in the near future with the ability for them to control and govern their country. Such a success will save what could be a true civil war and the many lives that would be lost then. Those 4000 heros gave their lives to accomplish that and it diminishes their sacrifice to assert that they did it for nothing. As for continued policy, McCain has visited Iraq multiple times, consulted with the commanders and come to his conclusion based on their input. Obama hasn’t been there since ‘06, has never consulted with Petraeus or the other Generals involved in theatre and seems to have taken his military assessment of the situation from Movon.org. Obama claims he will visit Iraq shortly - perhaps that will give him some different insight, perhaps not.

By Savanation

June 17, 2008 8:01 AM | Link to this

Just so Ethel fully understands what the plan entails: There is no Employer mandate to put money into a retirement account for the employee. It is only a requirement, and a sensible one at that, that the employer make the ability for a direct deposit of the employee’s money into a retirement account if the employee wishes.This does not affect the empoyers ability to “porvide jobs or Health Insurance” And seems a completely “realistic” plan to help people save and help the economy. I do not think that is “Weak ecomonic” policy in the least and neither should Ethel, if she gave it the least little thought.

By Savanation

June 17, 2008 7:53 AM | Link to this

Looks like Ethel has a little problem with the keyboard. Doesn’t seem to be the only problem she has. It is amazing to me that there are people out there who, because they watch nothing but Fox News, know nothing about the world and it’s problems. If Ethel had borthered to check into Sen. Obama’s web site, she would have found a very complete article on what she thinks is a “requirement for employers to have retirement plans.” I have taken the liberty of copying it for her. That way she will not have to continue in ignorance, just repeating what Fox tells her too. ” Create Automatic Workplace Pensions: Obama’s retirement security plan will automatically enroll workers in a workplace pension plan. Under his plan, employers who do not currently offer a retirement plan, will be required to enroll their employees in a direct-deposit IRA account that is compatible to existing direct-deposit payroll systems. Employees may opt-out if they choose. Experts estimate that this program will increase the savings participation rate for low and middle-income workers from its current 15 percent level to around 80 percent.” To make it easy for you, Ethel, here is the site, try getting some facts for a change. http://www.barackobama.com/issues/socialsecurity/

By Ethel S

June 16, 2008 10:52 PM | Link to this

Once again you Obama supporters are lecturing to me what news I should listen to or what media I should read even to the point of suggesting I stop posting my comments and calling me ignorant. Why are you not willing to accept any criticisms of your candidate without being so “downright nean?” Sen. Obama’s economic proposals are weak i.e. required retirement plans by employers when employers are struggling to provide jobs and health plan for one. I will not stop posting and will continue to evaluate the both candidates good and bad points.

By Ethel S

June 16, 2008 10:51 PM | Link to this

Once again you Obama supporters are lecturing to me what news I should listen to or what media I should read even to the point of suggesting I stop posting my comments and calling me ignorant. Why are you not willing to accept any criticisms of your candidate without being so “downright nean?” Sen. Obama’s economic proposals are weak i.e. required retirement plans by employers when employers are struggling to provide jobs and health plan for one. I will not stop posting and will continue to evaluate the both candidates good and bad points.

By Ethel S

June 16, 2008 10:50 PM | Link to this

Once again you Obama supporters are lecturing to me what news I should listen to or what media I should read even to the point of suggesting I stop posting my comments and calling me ignorant. Why are you not willing to accept any criticisms of your candidate without being so “downright nean?” Sen. Obama’s economic proposals are weak i.e. required retirement plans by employers when employers are struggling to provide jobs and health plan for one. I will not stop posting and will continue to evaluate the both candidates good and bad points.

By Ethel S

June 16, 2008 10:50 PM | Link to this

Once again you Obama supporters are lecturing to me what news I should listen to or what media I should read even to the point of suggesting I stop posting my comments and calling me ignorant. Why are you not willing to accept any criticisms of your candidate without being so “downright nean?” Sen. Obama’s economic proposals are weak i.e. required retirement plans by employers when employers are struggling to provide jobs and health plan for one. I will not stop posting and will continue to evaluate the both candidates good and bad points.

By Savanation

June 16, 2008 10:09 PM | Link to this

“Try Fox News”(TRS) “Fair and balanced perspective”(TRS) They say the the classic definition of insanity is repeating the same mistake over and over again. If people like Ethel and TRS don’t understand the mistake they made and seem intent of making again, then why should they be spoken to other than the way you would speak to your slightly addled, unkempt crazy cousin Louie? It is very hard to ignore the fact that anyone who voted for Bush and might vote for McBush just isn’t as bright as the majority of the adult population. And anyone who says Fox News has a fair and balanced perspective (unless they have their tongue firmly in their cheek) really hasn’t the brain power to offer any opinion. It TRS actually believes that Fox News is “fair and balanced” then we have a prima facie case for mental instability. And I say that with all the common courtesy and humility and human decency I usually reserve for those who joined with their leader to kill over 4000 of our young heroes. Or hasn’t Fox News told you that there is an immoral war going on in Iraq? I guess that would explain your silly comments.

By TRS

June 16, 2008 7:02 PM | Link to this

Ethel - you’ll have to pardon the libs. They have difficulty grasping basic economic issues such as the one you brought forward. Such questions baffle them and it is understandable when the model they prefer is socialism and big government as opposed to the free market. You can try those news outlets recommended if you wish but you could also get the same information from the DNC or the Obama campaign as they are synonymous. If you wanted a fair and balanced perspective, try Fox News….and please forgive Savanation - he doesn’t mean to talk down to you - its must what the angry left wing fringe does. Most liberals and Democrats I know are decent folks, but a few like to puff out their chest and make statements which they believe deem themselves superior to others. Common courtesy, humility and even human decency in interacting with others are not their strong suits.

By Alice

June 15, 2008 11:37 PM | Link to this

Savanation, it’s clear she has some kind of obsession with Barack Obama since she doesn’t seem to “be excited” enough about her candidate to post positive remarks on blogs regarding him. Only news about Obama gets her excited enough to bother. Deranged supporter of an un-named former candidate, I would say.

By Savanation

June 15, 2008 3:28 PM | Link to this

Sen. McCain answers question asked of him from a selected audience of his supporters. Guarantee he gets just the questions he has a line of bull prepared for. And then he screws up the answers. Ethel, either stop posting or actually find out what you are talking about. Go to any number of youtube sites or to the Obama web site or any reputable media outlet like MSNBC or CNN or The Huffington Report and acxtually listen to Sen. Obama and those he talks with. Maybe then you will be able to talk with some degree of intelligence. So far you haven’t shown any.

By Ethel S.

June 15, 2008 1:17 PM | Link to this

The photos are very nice. However, Sen. Obama’s economic plan to require employers to have retirement plans is really naive. Especially when the employers are struggling to provide jobs and health insurance. I suggest that Sen. Obama get back on that plane and go back to his advisors to come up with more realistic ideas given just how bad the economy is currently. Sen. McCain has been having a series of Town Hall meetings listening to the people to get his economic plans formulated. Sen. McCain listen, while Sen. Obama talks at them. That is the real difference in the two candidates. I much prefer Sen. McCain’s approach.

By VickiLynne

June 13, 2008 11:42 PM | Link to this

nice shots…