And just like your inability to spell my name correctly, --albeit I would be proud to be a relative of Thomas Hobbes, you get the facts wrong, as well.

Obama is where he is because of many factors, not the least of these is because he is black. Deny it all you want. I'll not debate that fact with you. The facts are the facts. Blacks support Barack in the mid to high 90's. To suggest that blacks think so clearly and indentically with each other is racism. You attribute ignorance to blacks in that they can't help but choose one of their own. That they deserve this candidate because of thier blackness.

Give me a break. Obama has wonderful qualities of style, similar to Palin. But he's an empty suit. Palin is in my humble opinion, a wonderful candidate, but she is only half dressed. She needed another four years in the Governor's chair in my judgment. Obama needed another decade or two before he would have been ready.

While Obama was rubbing elbows with Ayers, with Rezko, with Wright, Palin was beating corrupt officials, many of them Republicans and fighting against the attorney general and violations of the law found in her own party. That's says she at least as gonads that are bigger than Baracks.

Hillary was by far the very best chance the Democrats had, and to be honest, she at least called Obama for what he was, someone who gave a speech in 2002. Wow. Biden said the same.

So, protesteth all you want. The facts are the facts. Obama is a racist loving, terrorist befriending, Marxist mentoring, junior senator with only 143 days in the U.S. senate, who never even held a single committee meeting in the assignments he requested. (See Afganistan committee.)

Obama is not qualified to be President, and if I had a choice, neither would Palin be there either. But, being a Governor for 19 months gives her tremendous experience being an executive that a U.S. Senator doesn't have. She handled a multi-million dollar budget. Obama had no budget to deal with, and only had to vote on what other's already vetted for him. He voted for the democrats 97% of the time. Hell, Illinois could have elected one of those drinking water birds, that bobbed up and down, pressing a button that said agree with Reid/Pelosi, and would have gotten the same leadership that Barack has shown in his 143 days in the Senate.

So make yourself "feel" good by trying to find logic in your arguments that suggest Obama really is experienced. Do that by trying to compare him to Palin. It just goes to show how illogical democrats really are.

When someone says it isn't about race, its about race.

Hobbes, you should show respect with names before asking the same for you. Can your midget mind grasp this simple principle?

-----------------------------------
Making you think twice......

President of Harvard Law Review versus 393 out of graduating class of 399 at Annapolis.

Yes Obama is just your "typical" know nothing, do nothing got where he got because of his race and deprived you of your chance.

racist loving, terrorist befriending, Marxist mentoring,?? Is that all you got ?

Conservatives have had since 1996 and have pretty well mucked up the infrastructure, the military, the health care system of course that's what they intended...

Because when it's broken you can reinvent it as private enterprise - profit making and outsource the military to Blackwater - the civil engineering to Haliburton - the medicine to for profit friends.

Government may I remind you - IS BY, FOR and OF the people. It exists to provide for the defense and the common welfare.

1) You say the facts are the facts...So why didn't you address the FACT that McCain would not be where he is if he were black. Why don't you address the fact that the Republicans wouldn't touch a black candidate with a ten foot pole. If you want to address the issue of race you should address it from both sides, not just one.

2) I'm not really sure what your 2nd paragraph meant. I guess by "indentically", you meant identically? I never said any of the things you said I did. I can only guess your emotions got the best of you here. Oh, yeah, If you look at the issues that the black community favor it is completely rational for them to favor Obama, and Democrats in general, in the high 90's.

3) I never said Obama was the be all and end all when it comes to experience. If you read my post, which I kind of wonder if you did, I said that I will be the first to admitt his inexperience. What I did say is that there are other reasons to vote for someone besides experience. If you read my post, it will all become very clear. After you read it, you should address what I said not what you wish I would of said.

4) I LOVE that last line! That line is a perfect example of the of logic that's underneath everything you say. The fact that someone would even suggest an opinion different from yours is evidence that you're right. It's hard to decide whether to continue to take on your craziness or leave you alone out of pity.

1) You say the facts are the facts...So why didn't you address the FACT that McCain would not be where he is if he were black.

There you go again, citing as fact, your own racial biases and ignorance. A FACT is not your speculation or opinion about what a Republican would or would not do. FYI, Lynn Swan, a black Republican ran for governor in PA, last election, so did Mike Steele out of Maryland. You remember the one in which Barack spoke and said race has nothing to do with that election, but then flip flopped while saying just the opposite two days later at a Ford campaign in Tennessee.

As I said, when they say it ain't about race, its about race.

2)Oh, yeah, If you look at the issues that the black community favor it is completely rational for them to favor Obama, and Democrats in general, in the high 90's.

You criticize me below for questioning the contrary opinions of others, yet you essentially have said the very same thing. Let me paraphrase for you. Its completely rational to understand why Blacks embarrassingly always vote their race, and for Democrats. If you look at what elite whites think is best for their plantation, then its that blacks should only support blacks who are baptized into extreme liberal, Marxist, racist, policies predicated upon their victimization by whites.

3) I never said Obama was the be all and end all when it comes to experience. If you read my post, which I kind of wonder if you did, I said that I will be the first to admitt his inexperience.

The reason experience isn't important to you isn't because its not important, it because Barack doesn't have it. No, let me say that again, he does have lots of experience, but that experience is what you and your kind try to avoid addressing. Barack's experience lies with Ayers, with Wright, with Rezko, with Marxists, that's why we really know the real Barack Obama. You want us not to consider his experiences, because he has none that would give him an understanding of the Average American problems. Sure, he will represent the liberal blacks, and those blacks that are still living down on the plantation of Democratic policies, but to what ends? Look at New Orleans. 3 years hasn't taught them anything about doing for themselves, instead, they are just victims of life.

4) I LOVE that last line! That line is a perfect example of the of logic that's underneath everything you say. The fact that someone would even suggest an opinion different from yours is evidence that you're right. It's hard to decide whether to continue to take on your craziness or leave you alone out of pity.

I vote for Pity. I'd just soon you leave me alone. If you quit blogging, then the average IQ level of those bloggers that participate, would likely jump 20 points. But seriously, race is race. Its part of what America is all about. The question is how to deal with it. I deal with it very simplistically. Race is nothing more than the light reflecting qualities of ones epidermis. Culture is the tradition of one's community that evolves, or devolves into its present state. There are no superior or inferior races. There are superior and inferior cultures. The culture of anti-individuality and of victimization is a disease, that is corrupting our young people and making America so thin skinned about race.

I'll say it again and again, America has racists, but they are happily sheltered, exemplified, and praised by the Democratic party. When a particular black culture is always told how bad they have it in life, how whitey has always kept them down, and that they have no hope outside of the false hope of a racist/Marxist/terrorist loving wet behind the ears, tele-prompter reading junior senator, then something is definitely wrong. So I'll say it again, you're wrong, you're opinions are wrong, and much worse, those types of opinions cause more problems for our future than anything the Republicans have ever done. You helped create the victim class and now you help perpetuate it. But hey, you can sleep at night knowing you are not a bigot or racist, because you proved it by voting for one.

Racist/Marxist/Terrorist blah, blah, blah! Racist/Marxist/Terrorist blah, blah, blah! Blah, blah, blah, Racist/Marxist/Terroist. Democrats suck!

You would save yourself a lot of typing if you would just copy and paste the first three lines of this post.

I don't know you Travis, so I'll just make a few assumptions.

You suggest that I should just copy and paste over and over again, my comments about Barack being a Racist loving, Terrorist befriending, Marxist Mentoring, and married to a woman that has never been proud of America.

You had two options. To address each one of my comments or to attack the messenger and try and belittle the debate as being silly. Since the former can not be answered, you chose to take the latter approach.

Trust me, I fully understand how difficult it is to defend Obama.

For instance, I doubt you can think of 10 or for that matter 1 thing he has done since being elected State Senator, that highlights this "change" and gives us an idea where the Messiah wants to take this country.

Since he has accomplished nothing of value, what else can Americans garner from the man? I'm sorry that campaign commercials and speeches are not really intelligent means to determine the truth of a candidate. You apparently believe everything Obama says. But I was taught many, many years ago, that integrity, discipline, honesty, and other qualities of character, can be more easily seen in a person, when that person doesn't know he is being watched. This applies to Republicans and Democrats. Everytime a Republican does something outrageous, like Craig of Idaho, Vitter of La., etc. Democrats go hog wild, and they should. Because we are seeing these politicians behavior when they think no one is watching.

Well Obama is new to the scene. He began running for the Senate 143 days after being elected. He got tremendous great press because he gave a speech and oh, because as Biden and Hillary said, he is articulate and clean while being black. I believe, if he were white, he would never have gotten this far, because, he wasn't qualified. Palin isn't either, albeit, she's arguably more qualified than Obama whose recent comments say that he gets credit for running a campaign. Yes, you got that right. On CNN he said, that he runs a campaign for two years with millions of dollars and supporters, and that makes him qualified, when compared to Palin.

So, back to my original point. Character goes to the heart and soul of all of us. Right wing senators who talk the talk, but don't walk the walk, ought to be criticized.

But Barack's character can not be seen by his political accomplishments. Heck, without googling blogs telling you what he's done, I sincerely doubt you can name even one of any significance.

Since Barack hasn't done anything of notoriety, again, except give a speech, we have to look at his past. To look into his history when he didn't know anyone was looking. (Notice how he fights anyone looking into his past? You have to wonder why.)

What we do know of Barack is that he surrounded himself, with people of very low character, with people who are avowed terrorists. With people that are avowed Racists. With people that preach for the overthrow of our way of life and of advancing Marxism. Yes, Frank Marshall encourage Barack's Marxist studies, and even told him to go to Chicago and do exactly what Barack did.

And then finally, Barack's wife. Liberal bloggers are all over the place about Palin's daughter being pregnant even though she believes in abstinence. Is that appropriate, well maybe. Its anecdotal at best, but it shows that her philosophy of child rearing isn't perfect.

3. Obama pushed Afghanistan military surge before McCain did.
For God's sake, this was nothing more than rhetoric. The true liberals, like Michael Moore et. al., demanded that we withdrawal from there as well. Barack tried to take a fence sitting position and jumped on the Afghanistan situation to show that he really will be a tough military commander. So tell me Jeff, why didn't he hold one single meeting in the senate regarding Afghanistan? No, I know, its because he was too busy running for president.

4. Obama proposed crossing the border with Pakistan to fight in the caves looking for Osama?
I have no comment. I am not aware of this rhetoric. Are you sure he said increase the military, or withdrawal from the Olympics? Which one was it?

5. Obama says he will have open discussions with the world's kooks, with no preconditions, and the Bush administration is now supporting that position.
There is a difference entirely in your position and the Bush's administration. Barack got caught without a teleprompter and shared this ferry dust answer that we must all just learn to get along. Riding his rainbow unicorn, Barack's world view is not that others are evil, it's just that we haven't gotten to know them and if we only were to talk, then the world would be a better place. "All we are saying, is give peace a chance."
You know it and everyone else knows it. He gave us his real opinion and immediately backed away from it. Even Hillary and Biden took him to task for this amateur response. Then again, it does sound like something President number 39 would do.

6. Obama was not only right on these positions; he was farsighted enough to arrive at these positions well in advance of Bush/McCain, sometimes by years.
This is laughable. Really laughable. When I said show me the facts, I wanted facts, that have been vetted with common sense and reality, not what Obama puts on his website.

Jeff, I'm still waiting on a single piece of legislation that he championed, and got passed, other than the infanticide bill.

“Which time tables are you referring to?”

The one that is and has been on Obama's official website:

“The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 – more than 7 years after the war began.”

A Responsible, Phased Withdrawal

Reuters reports that al-Maliki supports Obama's timetable:

Iraqi PM backs Obama troop exit plan

SEOUL, Aug 5 -- President Bush said Monday he sees little distance between himself and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki on how to approach troop reductions in Iraq, dismissing the suggestion that Maliki had effectively endorsed Democratic Sen. Barack Obama's plan to withdraw all U.S. combat brigades in 16 months. "I talk to him all the time, and that's not what I heard," Bush said

BLITZER: What -- but if Maliki persists, you're president and he says he wants U.S. troops out and he wants them out, let's say, in a year or two years or 16 months, or whatever, what do you do? Do you just -- do you listen to the prime minister?
MCCAIN: “He won't. He won't. He won't.”

But of course he did in an interview with Der Spiegel:

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki supports US presidential candidate Barack Obama's plan to withdraw US troops from Iraq within 16 months. When asked in and interview with SPIEGEL when he thinks US troops should leave Iraq, Maliki responded "as soon as possible, as far as we are concerned." He then continued: "US presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes."

Der Spiegel - Iraq Leader Maliki Supports Obama's Withdrawal Plans

The Times of London:

“To be sure, Maliki’s endorsement of Obama’s withdrawal timetable was a big blow to the McCain effort to describe the Democrat’s policy as surrender or betrayal.”

AP reports how Bush's new acquiescence to the timetable undercuts McCain:

Iraq deal hovers over presidential campaign

As does the Washington Post:

“Bush's acquiescence pulls the rug out from under Republican presidential candidate John McCain, whose position on Iraq was largely identical to Bush's -- pre-backflip. In some ways, the new timetable is even shorter than the one proposed by Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.”

A Timetable By Any Other Name

“3. Obama pushed Afghanistan military surge before McCain did.
For God's sake, this was nothing more than rhetoric.”

Nope! He has repeatedly called for more troops to be sent to Afghanistan. Over and over. The first reference I could quickly find was his speech November 20, 2006 before the Chicago Council on Global Affairs:

“We cannot compromise the safety of our troops, and we should be willing to adjust to realities on the ground. ... Perhaps most importantly, some of these troops could be redeployed to Afghanistan ...”

A Way Forward in Iraq

In January 2007, in a statement on the floor of the Senate Obama said: “"Drawing down our troops in Iraq will put pressure on Iraqis to arrive at the political settlement that is needed and allow us to redeploy additional troops in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the region, as well as bring some back home."

Obama Senate Statement

August 1, 2007, Obama specifically called for the addition of at least two U.S. brigades in Afghanistan:

“As President, I would deploy at least two additional brigades to Afghanistan to reinforce our counter-terrorism operations and support NATO's efforts against the Taliban. As we step up our commitment, our European friends must do the same, and without the burdensome restrictions that have hampered NATO's efforts.”

Obama reiterated this stand in a speech in September 2007:

"When we end this war in Iraq, we can finally finish the fight in Afghanistan. That is why I propose stepping up our commitment there, with at least two additional combat brigades and a comprehensive program of aid and support to help Afghans help themselves."

Remarks of Senator Barack Obama

You asked, “So tell me Jeff, why didn't he hold one single meeting in the senate regarding Afghanistan?”

Obama chairs the European Affairs Subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Both Afghanistan and Iraq military issues are handled by the full Senate Armed Service Committee.

BTW: McCain, R-Ariz., the top Republican on the Senate Armed Service Committee, has attended zero of his committee's six hearings on Afghanistan over the last two years.

McCain Has Worse Afghanistan Hearing Record Than Obama

“4. Obama proposed crossing the border with Pakistan to fight in the caves looking for Osama?
I have no comment. I am not aware of this rhetoric. Are you sure he said increase the military, or withdrawal from the Olympics? Which one was it?”

It was a proposal to cross into Pakistan to chase terrorists delivered first in August 2007.

Obama: “I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear.  There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.”

a href="http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post_group/ObamaHQ/CpHR">Senator Obama Delivers Address on National Security

Here's Juan Cole: “And he is angering the Pakistani public for no good reason. His remarks are remarkably flat-footed ...”

Here's Mitt Romney:

“DES MOINES, Iowa --Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney said Friday that Democrat Barack Obama's warning to Pakistani leaders that he might use force to root out terrorists in that country were "ill-considered" and could hamper America's ability to build a coalition of countries against terrorism. “

Romney said Obama comment on Pakistan `ill-considered'

Here's John McCain:

“Republican presidential candidate John McCain says Barack Obama's threat to use military force to get rid of terrorists in Pakistan shows he does not understand the complexities of the region.”

McCain says Obama is simplistic

in July 2008 it was reported:

“It appears hawks within the Pentagon and CIA have won a long-running policy battle with risk-averse officials in the administration and diplomats at the State Department. The result is a more aggressive, go-it-alone policy in response to Pakistan's failure to disrupt terrorist training camps and cross-border attacks against our troops and the Afghan government.”

Facts! Facts! Facts!

Try them sometimes.

Sorry dude,

But you didn't give me facts, you gave me interpretations of what liberals spin on what they think Obama really means and thats determined by the audience and current world events.

Lets just listen to his own words, using his prophetic voice about how he would have handled Iraq. Then tell me Jeff, how wrong I really am. Because according to his own words, it sounds like your Messiah, needs a good liberal to find the NUASANCED many of what he has said.

Barack's Own Words are better than your spin Jeff, click here.

Jan 2007--He doesn't think surge will work, and it probably will have a reverse role.

Jan 2008--Oh yeah, I said the surge would work.

October 2006-Its clear, we can't put in more troops and expect an improvement.

July 2007- Surge didn't work

Nov 2007- Surge was wrong, with no improvements and its worsening.

Feb. 2008- No question Surge Worked

April 2008- Yes, as I've said in the past, the surge will work.

July 2008- No doubt the surge worked, now we can salvage the situation.

For Immediate Withdrawal

Sept 2007 No military solution, we should be an immediate withdrawal of the military NOW, in September 2007. Not in six months, now!

March 2008- I'll immediately remove our troops.
16 months to do it

May 2008- War will end in 2009

Against immediate withdrawal.

April 2004 No immediate withdrawal, no artificial deadline.

June 2006 No artificial withdrawal.

Against Funding troops
November 2003 Would have voted against Bush troop funing

April 2004- Would vote for the troops.

Jan 2007 Fund the troops.

March 2007- We will fund the troops.

May 2007- Don't help George Bush, but wait, no I do want to.

June 2007- My plan in Jan 2007 would get everyone home by March 2008. And I proudly refused to fund the troops in Iraq.

March 2008- We will leave troops there to strike Al Queda.

March 2008- No I won't leave troops there to strike Al Queda.

A bunch of clips five seconds long so that there is no context, that's all you've got?

Here, read Bush's speech about what the surge would accomplish:

President's Address to the Nation

Have those 12 or 15 goals been met?

Nope.

But to be fair let me propose an solution: you and your side make your case to the American people, I and my side will make our case to the American people, then let's get everybody to vote on it.

It's been fun watching McCain's VP choice implode. How embarrassing is that? She was a member of the Alaska Independent Party that wanted Alaska to secede from the Union! What a great choice to be VP! The Party has had her in seclusion since the announcement. I hope she can read the briefing books fast. God help her at the press conferences. Do you think they'll let her speak at the convention? I can hardly wait for her to be on Meet The Press. She is the gift that just keeps on giving!

Did you catch Carville?

Sarah Palin's Baitshop

Awww, he's being mean again.

Barack's major accomplishment is in the attached link:

Barack's accomplishment

Note what happens to something when Barack gets a hold of it. America will turn out the same way if he is elected President.

What kind of father would take his children to a racist, hate-filled Marxist church where the preacher screams "God d*** America" sunday after sunday. His children and wife were indoctrinated and baptised in this hate filled church.

Barack is a failure as a father, a community organizer, and as a Senator. The only reason that he got elected as Senator is because of his close ties to the corrupt Chicago political machine.

Yet the mainstream media just lets this slide.

As usual, a Democrat that can't argue the facts, merely counter attacks by saying something about Bush.

Then you pick on Palin for her lack of experience, which I happen to agree with. So if Palin's experience includes being a Mayor of a small community, and Barack's is basically in directing Chicagoans to the nearest rent-a center and check cashing store, then I'd still say Palin's experience is far superior.

Still wondering when the Boy King will give us his Columbia grades, and when he'll finally answer why he never ever put a single word in the Harvard Law Review. You know thats what the chief editor usually does. If not, than Cal has gotten it wrong. But then, maybe the King figured out that the Harvard students, didn't need to hear about where the local Marxist training center was.

You’re right in that I can’t argue facts with you. To you they are totally irrelevant. I post the fact that Obama has been calling for more troops in Afghanistan for two years while Bush/McCain argued against it and you come back and claimed that wasn’t his position and by the way here is what Michael Moore thought about troops in Afghanistan. So I document five major speeches Obama gave explicitly laying out his position and “poof” you post a RNC ad with 3-5 second out of context quotes about Iraq.

I discuss Obama’s positions and you complain that you, “wanted facts, that have been vetted with common sense and reality, not what Obama puts on his website.”

Now I understand that McCain’s people have occasionally had to correct his speeches and all because McCain does not always speak for the McCain campaign but to me, Obama’s written positions on Obama’s website strike me as a pretty good reference as to Obama’s positions. They just don’t happen to be the positions that you wish Obama had or the positions that you make up for Obama to make it easier for you to argue against him.

And by the way, if I were a Republican right now, I’d be pretty careful and downright shy about throwing out that “vetted” word.

Obama's Friends

Let's see how Jeff tries to spin this. Problem is, he can't. Obama's words are Obama's words. Now there's "change we can believe in".

Check and mate. Resign Jeff. You can't compete.

Ruth Kimble

“After you read it, you should address what I said not what you wish I would of said.”

You'll knock half the Republicans off the blog!

It's former President and Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Jimmy Carter!

LOL

Something about the above transfer of conversation seems totally unnecessary!

Obviously the imitation pronunciation of Jimmy, as Jimmah, as a deep southerner might do, should be ignored by Jeff, and comments as to the Peace Prize being a joke, are simply one's only way of feeling adequate!

It is not necessary for humans to constantly use titles bestowed
upon one as a way to justify anything else done or undone by them!
After all, what does Prince Charles mean to most of us? Or for that matter a dynamite maker's money awarding people stuff in order to keep his name in perpetuation forever!

For an ordinary pipsqueak to use it as a criticism however of a man who has done his very best to serve his country in an honorable way, is much worse.

First thing you know Dan Quayle and Spiro Agnew will be running for President and VP of the USA! Maybe Spiro is dead, I don't know.

If you want to believe that crap about Carter, that is your right. Not all of us are so easily fooled!

I suspect that you are as happy as I am that we disagree!

In any event, enjoy your weekend!

Thanks for the example.

"Whatever you practice is what you will be good at".

Nobel Peace Prize Laureate---that is a big laugh! LOL

"Nobel Peace Prize Laureate---that is a big laugh! LOL"

Gee whiz Armybrat, why so vicious tonight? Do you really HATE the Carter's that much to belittle a Nobel Peace Prize recipient?

Jerk.

All that you "open-minded" liberals have been doing since Friday afternoon is digging around for dirt on Gov. Palin and then finding VERY little, have made nasty comment after nasty comment, even about the names of her kids! So all of you can take your self-righteous attitudes and stick it. And, yes, I do have abit of animosity for Jimmy Carter. Have it with good reason.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=
TrBus8ORR78&eurl=http://www.redstate.com/
diaries/absentee/2008/aug/30/
fowler-fouls-hurricane-is-gods-favor-to-dem/

It's the personal attacks you spout at another blogger and his family that seems extremely vicious and is supposed to be against Cal's blog rules (no personal attacks, remember). I don't hear anyone calling one of your family members a loser, pathetic, a joke, etc.

People like JeffC, Hack, and Richard, who have come out and blogged under their REAL names are to be commended, not ridiculed, and I think their families should be off limits and not personally attacked.

If you want to spout the rules, then follow them yourself. Nothing armybrat said is considered "vicious", let alone extremely. You just sound like a complete hipocrit. Someone that likes to dish it out but can't take it. Get a grip , putz.

I think afew of us can attest to the fact that this isn't the first "personal attack" that has been used on this site. It seems to be just fine when it's target is a conservative (racist,etc.) The fact is Carter (not Jeffc) is a public figure. He chooses to be in the public eye and so must to expect comments about his behavior, good and bad.

Brat is right, he's a public figure and whatever he says is fair game for criticism, praise or partisan attack. He's used to it and I don't think it bothers him a bit. It doesn't bother me.

PS: I checked with my elk, they don't mind either.

Although I'll admit that being a Nobel Peace Prize Laureate doesn't compare to being a self proclaimed brat.

LOL

Better a proud USArmybrat than the son of an America-bashing fool. That's the only reason he got the Prize!

Hey, you left out some of Clinton's best accomplishments that liberals also hated:

Massive welfare reform. He actually did the most comprehensive reform of the welfare system since its inception and put limits of how long welfare recipients receive benefits.

NAFTA and GATT/WTO plus a couple hundred other free trade agreements. Of course, since Clinton has left, both sides have had no problem violating our free trade agreements because Dems and Repubs have learned that enough American voters are somewhat protectionist and it's OK to when "we" break agreements, but not OK when other countries do.

Bomb the hell out of Bosnian cities with lots of citizens even though there wasn't any evidence of "genocide" actually occurring beforehand. Hey, maybe that isn't much of an "accomplishment" as Bosnia has never recovered from it, but it did manage to show that Dems aren't so soft on using military might after a period of very pacifistic leanings, even if the premise was dubious.

Oh gag me with a stick! You libs who keep trying to rewrite history leave out the small detail that Clintoon signed Welfare Reform on the THIRD TIME Newt & Company sent it up with the threat that they would shut the government down again if he didn't sign it. He did, with the pledge that he would work tirelessly to undo it. Yet today your version is that Clinton reformed welfare -- what a joke!

And as for ol' Jimmah, Nobel Peach Prize recipient -- he and his buddy Arafat solved the Middle-East crises, right? Another joke! Yet he continues traipsing around the world slamming America and legitimizing Third World terrorists.

Mr. Hobb(e)s -- GREAT posts!! Exactly right -- if Obamessiah was White he wouldn't have been considered by anyone. Relatively attractive (at least all the swooning hags on Oprah and The View think so), can read above the 5th grade level (but don't let that teleprompter break!), uses obscure tenses that suddenly become as popular as "gravitas" (answering that with "secificity" . . .) and having done NOTHING except garner millions in tax monies for the likes of Revco, Wright and Phleger.

Disgusting where these "progressives" want to take our Country.

That is some serious revisionist history on how welfare/workfare reform was passed. Yeah, the Congress brought it up......that's usually how laws get enacted. Clinton didn't have to sign it just like he kept vetoing the partial-birth abortion ban and he was a player in the crafting of the bill after many decades of people howling about how welfare should be changed and no one doing anything about it. He fought against all the hardcore lefties in his own party and telling them after the fact he'd fight to change it was simply to pacify them somewhat.

Look, I think Clinton was scum but I'll give credit when it is due. No different than saying Nixon was a disgrace to the office and the country for his crimes but also had tremendous successes in foreign policy. Clinton delivered on fiscal responsibility and also on free trade, two areas that USED TO BE associated with the Republican Party but were abdicated a while ago.

I'll also add that if a Dem president had established a massive entity called "Homeland Security" and was wiretapping everyone possible under the guise of "protecting us," the screams of leftist tyranny would be overwhelming. Bush does it and it's all OK. It's also OK that large public corporations participated willingly and without any consent or notice to their customers. Can't blame only the Repubs for that.....the Dems went right along with it and Obama actually voted to make those corporations immune from reprisals stemming from grossly breaking their own agreements with customers. Lovely.

I'm getting a whole new appreciation for your perspective. Look, most presidents leave office with at least one major accomplishment (and a whole lot of baggage).

I'm still waiting to see what Dummya's big redeeming accomplishment will be.

-------------------------------
If you and I are always in agreement, one of us is likely armed and dangerous.

I was delighted with the welfare reform act... but I wanted to take issue with the contention that there was no evidence of genocide in Bosnia.

UN resolution 47/121 in its preamble deemed ethnic cleansing to be a form of genocide stating:

"Gravely concerned about the deterioration of the situation in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina owing to intensified aggressive acts by the Serbian and Montenegrin forces to acquire more territories by force, characterized by a consistent pattern of gross and systematic violations of human rights, a burgeoning refugee population resulting from mass expulsions of defenseless civilians from their homes and the existence in Serbian and Montenegrin controlled areas of concentration camps and detention centres, in pursuit of the abhorrent policy of “ethnic cleansing”, which is a form of genocide."

Radislav Krstic has been found guilty of complicity in genocide in an international court.

State Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina found Milenko Trifunovic, Brano Dzinic, Aleksandar Radovanovic, Milos Stupar, Slobodan Jakovljevic Branislav Medan and Petar Mitrovic guilty of genocide their part in the Srebrenica massacre.

International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia ruled that the 1995 Srebrenica massacre was genocide.

Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia reaffirmed that the Srebrenica massacre was genocide

Both the US Senate and House passed resolutions declaring the Serbian aggression and ethnic cleansing met the terms defining genocide. The identical resolutions passed by unanimous consent in the Senate and 370 to 63 in in the House.

Anyone know what Palin majored in in College? Did she attend and graduate from college? I still just can't get over my shock at this choice.

Palin washed out of Hawaii Pacific University's business program after one semester. She then went to Northern Idaho college as a TV Journalism major and eventually finished at University of Idaho.

She was a sports reporter in Alaska before running for city council.

the ticket !"

We don't agree on everything. But I respect her passion," she said. "Being pro-life is who Sarah is."

"I'm not sure what she brings to the ticket other than she's a woman and a conservative. Well, she's a better speaker than McCain," Faye Palin said with a laugh. "People will say she hasn't been on the national scene long enough."

Friends - Alaska is not the National scene at all.