61. Yep Turk -- only in America could an inconsequential buffone like you rise to such levels. Bikini? Hmmmm....

Anyway,

How many of our elected officials have worn bathing suits? Why don't you trot all of those photos out there and we'll all take a peek? What's the point?

I think at the core of all this benign assinity you roll out everyday is this -- Are u Iranian or Iraqi? Any connection to 911... Please, do the rest of thinking America a favor and take your crap somewhere else.

Honestly, and shame on AOL using its electornic power to again spread its commie agenda.

bobby at 8:29AM on Sep 28th 2008

62. Here's what I find interesting.

It's 24+ hours after the debate that was supposed to put the nail in the coffin of the McCain campaign and demonstrate the markedly superior intellectual capacity of Obama. And still the Dem's can't come up with a way to spin the dismal performance of their candidate into anything positive.

So it's back to Palin.

That speaks volumes.

bob at 8:41AM on Sep 28th 2008

63. Show a video of Barack Obama smoking crack in college or listening to pastor Wring calling whites assassins of blacks

Carmelo at 9:13PM on Oct 1st 2008

64. If it were Hillary in the "bikini" (try one-piece swimsuit), and looked amazing in it, you would spin it somehow as "all that and brains, too!" So, our future VP won a beauty contest... and Reagan was an actor... All That And Brains, Too! As a moderate, I have never heard anything more sexist than your video. Boo, hiss, boo, to a man who qualifies for a phrase I haven't used since 2nd grade: Male Chauvinist Pig! - Ms. Lopez

CLopez at 10:19AM on Sep 28th 2008

65. >>>And still the Dem's can't come up with a way to spin the dismal performance of their candidate into anything positive.>>>

I'll never understand why McCain doesn't just throw a giant monkey wrench into Obama's one claim to fame over the war.

I'd shock the hell out of Obama in a national forum & agree that I'd voted with the President on many issues. Instead of the spoon fed conspiracy laden reason we went into Iraq I'd remind Obama that we're there because that's how America works, the democratic process of which the Democrats played a vast part in. We all went to war together.

I'm sick to my gills hearing Obama repeat over & over about how smart he thinks he is, I'd counter every bit of that with the final results that are taking place now & attack him openly how he feels about democracy for nations other than the United States, especially muslim dictatorships. Obama would basically have no answer, the truth would be hard to refute.

We get locked into what we hear repeated over & over & noone ever seems to think outside the box. Every single mention of Bush should be countered with the dismal results of a Democratic Congress that's equally responsible for us being where we are today. McCain would show honesty implicating himself & Obama at the same time. The Bush claim would be greatly reduced though.

Screw this one dimensional thinking. I wanna see some passion & fire based on fact. We're all lemmings if we feel differently. Shift the thought process....

Bobby at 9:57AM on Sep 28th 2008

66.
You can be "observant" all you like but unless you actually know why Palin was picked, all your ideas are based on assumption.
-----------------------------
No they are not based on assumptions. Read much? Richard Land took meeting with McCain and he advised him to pick Palin. Here is the article. He also took meetings with CCV president, Phil Buress who advised the same thing.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/08/politics/politicalplayers/main4331863.shtml





That's simply circular reasoning goddess. If it were not for Christianity, there would be no Christiain base would there? You cannot have one without the other. Furthermore, the label of "religious rights" is used by you as a derogatory term for the beliefs held by many that are opposed to what those rights actually are simply because you don't agree with them.
-----------------------------------
A mistake on my part. I meant to say "to also claim that Palin unifies a christian base", meaning ALL Christians as the original posted claimed, which is wrong so no circular reasoning there, just didn't check myself before posting.




That's odd, because the "newest" religion inserted into politics is "global warming." You break it down and its a religion with Mother Earth at the center, her disciples running here and there spreading the tenets of the new order and advocating a "holy war" against the non-believers. I have no idea why you included secular Jews and Republicans, unless you somehow think that will bolster your arguement.
--------------------------------
Last I checked scientists weren't praising or praying to mother earth for salvation nor do they believe the planet will grant them access to the afterlife which are the major tenets of religion, so check your definition of religion. And it shouldn't be considered "holy war" since holy defines as coming from the divine and set aside for religious purpose. Is that all you've got against my "latest religious fad" statement?








Look at where the greatest number of Muslims are growing..Europe, Asia, Africa, etc. Why is this, does it have to do with the tenets of the religion or with unchecked breeding? Liberals like you always seem to equate the world with the United States. Until the Constitution is changed, we govern without a designated religion. There are already Muslims in our government so are you really saying that we will have no choice but to adhere to Sharia Law simply because we will have no choice? You had better hope not because then you will be property, you will be a muslim or die and conversion to the Muslim faith still makes you less than equal. Do you liberals ever think of the Law of Unintended Consequences or just take it on face value that everything will be Ok?
-----------------------------------
Yes we should govern without a designated religion, but lawyers are crafty at drafting legislation based on religious ideology. Ever heard of the academic freedom act? It was Drafted after evolution was introduced to mostly the southern states. It's an attempt to define ID as science in order to bring into the classrooms. It was killed in FL by both parties because its drafters refused to change the language that would define ID as science. There was no problem in bringing it into the classrooms as opposing theories to speciation, just don't call it science

Ever heard of secondary effects studies? It’s a 1970's religious funded study on adult clubs role in a community. It was used in Kansas 30 years later in attempt to impose strict dress codes for only girls in public schools. They wanted to eliminate tanks and shorts for sleeves and pants. It too failed. Too much time and money spend on legislating education and not enough done to updated educational material, which is a major contributing factor on Americas slack on the academics latter. Talk about unintended consequences!


Unchecked breeding? It's not that hard to cross borders between Asia and Europe so their population explosion is easily explained. But here in American pop culture and American jails are major convert points rather than breeding. Rappers entice teeny boppers of all kinds to convert to Islam and the African American population in our jails are converting faster than one can say Muhammad. You don't think its happening here? You're blind.




Your post certainly didn't follow that policy or you would never have put anything about religion in it.
----------------
My original post mentioned that McCain chose religion over issues. Good for Palin to decide to keep her baby but pro-life issues are not the number one concern for poverty stricken Americans now is it? In an era where the economy is on top of every Americans mind, with even conservative polling showing abortion issues at the bottom, McCain should be focusing on the economy and the war and chosen a counter part like Chris Cox with his economic experience to compliment McCain's war experience. Instead he choose Palin for her pro life stance and her religious background over many qualified republicans because as Land stated "her choice to keep her down syndrome baby is what will help his campaign with evangelicals and pro-choice issues." Due to his choice of Palin McCain doesn't have the edge over Obama, instead they're tied at the polls.

If McCain doesn't start mentioning the middle class in the upcoming debates, he will lose support amongst many Americans. He never mentioned it once in the first debate.
Meanwhile the American Economist Association (the most important organization of professional economists) prefer Obama's economic plan by 66% to McCain's 28% with only 6% undecided!
And tax policy center claims that while neither candidate will relief us of a deficit, Obama's tax plan will do more to reduce it than McCain's plan.

When religious preference is chosen over the most important issues we should be focusing on, it's an issue to discuss, so please don't tell me discussing religion as an issue is not talking about future political decisions.
Come Nov 4th will people vote for pro-life issues, or economic isues based on the fact that they can't afford next weeks groceries?



Refer to my reply above. There is interworking in government, but its not to our benefit. There is no abrogation of the legislative branch by the Judiciary, yet it it is done all the time. Roe v. Wade the best example. There is also nothing in the Constitution that allows governmental entities to make law, but that's done all the time as well. The Executive Branch has the task of seeing that laws are followed, but the Legislative Branch cannot be investigated even in the case of clear violations of the law which is why you will never see the FBI investigate Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac and the Democrat role in it's failure to follow the law.
Then you make the claim all Christians are united. Where in hell did that come from and what does it have to do with the government?
I'm sorry, but you'll have to do better than that before you get taken seriously by me as I speak for myself, not others.
---------------------------
No abrogation of the legislative branch? Not to our benefit? Are you serious? The Judiciary branch has in its history created precedence numerous times to abolish the legislative branch in many instances, Berman v. Parker, Loving v. Virginia, Brown vs. Board (which was the judiciary branch overturning its own ruling on the previous supreme court decision Plessy vs. Ferguson) to name a few.
In the instance of Roe v Wade when it states that a woman may abort up until the "point at which the fetus becomes viable allowed the legislative branch to come back and define when a fetus becomes viable. The legislative branch has since drafted and enacted many laws that make it difficult in many states to abort after the fetus has reached a certain stage, and in many states such as South Dakota almost outlawing it except for instances of health issues and rape. So don't tell me one branch doesn't abolish or often override the other. With each state drafting new legislation to further make abortion illegal you might one day find the Supreme Court overruling its own decision based on how the legislative branch defines the viable fetus.



Yes Freddie and Fannie were big failures, I've never denied that. All politicians from both parties had their hands in that cookie jar so blame them as well. But most people have their heads so far up their asses they point fingers instead of coming up with solutions and accountability laws, or blame only one party and not the other as does the writer of this blog and most posters including yourself. Lest you forget, republicans caused the initial deregulations that caused this "Swapping" of mortgages; otherwise Freddie and Fannie wouldn't have bought these originator bad loans, nor would have those banks who are currently failing.

And as to my Christian uniting Christian comment was a mistake, but you obviously didn't read the rest of my post correcting a previous poster who claimed all republicans and Christians are united in the choice of Palin. A little reading comprehension might suit you to better understand my posts.

goddess1prevail at 10:10AM on Sep 28th 2008

67. you really are a fuckingloser Cenk!

Pman at 11:04AM on Sep 28th 2008

68. Bobby,

I gotta disagree with you. The people who are going to decide this election are not heavily partisan and are therefore most likely going to make their decision based on how what they see balances against what they are told.

The Democrats are going down the same road that lost them the last two elections. Paint the opponent as inept and oversell your own candidate. And when you have a situation like the debate on Friday where it doesn't pan out as promoted, those folks who've been inundated with the conventional wisdom develop a giant case of cognitive dissonance.

It's almost impossible for it not to happen what with the MSM buying into and parroting the Democratic talking points almost verbatim.

The day I start worrying about Democratic campaign tactics is the day they learn not to oversell their product and underestimate that of their opponents.

bob at 11:03AM on Sep 28th 2008

69. >>>It's almost impossible for it not to happen what with the MSM buying into and parroting the Democratic talking points almost verbatim.>>>

Bob, I understand what you're saying but I'd just like to see a more aggressive style attacking what I see as a narrow minded narrative.

You're right in saying the "undecideds" will determine the election but to throw a curve at even the "decideds" at this point would shift the misguided logic & MSM talking points off as well. Reminding the voters of a very unique, somewhat unprecedented 8 yrs. by the Bush administration might actually start a chain reaction of "clear thinking". To attack with honesty when the actual downward spiral started to occur shows real courage & the desire of true reform.

Yeah, they'd have a field day with it saying McCain was off his rocker but I've got a feeling the voters standing in the shadows are some of the more intelligent ones waiting for something outside the ongoing rhetoric we've heard for the past year.

You could be right but a little shaking up of the thought process to me ignites genuine thinking. I'd throw the same thing at Obama on the economy with the romantic idea of building it from the bottom up.

We do need change & it starts with straight talk....

Bobby at 12:14PM on Sep 28th 2008

70. Thank you Ana. Gov. Palin does look good in a "one piece bathing suit." Oh, Thats right, you said bikini. Once again you have shown how much you know. Please! Go back to pre-school and start over again. Only this time pay attention!

escort6768 at 12:49PM on Sep 28th 2008

71. Well, Cenk - at least you managed to attract more than one page of comments for a change.

Or is it Sarah's most bodacious posterior, which you strategically froze into view to sell your blog.

Btw - THANK YOU! Her hinder just knocked me and Sir Mix-A-Lot right out da hoopdee!

I guess you'll have to add me to the sexist list.

torquemada at 1:47PM on Sep 28th 2008

72. Bobby,It's been fairly entertaining watching you
morph from a reasonable debater stating your
personal points of view in a cogent manner,to
a desperate sounding,ad hominem spewing,entrenched
ideologue carrying water for fascists.

Entertaining but mostly sad.

BOB JOHNSON at 4:09PM on Sep 28th 2008

73. McCain and the Republicans have said bye-bye to free speech! They are also sexists. They think Sarah Palin is better seen and not heard. They have for the most part prohibitted her from speaking to the press. Oops, I know why. Because when she open her mouth she is an embarrassment to her party, at least to those with any sense of shame. Instead of allowing her to comment on the debate they have Rudy stand in her place. Tina Fey actually makes Sarah look intelligent, accidently. Let's see how the Republicans work to get her out of the debate with Biden.

Hockeydad at 6:03PM on Sep 28th 2008

74. 54. It's evenmore fun seeing the flop- sweat on dyed-in-the-wool-neo-fascists like dead-punk-ass-bitch, Okane, Bobby and Dave.(to name a few)
Captain Negative at 1:24AM on Sep 28th 2008
-----------------------------------------
Gee Minus, I see that that must have really torqued your lug nuts. There you are, back to the ad hominems you got the CRAP award for, glad to see you're going for a second "Golden Fece" award. Another blig from Captain CRAP.

Dedmanrisn at 6:40PM on Sep 28th 2008

75. 64.
Goddess: Ed Land never said he spoke to McCain in the link your provided. He also suggested a Jewish VP that would be a good pick, but nowhere does he say he met with McCain.

Yes, you madee several errors which prompted my reply, but I'm not going over all that turf again.
---------------------------------------------
Last I checked scientists weren't praising or praying to mother earth for salvation nor do they believe the planet will grant them access to the afterlife which are the major tenets of religion, so check your definition of religion. And it shouldn't be considered "holy war" since holy defines as coming from the divine and set aside for religious purpose. Is that all you've got against my "latest religious fad" statement?
--------------------------------
Your scientists are not all lined up in a row and the fact that bthe environmental movement does use the term "Mother Nature" as a living entity to be worshippede does bring elemental religion into the equation. It doesn't help your cause to compare Christianity to Earth worship, because any of severalancient religions fit the "new Age" religion quite well. That's an error to use conventional thinking and religion to try and define a religion possibly practiced by the Druids and certainly the Egyptians, Greeks and Romans. Your scientists are just the high priests of the new religion and yes, they do predict disaster and destruction if the new god of Global warming is not adhered to.
-----------------------
The Judiciary branch has in its history created precedence numerous times to abolish the legislative branch in many instances, Berman v. Parker, Loving v. Virginia, Brown vs. Board (which was the judiciary branch overturning its own ruling on the previous supreme court decision Plessy vs. Ferguson) to name a few.
---------------------------------
Yes, and the SCOTUS also ruled in Dred Scott in favor of slavery despite Scott was in the North. That being said, it is not the Judicial Branch's scope of power to make legislation. Their job is to interpret existing legislation to determine if it is within constitutional limits and if necessary, send it back to the legislative branch to correct the legislation. If Congress had the guts, they would make it a state's right's issue which is what it is and bypass the SCOTUS. The ease of simply aborting because pleasure inconveniences your life means you get to choose to end another is no different than the Nazi extermination of the Jews in WWII, but you won't see it that way will you?
---------------------------------------
blame only one party and not the other as does the writer of this blog and most posters including yourself. Lest you forget, republicans caused the initial deregulations that caused this "Swapping" of mortgages; otherwise Freddie and Fannie wouldn't have bought these originator bad loans, nor would have those banks who are currently failing.
-----------------------------------------
Sorry, but I have blamed this on both parties, but in essence it goes back to Carterc in 1977 and has continued since then. The government knew that FNMA and FHMC were cooking the book, but then you have to remember that it was the Democrats who kept pushing banks to ease restrictions on who could qualify for a loan. This goes directly to thee S&L Crisis when Congress suddenly said that S&L's had to have X amount in reserves when prior to that, they were allowed to loan money with a much less reserve. When Congeress changed the rules, there was simply no way for cthem to come up with that money and therefore the S&L Industry was efgfectively killed by legislation, not by bad lending proceedures. Thats's as disingenuous as saying that FNMA and FHMC were "private" institutions when the government was backing their loans and potential losses. Where the hell did the 28/20 rule go for lending money? Out the window ifcthe government wants the poor to get loans for those who can't afford them and pressures the banks to make them.
--------------------------------------
you obviously didn't read the rest of my post correcting a previous poster who claimed all republicans and Christians are united in the choice of Palin. A little reading comprehension might suit you to better understand my posts.
goddess1prevail at 10:10AM on Sep 28th 2008
------------------------------------------
That's funny, you have to make two clairifications on your own post, then your reply to a poster that waan't in your reply and I'm supposed to know or pull that rabbit out of the hat? There is nothing wroing with my reading comprehension, in fact, it is your writing that is incomprehensible. If you put it down like you did, then don't try and lay off on me that I couldn't comprehend what you wrote. Had I not comprehended it, I wouldn't have corrected you. Don't pull the Obama "I'm smarter than you" stuff, because your not. You screwed up and got called on it, end of story. Have a nice day.

Dedmanrisn at 7:34PM on Sep 28th 2008