uncle wilco

and vanity plates aren't stupid if they are wilco related, .

yes, there's always an exception.

it is an interesting read, thanks. will it be absorbed by those whose only interest is in knocking him down? somehow

i don't think so.

huffington post?

come on...

article written by John K. Wilson

John K. Wilson blogs at www.obamapolitics.com and is the author of five books, including the new book "Barack Obama: This Improbable Quest" (Paradigm Publishers) and the forthcoming "Patriotic Correctness: Academic Freedom and Its Enemies." His previous books include

He didn't really flip on it though. Obama never said that he would commit to public financing, only that he was willing to negotiate some sort of agreement with the Republican candidate to do so.

Yahoo News:

For years Obama supported using public funds for campaigns to keep the big special-interest money out, and he was recorded more than once saying "I strongly support public financing."

On a questionaire by the good government group Common Cause, Obama wrote, "If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."

And during an April 27 apperance on Fox News, Obama declared, "I have promised that I will sit down with John McCain and talk about can we preserve a public system."

from another column:

Yes, he did promise to abjure private financing of his presidential campaign if the Republican nominee would do the same, but as everyone can see, things have changed. Public finance would provide only $85 million, whereas Obama has raised more than three times that already. As the candidate explained so upliftingly,

You're right, everything that's said about him is 100% true. No one is spreading any misleading information about Obama.

i'm referencing his flip on the public financing issue. i couldn't care less about david brooks or his opinion, not many people do.

barack is all for finance reform..until he runs for president.

do as i say, never mind what i do. same shit new politician.

and nobody gives a damn...unless a republican tries it.

baaaraaack....

It's a pretty misleading and dishonest editorial, yes.

yes, there is nothing to this. nothing...nothing at all...change...hope...change...hope...

obama...obama...obaaa..ma...

i don't see the harm in them really, but i also don't see the necessity of them either. and i'm not surprised at all they are causing controversy.

if they are offering special plates to private groups, as they say, then i'm sure that atheists, satanists and new age believers or gangs and NAMBLA members, etc are welcome to join in on the fun too for an extra fee.

i already refuse to get personal vanity plates because of the cost and because they are just...stupid. why in the world would i want to upgrade my plates at all? i just don't understand the urge.

aren't there already enough jesus fishes on cars? is it really necessary for christians to have official license plates? why join the ranks of those who plaster bumper stickers on their vehicles. it's all the same to me.

Don't underestimate the competitive scheming of Karl Rove and the GOP. There is still a lot of time left. A mulititude of variables could swing this the other way, the candidates' behavior, events in US or abroad. More importantly, Uncle Wilco's influence on VCers.

ha, ha

yeah, i'm sure that's a serious concern around here.

Do you think an Obama-Sebilius ticket could swing it?

she's not even liked that much in her own adopted state of kansas (she's originally from ohio and michigan).

so, no.

i still can't figure out how she is being given any consideration besides the fact she is from a political family and therefore, well connected.

her dad was a former governor of ohio.

her husband is a federal magistrate judge and the son of a former u.s. representative.

so does that mean McCain will eventually get your vote?

i'm still pondering my options and will never endorse mccain regardless of whether or not he'd get my vote.

i'll likely vote for a 3rd party candidate since my state (kansas) hasn't gone for a democrat presidential candidate since LBJ in 1964. so historically, i'd be relatively safe in not supporting mccain and having to worry about barack carrying kansas.

...but with the cult of barack, you never know what might happen. i'll check the polls closer to the election to see which way kansas is leaning and make my final decision then.

I'm so against McCain and for Obama, that it annoys me to look at McCain.

I'm so against Obama and apathetic for McCain, that it annoys me to look at either of them.

whoa. there's a good tone for your very first post to me.

 

your family sounds great and i'm happy for you. what was condescending in my concern about overpopulation? you seem to have taken it personally, which it wasn't meant to be. by the way, i don't fit into the category of "liberal."

 

i agree there is no perfect system of government or perfect political movement, and nowhere did i profess otherwise.

 

i agree things don't have to be all or nothing. in fact, they can't. and i certainly agree with civility in discussion. to be honest, i'm not sure you just practiced what you preach here.

 

of course it's none of the government's "damn business" how many kids parents have. i said so myself, if you'll go back and read it calmly.

 

thank you.

first of all, i owe you an apology. i stand by what i said, however in regards to your post in particular, personalizing my response towards you wasn't proper and i realize that you had made your views more clear than i originally recognized. sometimes i need to stop for a few and gain some perspective before firing off a reply.

again, please accept my apology. the topic of your post just struck a nerve with me.

uw

I understand where you

i do wish people who otherwise should know better would limit the size of their families. government should have no hand in this, but it would

help if people used a little common sense. here is an extreme case: my doctor nephew and his wife, both very nice people, decided

when they got married that they wanted to have (give birth to) 8 children, and so far they're up to 5. it would be funny if it weren't so alarming! i mean,

who's going to pay for the parents' psychiatric hospital stays when they go crazy? a doctor's salary goes only so far!

this is more than little offensive to me. i'm the oldest of 10 kids. we are all doing just fine and my parents as well. we are all self-sufficient and contribute to society in a variety of occupations (including education). we have never needed assistance from a meddling government to get by and we were on the lower end of what would be considered middle-class growing up. basically, my parents worked their asses off and had no regrets whatsoever in doing so. they are the most down to earth people i know.

this is a problem with the liberal mindset. it is always well-meaning, but completely condescending to those who do not share their point of view. despite their assumptions, government hand-outs should be an exception and not an expectation for people. the government has no business sticking their nose where it doesn't belong and certainly the same goes for well-meaning liberals. they should mind their own damn business.

as a conservative and a christian i'm aware of the "meddlers" who share both my political philosophy and faith. and i'm sorry that their ego driven grand-standing tends to paint the rest of us in a negative light with those of opposing views. there are some liberals on this board who i have the utmost respect for because they acknowlege the validity of the opposing points of view. we are all human, therefore we are flawed. this especially extends to political philosophy. there is no perfect system of government or perfect political movement. professing otherwise makes you part of the problem.

things don't have to be all or nothing. there should be room for civil debate and compromise. there should be civility in these discussions and not dismissive arrogance. in other words (in regards to this particular issue), it's none of governments damn business (or anyone elses for that matter) how many kids parents have.

here's the thing, kind of founded by your 'p.s.'...maybe it's just me and maybe it's just on here, but i always get this attitude that 'religious folks and right-wingers' have the market cornered on claiming said high ground and *preventing others from going their own way*. i'm not saying all 'religious folks and right-wingers' are innocents, but i will say there is plenty of 'demonization' happening all the way around. you can argue who 'demonizes' more than the other guy, but my point is...'demonizing' someone else because they 'demonized' first and/or more is on par w/ the argument 'but mom, he hit me first!'

 

what is your stance on prayer in school and/or the recent trend of banning the recognition of certain holidays that may have ties to certain faiths? to qualify, i'm okay w/ certain aspects of the seperation of church and state...for example, nobody should be forced to participate in any sort of prayer, holiday celebration or even say the pledge of allegiance. what i don't get, is why these things have to be removed completely versus a choice being given to particpate or not?

great response EL.

happy birthday sir!

hope it's a great one.

i think it's funny that in 2008 people still pay money to see gallagher.

i guess there is still such a thing as disposable income.

War is nothing to be glib about.

matt lauer is glib according to tom cruise.

we'll leave iraq someday.

i hope.

just like when the economy sucks, the next prez blames it on the previous administration. and when it's going good, the current prez takes the credit. whatever happens in iraq will likely end up with the same blame game. that's politics.

bush will always get the majority of the blame ultimately (and rightly so). since he started all this to begin with, he will forever be accountable.

Interesting...would like for him to show up in the slot, though he may have to get a tad more aggressive when it comes to his debate time. I recall him not being very aggressive pinning Cheney on issues so hopefully he'll be a little more bold when it comes time.

 

Well, and in general.

poodles can be pretty ferocious. i got bit by one once.

The old phrase if it looks like a duck , walks like a duck and quacks like a duck really does apply.

 

This really is tiring.

quack?

quack, quack...quack...

(BTW that's all sarcsim)

i love sarcsim

come on john, lighten up it's only politics. you've got a big win coming up in november. go ahead and start enjoying it now.

you'll just have to forgive us disgruntled conservatives if we come across as a little prickly. nothing personal.

I forgot the current crop of republicans has not interpretive powers and no sense of truth or reality. I'll spell it out, my room service comment was not really meant to reflect reality but used for illustrative purposes. What was I illustrating? I was illustrating that the president of Iran does not have the power to wage war or control the armed forces that our president has. I was also illustrating that our administration is selling this guy as a finger on the trigger nut who has the power to carry out what he says. he has a finger, he is a nut, but he does not have access to the trigger or the gun. Once again it is one more example of our administration backed by the compliant press selling fear to us whole sale when the fear has no basis in reality. But what would this administration or their dwindling number of followers know about reality.

 

You know if you actually took the time you might find out that I am personally pretty conservative. I just think the republican party has turned itself into a clown show political parody. But once again I'll leave you with a cheery note to enjoy yourself as you insult me and completely avoid addressing any point I bring up. Just toss out the standard insults and brush all this off as an out of touch with (the right wing created) reality and have a nice day.

dude, was all that wiki crap necessary? who are you trying to educate here? you expanded on something i already recognized. the supreme leader has sole power. but he also has the power to muzzle whatever ahmadinejad says, which he HAS NOT. the nuclear program is continuing, iran is sponsoring terrorism, umm what's your freaking point?

i find nothing conservative in your postings and i've been around for a while. your assessment of the republican party is accurate. i'm also not a republican. i also believe that the democrat party is side show as well.

can you please fill me in on any personal insults i've hurled at you? i can't recall any, unless disagreeing with you hurts your feelings. in that case, i'm sorry. and if you had a point, it was lost in 4 or 5 paragraphs of your cut and paste.

buh bye

I guess to quote you , ok yea, whatever you say.

 

Wiki? I thought you knew not to trust it? Of course simply agreeing with what an individual has to say and that individual having any power to act on it are two entirely different things. Once again the president of Iran has no power to order their military to do anything, nothing nadda zip. Beyond that what happens between Iran and Israel really has little or no strategic value to the US other than to once again shorten the list of oil suppliers. I just don't get the radical rights obsession with Israel.

 

I also 100% disagree with your assessment of the press, just because majority of the press does not spew the right stalking points it does not make them into those feared and hated liberals. The majority of the press in this country is middle to right leaning whether you believe it or not. We've heard the right wing press (fake news, the felons Limbaugh, Liddy, North etc...) harping for years about the dreaded liberal press. But the reality of it is that they abhor the press in any form. They want the secrecy and lack of exposure because it costs them continually. Watergate? Crimes? Hell no blame it in the liberal press. Iran Contra? Nor crimes there, blame it on the liberal press. CIA plots to over throw governments? Nothing to see here move along and ignore the liberal press. Collusion to expose US CIA assets for political purposes? No issues, it's just that liberal press making sh*t up. It goes on and on, and the blame really falls on the liberal press, which does not exist. Simply reporting something you don't want the public to see or hear does not make the reports liberally biased. But there is no way in he!! to convince the die hard 27% crew of that. So they retreat into their notion of balance and hide behind faux news assuming that there is truth to be had in a radical right wing propaganda machine.

 

At some point in this whole thread some one, I'll assume it was UW, made a comment about balance and how the truth lies somewhere between. I'll assume it was meant that the truth lies somewhere between what faux reports and what the real press reports and I wonder how often those looking for balance actually take into account what they hear from faux and what they hear from the real media and actually balance it out between the two? I would bet never because if they did then what they would be coming up with from this administration would be, in my opinion, very frightening. And of course you once again completely miss that I was not comparing the right to Nazi's or Hitler and that I was using their regime and the holocaust as example to debunk the notion that there has to be balance in reporting, that thhe truth always lays between two extremes. It is the ultimate example that busts that theory to pieces. And of course you choose to ignore the point and go on a defensive rant that has no bearing to the discussion at hand. ignoring also that the right has used the specter of Nazi's to establish policy. Heck even your little throw away bullsh*t phrase about mushroom clouds points right back to the rights notions of spreading fear as a political tool and would eventually dovetail back into little georgies arguments about whomever our latest enemy is, being the equivalent of a modern day Hitler.

 

BTW they are in the process of making these weapons? You have first hand knowledge that our intelligence agencies don't have? I think you you need to give them a call and let them know. Our administration believes they are making them, our intelligence agencies do not. at this point I'll wait till grown ups are running the country again and see what they have to say. After all our administration and the radical right convinced the American people that Sadaam had nukes, that he had the worst kind of chemical weapons and he had given them to Al Qaeda and that our wake up call was going to be in the form of a mushroom cloud. How did those rock solid claims work out? I'm sure and I believe I saw polling on this, that faux viewers believe that we found those weapons and saved the world. Sorry but I don't trust fox and I definitely do not trust bush or anyone in his administration to ever tell the truth.

 

Regardless I'll never convince you that fox and the administration are in full time all the time propaganda mode, and you'll never convince me of the goodness of the republican party withthe current methods you are using. So I'm done with this topic. Have a nice time insulting me and responding to none of the points I raise or completely mis-interpreting them or simply dismissing them as being comically incoherent.

john, some things never change around here. i don't know why i even bother responding to you. sounds like you've got everything figured out. no need for me to add anything.

it's funny how the first thing i knew you would mention was my use of wiki as a reference. feel free to correct the info on the wiki entry. i didn't read anything on it about ahmadinejad's need for mullah approval to order room service. where exactly was that referenced? you have a great command of liberal talking points according to your post. yay for you!

whatever...

good day sir.

Nice job of avoiding the substance of what I was pointing out, and that is that the specter of Hitler has been a cudgil raised by the right for eight eyars now. From Sadaam = hitler to "Islamo Fascisim" and the odd reference to global warming supporters = Nazi's or some other tie in. And of course the right wants the masses to have no clue about the real powers in iran. They want the people to believe that the president f Iran really does have the power to wage war when in fact he barely has the poer to rder room service without consulting the mullahs in charge.

ok john...whatever you say.

i guess my affinity for the right side of things completely blinds me to the continued hitler/nazi comparisions hurled at the left? certainly, the left is much more effective at flinging those insults at the right (and our own country) since they have the majority of the electronic and print media and whole entertainment industry at their disposal. their options for delivery of their message are numerous and are much more infuential to the average american who doesn't bother to look shit up for themselves. all the right has is a bumbling president and cabinet that they don't even like, along with fox news who parrots these lazy comparisons. as i said earlier, we could do without this crap on both sides of the issues, i'm sick of those labels.

"hello...room service"

actually mahmoud ahmadinejad has much more power than merely ordering room service according to wiki. if the supreme leader (Ali Khamenei) didn't agree with the president of iran, he wouldn't be allowed to spew his hatred and violent threats. there is certainly no love lost between iran and the u.s. and israel. the supreme leader is noted as saying that nuclear weapons are against islam and yet they are in the process of making these weapons. i guess we should just take them at their word, right? i mean why wouldn't we trust them? dont' worry, barack's going to take care of us...never mind that mushroom cloud.

nice comeback though. it would sound pretty convincing to someone who doesn't bother to look shit up.

Though we probably disagree on about 90% of the possible political positions two folks could possibly disagree about, I genuinely like you, sincerely even.

i'd rather focus on the 10% we agree on and at least gain an understanding and respect of our differences on the other 90.

screaming, yelling and throwing stuff never solved anything. it just makes people look like idiots, whether they have a valid point or not. whatever your opinion, there is always going to be someone on the other end of it.

i appreciate your words and return the compliment. (i'll avoid the patronizing mccain "my friend" reference since i can't stand that about him either.) you're alright with me too.

I don't see anyone excited about McCain.

it's mclame...john mclame...my friend....(yawn)....

i need a nap.