Posted by rbmorgan (anonymous) on October 3, 2008 at 2:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It is not surprising that many in this typically Republican state would believe Palin won the debate, but national polls seem to indicate otherwise. I found Palin's performance, while better than I expected, disappointing. She avoided many questions and returned again and again to pre-prepared statements. Biden came across as informed and prepared. He also clearly stated his ticket's position on the issues and I liked his focus on the middle-class. Having Palin as a VP is a scary prospect, but halloween is just around the corner, isn't it!?

Posted by UsayULoveGod (anonymous) on October 3, 2008 at 3:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If she would have said Maverick one more time!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by UsayULoveGod (anonymous) on October 3, 2008 at 3:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I truly think this is a shame, there are so many more ladies with a lot more experience that he could have choosen. He had to google her name to find out information on her ! Crazy but true !!

Posted by bdprotheroe (anonymous) on October 3, 2008 at 3:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

UsayULoveGod - We often times disagree on issues, but I have to agree with you on this one.

I, too, would like to see more women assuming political and leadership roles in this country. Governor Sarah Palin, is not the strong candidate we seek or need, in my opinion. She lacks experience, politically and professionally.

If Senator John McCain truly wanted a female candidate as his running mate, I would have much more admiration for the "Maverick" had he selected someone with historical leadership abilities such as Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson (TX), former NJ Governor Christine Todd Whitman, one of the two current Senators from Maine, etc. And, I do miss former Senator Nancy Landon Kassebaum! All of these women have political chops!

There are so many women in leadership roles that have worked long and hard to get where they are in their careers, and notably to be role models for young girls. For McCain to choose newcomer Palin, I think it's disrespectful to those women who have preceded her.

Brian Protheroe
San Francisco, CA

Posted by bdprotheroe (anonymous) on October 3, 2008 at 3:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I've been trying to find the author/journalist of the following quote, without success. Without further ado...

"Palin's selection is an insult to women who paid their dues. Palin is to Hillary Clinton what Clarence Thomas is to Thurgood Marshall."

And, prevent Hillary-bashing, go ahead and insert the name of any of the female political leaders I mentioned in my previous comment.

BP
SFCA

Posted by bdprotheroe (anonymous) on October 3, 2008 at 4:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oops! The previous statement should have read, "And, TO prevent Hillary-bashing, go ahead..."

It's Friday afternoon, and my fingers are not correctly hitting the keyboard as they do on a Monday morning. :)

BP
SFCA

Posted by Fixed_News (anonymous) on October 3, 2008 at 4:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Get ready for four more years of Cheney. She already wants to expand the powers of the Vice President. She is trying to exist in Cheney's fourth branch: between the Executive and Legislative.

Posted by bdprotheroe (anonymous) on October 3, 2008 at 4:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Because I am such a fan of history, I have boxes of newspapers and magazines containing either spine-tingling news articles or historical headline events. One the magazines in my collection is LIFE Magazine from June 1992. The cover story, “If Women Ran America – How Things Would Be Different in Washington, in the Cities, at Work and at Home.”

Skip to the beginning of the article on page 36, and you see the steps of the United States Capitol, and standing upon those steps the only two female U.S. Senators at that time (16 years ago); Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) and our very own Nancy Landon Kassebaum (R-KS). Turn the page. Same location, but the photojournalist has pulled 98 female staff members to grace the steps, and in place of Kassebaum and Mikulski are two men. The U.S. Senate of the future? The point was well made; in 1992, the balance of demographic representation in Washington was unbalanced.

While the article was well-written, it is the contrast in the photos that stand out in my mind. We’ve come a long way since 1992. Currently, there are 70 women in the House and 14 in the Senate. Time will continue to provide more equilibrium.

So, the point remains, we elect (or, are supposed to) politicians based upon their experience, abilities and policies.

Senator John McCain had so many experienced women legislators from both chambers of Congress to chose from. Sad to say, with his choice of Governor Palin, he missed.

BP
SFCA

Posted by eiggohp (anonymous) on October 3, 2008 at 6:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

WAY TO GO SARAH!!!!!!! She sure did out-debate that "old senator"....who everyone thought was going to put her under the table~~ He should be more knowledgeable....he's been around for 32 years in congress...it should count for something......but he made so many blunders last night that he should be embarrassed. If you listen to the FOX network, you would get the straight stuff~~~ She'll be running for President herself someday!!!! We need more like her who can relate to the average person with average problems.
She couldn't have done it better!!!!

Posted by socialmancan (anonymous) on October 3, 2008 at 8:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Gov. Palin sure did bring her "A" game!

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on October 3, 2008 at 8:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I like what she's saying on her interviews today. She was pretty taken aback and frustrated by the Gibson & Couric interviews. She wanted to talk about Iraq, Iran, taxes, spending, etc... and all she got was alot of "gotcha" questions like what do you read to get your news, do you agree with the Bush doctrine, etc.. Questions that those same journalists would never, never, never ask Obama or Biden in a million, million years. Gee, I wonder why. Well not really.

Politics sure is funny, isn't it? People gripe that they are tired of the same old entrenched politician in Washington, they want a new, fresh face, not part of the "old guard", somebody like them, that connects with the common people. And that's all fine and dandy as long as its THEIR candidate. Someone like that appears on the other side, and suddenly they are inexperienced, uninformed, they don't have the required "Washington weight", they don't have the required Washington connections, and since they speak like the neighbor next door, they're an uneducated, unsophisticated rube. Gosh its fun to sit back and watch people some times.

Posted by momus (anonymous) on October 4, 2008 at 8:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I thought the point of an interview was for the interviewer to ask questions, no? Otherwise, it’s just a face to face press release. Both Biden and Obama were asked about the Bush doctrine during the debates... they both new what it was and were not for it (surprise). But, you can't have a candidate that was drilling Obama on experience that then pick someone completely off the political map without any questions. And, when you make someone your VP running mate that people know little or nothing about, then limit media access, you bet she's going to get some long tough questions from the media (they don't know when or if they can talk to her again).

I do think that people are looking for an educated candidate that can handle our multiple problems in a logical fashion based on facts and reason. Maybe not in Kansas, but if Jesus ran for President as a democrat, he would loose Kansas ;). As far as Palin's connection, I think that most people throughout the nation are looking at the GOP's policies over the past four years and are smart enough to project the effect of McCain's policies over the next four. We are in a position as a nation that I don't want to be in, and we are putting ourselves in a worse position over the next four years if McCain is President in my opinion.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on October 4, 2008 at 9:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

If they were asked about the Bush Doctrine during the democratic primary debates, then I missed it, and I retract that statement with my apologies. But I'm not surprised they were not for it. Had either of them been elected in 2000, the Taliban & Al Qaeda would probably be in complete control of 4 or 5 middle eastern countries by now, and Bin Laden would be living the good life like he did under Clinton, instead of holed up in his cave in Pakistan.

Also, it doesn't look like people were smart enough to look at Clinton's housing policies, such as his repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1995, or the deregulation bill of 1999, and project into the future what THOSE moves would do to us, as we are seeing now. Well, there WERE people who could see the writing on the wall, Greenspan & Bush among others, but definitely not Barney Frank. They can only repeat the same old mantra that it was deregulation, and Bush's fault. They don't look at when that deregulation took place, they ignore the fact that other regulations that forced banks to make these bad loans were put into place by others. How many people do their homework? How many people swallowed every word spoken by either Biden or Palin the other night? How many people checked the facts afterwards to see what was incorrect spoken by BOTH candidates? Definitely not the homeless drunks being bussed in to vote early in Ohio.... LOL

Posted by netloafer (anonymous) on October 4, 2008 at 9:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Momus

I think Mike Huckabee said it better than most. He was asked in a debate what party Jesus would have been in. He responded: "Jesus was far too smart to have ever run for political office."

There's some merit to the idea that we should vote for candidates based on facts and reason. But there are also some gaps in that kind of thinking. While I think it is a great idea to trust the wisdom of our political leaders, I also believe that many of the issues we face are far too complex for human wisdom alone to solve. For example, geopolitics and economics. Much of the human wisdom applied to problems in these areas has been little more than creating problem B in order to solve problem A.

In terms of the economy, we all stand to lose a lot. I take comfort in the fact that if we do go over the cliff, we will all do it together, fat cats and Main Street America. That's the way democracy works.

Almost all Americans have retirement plans invested in the stock market. Almost all Americans have been on a consumption binge for a little over a generation. I'm as willing as any American to find someone to blame. If it settles on Republicans, I'll provide the matches when we burn them at the stakes or provide the lumber for the gallows. Lord knows, I am absolutely guiltless in this spree of greed and spending that's taken place over the past twenty years. I'm sure you are also absolutely guiltless, Momus, as is every other American save a the Wall Street fat cats and laissez faire economists.

One of the most amusing movie lines I ever heard was from "The Graduate." The young hero is wondering about the future and a businessman tells him that the future is "Plastics." He was so right. Wal Mart counts on "plastics." So does Macy's, Lord and Taylor, Bloomingales, K-Mart, Target, Applebee's, Princess Cruise Lines, Disney World, the Flint Hills Cinemas, Stage, Montana Mike's, Dillon's, Sutherland's, Country Mart, Golden Corral, etc, etc, etc.

Ah, but I digress. I'm sure we're all guiltless. None of us took second mortages so that we could take that cruise we couldn't live without. None of took out second mortgages so that we could pay for the plastic load we already had, then went out and piled up more on the plastic. I'm sure none of us ate out five nights a week, using plastic, and then couldn't figure out why our bills were so high and our food costs had gotten out of control. Yes, this is all the fault of a few fat cats and George Bush.

Posted by wirewatt (anonymous) on October 4, 2008 at 10:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

When are people going to realize that as long as we let these guys set in Washington without watching what they do we are going to get into huge messes just like now. The Dem.'s and Repb.'s both are to blame on this issue. The Financial Papers stated we were going to have problems, but no one wanted to listen. Now is the time to vote these people out of office, look up their voting records and vote accordingly. See how often Obama has voted, as well as McCain and see what and how they voted. Then choose, I am sure you will be amazed as to what each has done.

Posted by create (anonymous) on October 4, 2008 at 11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't have a problem with Couric's question regarding where Palin gets her news. Why should she be frustrated by such a question? Better yet, why didn't she just answer the question instead of handling it the way she did? That's what got her into trouble. We could all name a quick list of all the sources from which we like to get our news. Name a couple of newspapers, her own hometown's for one. Name a couple of national news magazines, name CNN or FOX, name something!

Net, with regard to the bailout or rescue, whatever you want to call it, you're right, there's plenty of blame to go around throughout the strata of society and not just the fat cats. But the fat cats always get served first because they are always standing at the trough.

However, lots of us have done what Suzy Ormand has been preaching for a long time now. We've been saving our pennies and NOT using plastic. When I needed a roof on my house, for example, I used part of my savings account as collateral and borrowed the money. Before long the loan was paid off and I still had my savings account intact. But misery loves company, and all the "gottahaveit" people who did not manage their money are now happy that we are all in this together.

I have no problem with helping out Main Street so that credit will flow and they can now borrow the money it will take to keep their businesses afloat. This keeps people employed. Works for me. But I am very angry at the stupid people who signed huge mortgages beyond their means then couldn't make payments. I add the real estate agents, brokers, and bankers to that list.

Posted by rcakmon (anonymous) on October 4, 2008 at 4:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It cracks me up to read that so many of you think she won. Check the national polls people. Even the fox news poll showed Biden won. I guess you can say she "won" only because she avoided any Couric moments. The expectations for her were so low it was a "win" for her if she got through the debate without any deer in the headlight moments. She recited her memorized answers very well. The only problem was her answers didn't always match the questions! The worst was the winking, her poor articulation, and the you betchas! While trying to endear herself to the joe six pack crowd she appeared unprofessional and certainly not presidential.

Posted by admireed (anonymous) on October 4, 2008 at 4:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Create, why would you borrow money against your savings act. rather than just paying for the roof out of savings?

Posted by rcakmon (anonymous) on October 4, 2008 at 6:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

eiggohp are you serious? You think fox "news" is real news? It is so one sided and biased. If you can't see that then no wonder you think Palin won the debate.

Posted by create (anonymous) on October 4, 2008 at 7:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

admireed,
By using my savings as collateral for a loan, I use the bank's money instead of my own. Once I pay the loan off, my savings would still be intact. This works for me because had I used my savings to begin with, I wouldn't have as much discipline to repay myself as I would the bank. At one time, when savings accounts were paying a higher rate of interest, I could make a case for paying less interest on a loan too because while the loan is charging you interest, your savings account, while tied up, is still earning interest. These days, however, I can't really make much of a case for that since regular savings accounts earn such low interest. Hope that helps.

Posted by create (anonymous) on October 4, 2008 at 7:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey Gwen, are you going to let us know how our own congressional delegation voted on this bailout bill? I'm hearing now that middle-class America will not get much help after all. This is what our congress people appealed to. It's those fat cats at the trough again.

Posted by kansasgirl (anonymous) on October 4, 2008 at 9:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

rcakmon you took the words right out of mouth. Sarah Palin talks to people as if they are just good ole folk that don't have the brains to see that she does not now nor anytime in the future, have what it takes to be 2nd in command of this country and most definitely not the President. God forbid. As a woman I'm deeply afraid of this woman having any more power than she does as Gov. of the State of Alaska. Wake up people!! This country is in serious trouble and to have someone with as little experience as Gov Palin in office would be a tragedy for all of us.

Posted by trainrech (anonymous) on October 5, 2008 at 6:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm curious how one defines "debate". Over and over a question was asked by the moderator which the Governor would not answer.

If the McCain/Palin race is successful, should we be concerned that the same attitude will be taken when the public asks questions?

Posted by admireed (anonymous) on October 5, 2008 at 10:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Create....sounds sound to me. Way better than going plastic for sure.

Posted by create (anonymous) on October 5, 2008 at 3:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

admireed, I'm glad you think so. I learned that from my father when I was just a kid. Once I began working, I was required to give him my paycheck. He gave me a little to spend and put the rest in savings for me. When I had enough saved, he taught me how to make a passbook savings loan with the bank for my first car. It was 1960. $800 for a 1954 Chevy Bel Air. Filled the tank for $5.

Posted by Observation (anonymous) on October 5, 2008 at 5:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I couldn’t help but notice that Sarah is ahead of Biden 46% to 39%. There must be Silent Majority of Sarah believers out there in Gazette land. I realize that there are a half dozen or so of die hard Democrats posting each other here and hi-fiving each other’s misguided remarks, but the Gazette vote counts are showing that Sarah won the Vice President debate. Sorry!
Maybe ya'all should get ACORN involved to figure out how to stuff the Gazette ballot box.

Posted by create (anonymous) on October 5, 2008 at 6:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Opinions are opinions, not "misguided remarks." Had the remarks been more complimentary of Palin, would that mean they were more on target? Spin, spin, spin. I'm so glad to learn that Gazette readers have voted Palin as having won the debate. Let's give a shout out for Sarah Palin.

Posted by rcakmon (anonymous) on October 5, 2008 at 8:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dear Observation: In case you are confused, the Gazette poll is based on Emporia residents. So...that means that people in Emporia think she won. What a shock! The national polls (meaning people all across the nation) indicate Biden won. All clear now?

CNN/Opinion Research
Biden - 51%
Palin - 36%

CBS
Biden - 46%
Palin - 21%

In the CBS poll of the uncommitted voters, 18% now say they will vote for Obama/Biden, while 10% now say McCain/Palin.

Fox
Biden - 61%
Palin - 39%

AOL (non-scientific)
Biden - 48%
Palin - 45%

Forbes.com
Biden - 73%
Palin - 23%

MSNBC
Biden - 78.6%
Palin - 18.9%

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on October 5, 2008 at 9:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I have went to alot of the fact-check sites afterwards to verify the claims and accusations made by each candidate during the debates. They both made some false claims. Some of the points they made are debatable, depending on how you look at the data. Now, I'm sure everyone can find a website that "proves" that their candidate only misspoke a time or 2, and the other candidate told 15 lies. But, on the majority of the fairer, and non-partisan fact-checking sites that I visited, (and I looked at quite a few of them - I won't list them all, do your own homework - if you want to visit DailyKos or something and drink all their Koolade, help yourself) - Biden also "missed" the truth a few more times than Palin did. So he "won" on that mark, also.
Ah, if only I had been there debating them in a 3-way debate. I would have claimed to have the cure for cancer, "proved" that each of them was getting BILLIONS of $$ in kickbacks from Fannie & Freddie, brought forth evidence that showed they were both pedophiles, and exposed them both as undercover infiltrators for Al-Qaeda. I would have smoked them both in the next day's polls.... LOL

Posted by glarson (Gwen Larson) on October 6, 2008 at 7:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Create,

Sorry, just saw your question.

We ran an AP story in Saturday's paper that said the House vote fell on the same lines as the first one. Dennis Moore in favor, all others including Jerry Moran, opposed. An op-ed by Moran in Saturday's paper explains his position.

I'm still trying to track down Brownback's and Roberts' vote on the Senate bill.

Gwen

Posted by Observation (anonymous) on October 6, 2008 at 7:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Emporia Gazette poll,
Sarah Palin 46%
Joe Biden 39%

rckamon and create
The Emporia Gazette in Emporia Kansas is where you are posting your Liberal Biden won drivel. I am surprised that you didn't point out that Biden won in Russian, Cuban, North Korean, Iranian and Venezuelan Polls also. By big numbers too. Oh, I bet he won on Mars too. Back to Emporia Kansas, Sarah Palin Won. Sorry, losers!

Posted by create (anonymous) on October 6, 2008 at 8:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Observation, who cares how those other countries vote. Their votes don't count. What kind of drivel is that? The United States will decide on who wins the campaign, not Emporia, Kansas. Aren't you even remotely curious about the rest of the country? You continue to call those of us who support the Obama campaign losers. Does immature name calling make you feel better? We'll see.

Thanks, Gwen. I did get the Saturday paper and thank you for your info. I was particularly interested in the Moran article.

Posted by kseyetie (anonymous) on October 6, 2008 at 8:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It will still be very close, but Machine Gun McCain and his beauty queen are finished.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on October 6, 2008 at 9:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

That's true, those countries votes do not count, but I also have read quite a bit on here about people blasting Bush and praising Clinton for our standing in the eyes of those same other countries. So, do we follow a foreign policy that makes us popular with all the other countries, including all those that have something to gain by the demise of the US? I'm not espousing a US-at-all-costs heck-with-the-rest-of-the-world approach, but I DO care that our politicians focus FIRST on what is best for the US. In the long run, as well as the short.

I have another question. Anyone have a GPS I can borrow?

I assume everyone has seen the California YouTube video about the kids singing Obama's praises. Now this morning on the news more videos have surfaced, the latest is some Urban something-or-another school in Kansas City, where the teacher sanctioned a video of the kids pledging their alliegance to Obama in what some claim is a rather para-military style.

I need the GPS to confirm where I am, because I'm afraid that somehow I've woken up in North Korea.

Posted by Observation (anonymous) on October 6, 2008 at 11:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

open-eyes;
I'd be glad to lend my GPS to you.
If you are going to where BO would take us you are sure to go on a scary trip. I doubt if you can afford the trip however as you will have little of your money left after BO gets his share of your money to give to those less fortunate, or less willing to earn a legitimate living. BO and J Obiden are only looking to gain control of America, much like Hitler once gained control of Germany. Liberals don't want us to view the world at large lest we will began to see the realities of what has happened in the past. They are the champions of the Taliban, the guerrillas from Iran, and dictators through out the world. The Liberals would rather have us stick our heads in the sand beside them and count our blessings that BO has come to save the USA in the name of Karl Marx.

Posted by lycomu (anonymous) on October 6, 2008 at 11:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

wow. i havent heard this sort of nonsense since the last time i heard mccain try to explain how he was going to fix the economy. by the way, FDR was considered a Liberal, and as it turned out, he led the charge to defeat hitler

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on October 6, 2008 at 12:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

When you are referring to McCain's "nonsense" about how he was going to fix the economy, were you referring to several years ago when he wanted to reign in Fannie & Freddie & put tougher oversight on banking practices?

Yes, what utter nonsense THAT turned out to be.....

Posted by Observation (anonymous) on October 6, 2008 at 12:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Only after he buried his Liberal head in the sand and let Hitler cook six million Jews and countless other innocent people. Hitler should have been terminated early on by FDR, but FDR was too much of a coward to do that.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on October 6, 2008 at 12:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I fear, that this election, more than any other, is going to be ruled by alot of irrational nonsense. People (not talking about everyone here, just the country at large in general terms) aren't going to vote for who they believe in, who agrees with them, etc. They simply have an irrational hatred of George Bush, mostly because of the Iraq war. And they do not care who they vote for, or what that candidate stands for, as long as they are not connected to GW. I mean, remember, there were protestors against even going into Afghanistan after 9/11.

Obama & camp are fond of saying that McCain votes with Bush 90% of the time. What does that mean, exactly? About 90% of Senate votes are unanimous consent votes. Either honoring some dead guy or an event, changing the name of a post office, spending money like an earmark, a minor tweaking a law, asking the executive for a report etc. So the next time they say that McCain votes with Bush 90% of the time, then just how often does Obama & the rest of the Senate "vote with Bush"? (By the way, Bush doesn't actually "cast votes") - so, any law that Obama voted for, that Bush signs, is actually "voting with Bush", right????
I think they put it best on a radio show this morning: Nobody that calls in can tell the host why they are for Obama: they are just against Bush. For all you rabid Bush-haters out there, honestly how often have you sided with Bush? Did you support his going into Afghanistan? Did you return your tax rebate & stimulus checks because you did not agree with the principle? Were you happy Libya gave up WMD's, or did you disagree with Bush on that? Do you disagree with his fight against AIDS in Africa? Did you disagree with North Korea dismantling their reactor (at least when it was happening)? Do you truly believe there has ever in history been a president that you could not point to both good and bad things they had done, mistakes made, right moves that they more or less "got lucky" on?
And, since this is where the focus currently is, did all you Bush-Haters disagree with his 2003 proposal to overhaul Fannie & Freddie, and put in more oversight & regulation to the banking industry & mortgage lenders? And again in 2005? Or did you side against him with the Dems like Barney Frank that claimed there was nothing wrong with the system, and it was just another Repub ploy?

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on October 6, 2008 at 12:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Obama says that Iran MUST not be allowed to have nuclear weapons, and military force IS an option. So does Bush. Obama supports the 2-state solution in Israel & Palestine. So does Bush. Obama supports spending money to help fight AIDS in Africa. So does Bush. They both want more troops in Afghanistan - the difference there is, Bush wants to move the troops as the situation stabilizes in Iraq. Obama doesn't care what kind of a mess he leaves Iraq in, he just wants out NOW. (Remember, if we had set a 16-month timetable when he proposed it, we would be completely out, there would have been no surge, and Iraq would be...... use your imagination).

Wow. It's amazing how often Obama "votes" with Bush. I bet if you tally it up, it will come up to a higher percentage than you think.

Posted by lycomu (anonymous) on October 6, 2008 at 12:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

How many members of McCain/Bush/Schmit/Rove campaign does it take to change a light bulb?
1. One to deny that a light bulb needs to be changed;
2. One to attack the patriotism of anyone who says the light bulb needs to be changed;
3. One to blame American Voters for burning out the light bulb;
4. One to arrange the invasion of a country rumored to have a secret stockpile of light bulbs;
5. One to give a One Trillion dollars to Wall Street for the new light bulb;
6. One to arrange a photograph of Bush, dressed as a janitor, standing on a step ladder under the banner: Light Bulb Change Accomplished;
7. One campaign insider to resign and write a book documenting in detail how McCain/Bush/Schmit/Rove was literally in the dark and out of touch with the American Voter
8. One to viciously smear #7;
9. Sarah Palin to campaign on TV and at rallies on how John McCain has had a strong light-bulb-changing policy all along;
10. And finally one to confuse Americans about the difference between screwing a light bulb and screwing the country.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on October 6, 2008 at 1:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Let's see...
1. One to deny that the surge is working....
2. One to say that paying higher taxes is "patriotic"...
3. One to blame all the repubs for the mortgage meltdown...

and on and on..... LOL

(Gee - didn't Obama also vote for the bailout package?)

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on October 6, 2008 at 1:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Anyway, back to common sense and the issues, to finish my earlier thread/train of thought.

So, when Barney "still in denial" Frank said there was nothing wrong with the financial systems in 2003 when Bush wanted to add more oversight and overhaul them, is that the policy you want continued? After all, that's in direct opposition to Bush's policy, and Barney is a Democrat, and Obama pretty much toes the party line nearly 100% of the time, so, when you want change, and you want to not continue Bush's policies, does that also include in areas like this?

Posted by momus (anonymous) on October 6, 2008 at 1:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

How about...

1. Deny the reality that the surge is economically unsustainable. How long can it keep working with a debt ceiling at 11.3 trillion and spending in Iraq at billions per month when we need that money to fix a myriad of problems at home.

2. The "patriotic" comment was in reference to those that avoid paying taxes through a variety of loopholes, like off shore PO boxes. By actually paying taxes, those using the loopholes would be paying higher taxes, but I think most people would say that making people pay at the same level as those without legal loophole teams is OK.

3. Ummm, aren't republicans trying to blame Obama for domestic terrorism because he sat on a fund raising committee for a school with a guy that was exonerated for his activities with a formerly violent organization? My point: hello Mr. Pot, please meet Mr. Kettle.

Posted by Observation (anonymous) on October 6, 2008 at 1:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Momus,
So I guess that you agree with BO in that we should just surrender in Iraq. Remember that BO wants to go to war in Afghanistan and Pakistan right away. NOW! I wonder what his EXIT Policy is for that war. He never mentions that exit policy for the war he proposes, only the exit policy for the war we are currently in. I suppose he would get out the white flag there too? Patriotism is not paling around with terrorists as BO DID DO to get his political career kicked off. Perhaps you have exonerated William Ayers for his association with the Weather Underground, but I surely have not. Ayers is a terrorist. BO IS his associate for fund raising.

Posted by lycomu (anonymous) on October 6, 2008 at 1:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

and keating was just trying to make america a better place

Posted by momus (anonymous) on October 6, 2008 at 1:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes, because the only alternative beyond spending billions per month in Iraq is complete surrender... Or, we could do what the Iraqi soveriegn government has asked, what the people of Iraq have asked- have a 16 month phased pull out of their nation.

As for Ayers, I'll remember the next time I get invited to a committee meeting for any organization to make sure I do a criminal background check on everyone else in attendance. But, since Ayers wasn't found guilty of doing anything illegal, I guess he would have slipped past my check. Should I just ask if anyone has ever done anything that I would potentially disagree with at the beginning of any meeting I attend?

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on October 6, 2008 at 2 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Exactly my point(s), momus. We could do the he said/she said thing and go around in circles for infinity.

So, if we end up at war in Pakistan because of our encroaching on their sovereign territory, and/or attack Iran to stop them from getting nukes, just how long before that is "economically unsustainable"? If we had listened to Bush, McCain & some repubs a few years ago, I can think of at least $700 billion more we would have to pour into other problems right now....

So, how much have you researched Ayers? In his book on education, he calls for doing away with national holidays in the US, and instead celebrating international holidays. The book is quite radical, expressing doubts about whether we ought to have a prison system at all, comparing America to South Africa’s apartheid system, and contemptuously dismissing the idea of the United States as a kind or just country.

And Obama said he has read, and has publically endorsed, without qualification, Ayers’ book. Somehow I just can't see either McCain or Palin (or Biden, for that matter) endorsing those views.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on October 6, 2008 at 2:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Actually, the 16 months just started. Thanks to the surge. Obama wanted it over 16 months ago, when the Iraqi government did NOT want us to leave.

I think maybe I'll wait until the very last day that we remove the very last combat troop from Iraq, and then proclaim that "I want all the troops out TODAY! NOW!!! - and then I'll take full credit for it.

As far as Ayers is concerned, In a 2001 interview with The New York Times he is quoted as saying, “I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough.”

So, the fact that he was never convicted.... sure, he's a swell guy.

Posted by rcakmon (anonymous) on October 6, 2008 at 4:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

observation: As usual, many Emporians think Emporia is the be all, end all and nothing else matters. Your "sorry losers" was a hoot! Gee...I hope I'll be able to sleep tonight. Especially since Obama is ahead in so many national and swing state polls. Of course, since McCain will win in Kansas you can run around saying he won if it makes you feel better. Have a great day! (-:

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on October 6, 2008 at 6:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Emporia IS!!!!! Why, we nearly became a major resettlement point for a foreign country, we're so popular!

Actually, lots of posts here are a hoot! It's not enough I hear owls in the timber not far from the house all night, now I get to read all this during the day, too.... gotta love it..... :)

Posted by glarson (Gwen Larson) on October 7, 2008 at 8:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)

and let's move to a forum:

http://www.emporiagazette.com/forums/ope...