Suspect talks of Obama assassination 'plot'
By Brian Maass, CBS4 News
Published August 26, 2008 at 8:53 a.m.
Updated August 26, 2008 at 11:01 a.m.
Nathan Johnson
Tharin Robert Gartrell
Denver's U.S. attorney is expected to speak this afternoon about the arrests of four people suspected in a possible plot to shoot Barack Obama at his Thursday night acceptance speech in Denver. All are being held on either drug or weapons charges.
One of those suspects spoke exclusively to CBS4 investigative reporter Brian Maass from inside the Denver City Jail late Monday night and said his friends had discussed killing Obama.
"So your friends were saying threatening things about Obama?" Maass asked.
"Yeah," Nathan Johnson replied.
"It sounded like they didn't want him to be president?"
"Yeah," Johnson said.
Maass reported earlier Monday that one of the suspects told authorities they were "going to shoot Obama from a high vantage point using a ... rifle ... sighted at 750 yards."
Law enforcement sources told Maass that one of the suspects "was directly asked if they had come to Denver to kill Obama. He responded in the affirmative."
The story began emerging Sunday morning when Aurora police arrested Tharin Gartrell, 28. He was driving a rented pickup truck in an erratic manner, according to sources.
Sources told CBS4 police found two high-powered, scoped rifles in the car along with camouflage clothing, walkie-talkies, wigs, a bulletproof vest, a spotting scope, licenses in the names of other people and 44 grams of methamphetamine. One of the rifles is listed as stolen from Kansas.
Aurora police alerted federal officials because of heightened security surrounding the Democratic convention, Aurora police Det. Marcus Dudley said.
"Clearly we feel that there are federal implications -- otherwise we would not have notified those agencies," Dudley said Monday night. "The weapons clearly would cause great concern."
Subsequently authorities went to the Cherry Creek Hotel in Glendale to contact an associate of Gartrell's. But that man, identified as Shawn Robert Adolph, 33, who was wanted on numerous warrants, jumped out of a sixth floor hotel window. Law enforcement sources say Adolph broke an ankle in the fall and was captured moments later. Sources say he had a handcuff ring and was wearing a swastika, and is thought to have ties to white supremacist organizations.
Nathan Johnson, 32, an associate of Gartrell and Adolph, was also arrested Sunday morning. He told authorities that the two men had "planned to kill Barack Obama at his acceptance speech."
"He don't belong in political office. Blacks don't belong in political office. He ought to be shot," Johnson told Maass.
"Do you think they were really plotting to kill Obama?" Maass asked.
"I don't want to say yes. I don't want to say no," he said.
Johnson's girlfriend Natasha Gromek is also under arrest on drug charges.
The Secret Service, FBI, ATF and the joint terrorism task force are all investigating the alleged plot. Dudley didn't say what tied the men together but said more arrests were possible.
Officials with the U.S. Attorney's office in Denver said they do not believe there is a credible threat to Obama or the convention.
"It's premature to say that it was a valid threat or that these folks have the ability to carry it out," said a U.S. government official familiar with the investigation. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing.
U.S. Attorney Troy Eid said the case was under investigation.
"We're absolutely confident there is no credible threat to the candidate, the Democratic National Convention, or the people of Colorado," Eid said in a prepared statement.
Gartrell, who has no known address, was being held at the Arapahoe County jail on $50,000 bail on drug and weapons charges. The jail said he was due in court Thursday.
CBS4 News staff contributed to this report.
August 26, 2008
9:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
IRUNMAN writes:
and the "regular" posters on this website?
Where are you? Where is your commentary?
Do you continue to wonder why I-25 will be shut down when President Obama gives his speech this Thursday?
The idiots mentioned above are the reason why.
August 26, 2008
9:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
ofcourse writes:
What a break. Kudo's to the officer. Hope it's not a decoy to divert attention. Meth, the breakfast of.....oh, I forget.
August 26, 2008
9:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
BroncoDan writes:
meth, guns and white supremacisits...what a mix!!!
Unfortunately, this is going to happen a LOT! There a plenty of people out there, who can't stand a black man being the president, or evidently, even holding public office.
However, I guess they don't mind a stupid man being president.
August 26, 2008
9:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
Cutler6 writes:
"He don't belong in political office. Blacks don't belong in political office."
Of course they don't mind stupid people. "He don't belong"?
August 26, 2008
9:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
grison writes:
What I would like to know why is that two International Media companies mentioned this plot on August 24th and we only found out yesterday 8/25. My brother in laws family called him from Paris to tell him about this on Sunday August 24th and like fools we who live in the States knew absolutely nothing. Then my parents heard this on Sunday the 24th on RAI International. My colleagues and I checked on all news web sites CNN,MSNBC, etc..and not one thing was mentioned so we all assumed it was only a rumor that is until last night on the 11PM news.
Why weren't we all advised? What is being hidden? Bottom line I think the media, our government does not want us to think for ourselves and realize that justice and freedom is only for a few and not everyone. Too bad there is way too muc ignorance in the USA and thank God for Satellites and Internets so one can look on foreign news pages and truly see what goes on in the world.
August 26, 2008
9:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
"Do you continue to wonder why I-25 will be shut down "
No one "wonders" why I-25 will be shut down. Everyone knows. It's because an ego maniac decided to trash Denver citizens so he can move his "speech" from the convention site to Invesco field.
Not only did he decide to waste an extra $9 million in taxpayer funds for security costs (how many poor kids would that have fed?), he also decided to destroy the environment by requiring commuters to now drive an extra hour out of their way (millions in extra costs to Denver citizens in extra fuel costs), and caused tens of thousands of kids to have to wait an extra hour before their WORKING parents can get home to them.
All so that some celebrity can give a speech to some morons that worship at his feet like obedient lemmings.
August 26, 2008
9:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
BMat writes:
Am I the only one who thinks suspect Tharin Robert Gartrell looks like Vanilla Ice?
August 26, 2008
9:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
DonnyD writes:
Grison:
I bet they were still investigating and thus a local media blackout. Why would we want to alert any potential accomplices? We don't have to know right away every single event that takes place.
August 26, 2008
9:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
rpcvmars writes:
ofcourse....I was just thiking the same thing...
send out a nice doped up decoy with plenty of gear to look the part then...(but maybe I watch too many movies)
I wonder why we don't hear about any attempts on McCain. Something with a tag line like "I figure we don't need anymore white guys in office."
August 26, 2008
9:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
YourNeilness writes:
Quit your whining, Rickg.
August 26, 2008
9:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
kmeissner writes:
BMat- you're right! Ice, Ice Baby!
August 26, 2008
9:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
FlyfishDude52 writes:
grison - Are you for real? Don't you think that after apprehending a wacko with guns AND drugs, willing to make the outrageous statements in this article that it wouldn't elicit a more in depth criminal investigation? Keeping your foolish nose out (and the general public's) of this investigation can only improve the authorities chances for thwarting this murder attempt and successfully prosecuting these warped, sociopathic individuals.
Good job Aurora PD!!!
August 26, 2008
9:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
snowsurfer writes:
rick is a moron.
August 26, 2008
10:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
mexcellent writes:
I'm rickg19611, and I approve this message.
August 26, 2008
10:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
lift_up_now writes:
Good job Aurora PD. I am glad to hear that the police forces around the city are being so observant. Whether we are participating in the DNC events or residents of the area, people like these need to be off of the streets for everyone's safety. I would also like to thank the security staff from out of town who are assisting in these efforts on a Federal and State level. THANKS.
As far as Mr. Obama's right to be president, I think any person has that right and if they can do the job in a way that generates positive growth for our country and challenges our thinking, then go for it. We need people who will take on the problems that face this country and work towards a solution that will work. If Mr. Obama can do that, then good luck to him.
August 26, 2008
10:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
SLAP writes:
I am amazed those two bright individuals were caught...they appeared to be on top of their game! Camo and bullet proof vests? How were they going to blend in with that? I don't think they researched their escape plan very well.
August 26, 2008
10:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
disenchanted1 writes:
Since we seem to be so concerned about tax payer money, why don't we just shoot these meth losers with their own gun and be done with it. That will get us back some of the money you say we wasted on security for our next President!
August 26, 2008
10:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
voicefromuphigh writes:
After viewing the photos of the suspects, I cannot help but wonder just exactly what these white "supremacists" believe themselves to be superior to, for if these are examples of the master race then we are all in a world of hurt. No matter what sentence is ultimately assessed against them it would be nice to see a stipulation added for forced sterilization just to ensure that there is no possibility for further procreation.
August 26, 2008
10:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
mobed writes:
I'm pleased to know that White Supremacy has jumped out of a sixth-floor hotel window trying to elude the police and broken its ankle.
August 26, 2008
10:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
darkheath writes:
Nathan Johnson looks exactly the way I envisioned one of these white "supremacists" to look. Kinda like the "yokel" on the Simpsons. I'm betting he sounds about the same as well. Why is it the morons are the ones who think they are so superior? Superior to what?
August 26, 2008
10:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
mexcellent writes:
Has anyone checked to see if these guys are illegals?
August 26, 2008
10:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
Hooligan writes:
"He don't belong in political office. Blacks don't belong in political office. He ought to be shot," Johnson told Maass.
These guys are really idiots- Obama is not even Black, he is an Arab/ White mix, with just a little "Black" thrown- in.Why Black America is so excited about having a "Black" president is beyond me. Look at what the Black leaders in Africa have done to that country- ala Mugabe.
However, White leaders have not been able to lead this country without tremendous failures, either, in spite of the fact that we are the richest county in the World!
Why can't we just elect someone based off of their past achievements, qualifications, track- record...etc- instead of their skin color or gender? The fact of the matter is that Specal Interest groups run this Nation, resulting in the Majority being ruled by the Minority.
August 26, 2008
10:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
nbw9597 writes:
grison writes:
What I would like to know why is that two International Media companies mentioned this plot on August 24th and we only found out yesterday 8/25. My brother in laws family called him from Paris to tell him about this on Sunday August 24th and like fools we who live in the States knew absolutely nothing. Then my parents heard this on Sunday the 24th on RAI International. My colleagues and I checked on all news web sites CNN,MSNBC, etc..and not one thing was mentioned so we all assumed it was only a rumor that is until last night on the 11PM news.
Why weren't we all advised? What is being hidden? Bottom line I think the media, our government does not want us to think for ourselves and realize that justice and freedom is only for a few and not everyone. Too bad there is way too muc ignorance in the USA and thank God for Satellites and Internets so one can look on foreign news pages and truly see what goes on in the world.
Are you for real? It never ceases to amaze me how/why so many people feel they are on a 'Need To Know' basis 24x7. Please explain why you personally - or the public in general - needed to know about this investigation any sooner than before it was reported in the local/national media?
Is your primary concern that someone in another country knew before you? Or, do you actually believe that something constructive would come by you knowing about this the day these fools were arrested?
Did it every occur to you or anyone else that agrees with your point that releasing this information to local media too soon might actually jeopardize an ongoing investigation?
If these guys were/are part of a bigger conspiracy, seeing this story as breaking news would only alert the co-conspirators that the 'law' was onto them.
This story may have ended with these 3 guys. Although, it may not. If these guys are a diversion, or whatever other conspiracy you can add to this, I would like the law enforcement agencies to be able to act quickly and without worry of suspects learning from the media that they might be caught before the police have been able to move in on them.
August 26, 2008
10:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
T1anda writes:
Is anyone surprised by all of this?? I'm certainly not!!
August 26, 2008
10:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
KnoWhatYoureTalkinAbout writes:
That's funny Mexcellent! I haven't seen a comment yet addressing whether or not they were smuggled by coyotes and taking peoples jobs.
August 26, 2008
10:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
Grizzwyld writes:
... 'two high-powered, scoped rifles in the car along with camouflage clothing, walkie-talkies, wigs, a bulletproof vest, a spotting scope, licenses in the names of other people and 44 grams of methamphetamine'...
(Throw in as a rented truck, and a hotel room in Cherry Creek).
Where did these two illiterate scumbags get the money for all this? Let's get out the water-boarding equipment and use it to flush out their source of funding.
August 26, 2008
10:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
joggle writes:
Shaggy: In what way is Obama further left than the Democrat platform? Usually 'radical' is used for people way beyond their platform. I would not call a standard bearer of the Democrat party a radical left any more than I would call a standard bearer of the Republican party a radical right. Could you knock down your hyperbole a notch or two so as to not lose all of the original meaning of the labels you are so found of throwing around? Or better yet just stop labeling people (ha, that will be the day).
So often I see people posting here that so-and-so is a radical left, egotistical, elitist, etc. Just because you say it doesn't make it so and that isn't adding anything to the discussion. And then one of you will turn around and say NPR or PBS is trash because they are biased whereas in fact they simply won't bring the discussion down to a junior high level (your level).
August 26, 2008
10:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
freespeech34 writes:
I'm Hillary Clinton, and I approve this plot!
August 26, 2008
11:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
KnoWhatYoureTalkinAbout writes:
More like.....this plot brought to you by Di ck Cheney!
August 26, 2008
11:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
goodkarma55 writes:
Ha ha your plan did not work! Go Obama!!!!
August 26, 2008
11:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
Keith43 writes:
KnowWhatYoureTalkinAbout,
I know we don't want to veer too far off topic, but what Cheney plot?
August 26, 2008
11:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
wow writes:
LOL, back to the trailer park, Buford....
And, just a little hint for you white supremacists out there:
Inbreeding is not the best method of ensuring racial purty. You can stop marrying first cousins and sleeping with your sisters. As it is, all your little girls have to look forward to are interracial marriages with gang members in the inner cities, because it's actually a step up in the social strata from where they live with you.
Scumbags.
August 26, 2008
11:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
diablo_deal writes:
Right Wing, Left Wing, Why is my tv flodded with nothing but obama hype. All of the news stations in Colorado cover only Obama related news. Did Obama pass gas today and at what time did he do this? What is McCain doing today? Nobody knows because we are being led to believe in voting for one person. With the education system today all of the voters between the ages of 18 - 30 are going to follow what they see the most on the tv. Why can't the media cover every candidate the same? This also goes for the Green Party and all other parties that are not affliated with the democrats, or the republicans. Please be your own person and actually listen to the candidates and read between the lines. Don't just vote for a party just because your parents voted for them, We need change, we need regular people in office that have not been corrupted by big money. 60 years ago do you think any candidate spent as much money that is being thrown around for todays election. Most money wins! Vote for the better candidate regardless of affliation.
Thank you and have a nice day!!
August 26, 2008
11:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
shaggy....do you not agree with obama that decisions regarding end of life treatment should be left up to the family instead of the gov't?
i kind of thought you were a less gov't intrusion kind of guy. what did you think of the schiavo case?
we've debunked all the other myths...come on man...we've seen all this stuff before...don't you have new and more interesting far right wing conspiracy theories and myths?
August 26, 2008
11:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
DahmersCookbook writes:
Its not about color, but rather the towel he sports. Or how heavy his arms become during our National Anthem. The 'Greenies' will regret this misinformed dicision they are about to make. He prays on gullable types, much like Gore. Blind leading the Blind.
August 26, 2008
11:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
so the new conspiracy theory is that you've "debunked all my myths" and obama is a "radical lefty", shaggy?
i'll add those to your list of greatest hits:
"Obama is a Elitist European Socialist who thinks he is a Dictator"
"It is Obama who hates America and the White Race"
"he told us if we just fill our tires up would equal all the oil we would be able to drill."
"Obama says no to drilling"
"He has never stood up to anyone..not even his racist preacher"
"he can't talk with out a pre written speech made for him so he can read it off a teleprompt"
"surge...is a huge success"
"You do know that the only reason Republicans filibuster is because the Democrats throw in unnecessary earmarks"
"Obama is saying whatever the popular opinion is and people like you are switching with him. You are a bunch of Obamas puppets and are changing daily with him. Just a few days ago he said he was against it and so were all of you but now he switched all of you have switched"
" I have repeatedly refuted Obamas no drill, pro abortion, even partial birth abortion stances from the beginning."
"our troops along with the Iraqi troops have now gained control of almost all of Iraq minus a few suicide bombers"
"i have refuted his capital gains tax"
"nationalized health care will bankrupt this Country"
"Obama is a narcistic elitist and people are starting to wake up and smell the PHONY"
"Go to hell Obama and take your unproud wife."
"Obama is a flake with no substance."
"The guy is a clown with no substance or policies."
"Obama is a coward who has never stood up to anyone."
"all of his stances he used to beat Hillary have now been changed"
"He has never stood up to anyone or anything"
"He is a European Socialist who constantly criticizes America and Americans."
"Obama said high gas prices are O.K. with him only he thought they rose to fast"
"Obama said we will all be O.K. if we all check our tires regularly.
That will equate to all the oil we could drill for."
"This guy is an idiot and he reminds us everyday"
"Obama is a plastic rock star that is having his 15 minutes of fame"
"The guy is a narcistic egomaniac."
"Half the Republicans are not even supporting McCain yet and he is gaining on Obama daily."
"This arrogant arse wouldn't even go see the wounded troops becuase his camera crews couldn't come."
"He has voted over a thousand times present in his very very short time in the Senate because he can't make a stance on a issue and stick with it"
"He also said it would be O.K. with him if the black race attacked the white race if they could get away with it."
"Obamas energy plan is to inflate your tires and get a tune up."
"he wants to raise EVERYONES TAXES while we are in a recession."
"The guy is a arrogant cocky ahole"
"There is NOT ONE ISSUE that he began his run with that has not been changed."
August 26, 2008
11:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
joggle writes:
DahmersCookbook: "He prays on gullable types"
Coming from someone who most likely voted for Bush twice I wouldn't say you're in a position to judge who is 'gullable'.
Shaggy: Jay has a point. We have discussed each of those ad nauseam already. I've spent a lot of time researching 'facts' like these before only to find that they are not facts at all but gross distortions instead. How about you do a bit of research for a change. Find where in the congressional record Obama did the vote you claim he made and post the link to it. Congressional record is at senate.gov.
Next week will be the Republican convention so there will be lots of coverage of them and very little coverage of Obama. That's how it is every four years -- people complaining about Obama getting so much coverage rather than McCain this week must not have a memory longer than 3 years I suppose.
August 26, 2008
12:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
UberGeek writes:
Wow, a lively bunch today!!! So how does this bear on Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton's comment regarding Hillary's reference to Bobby Kennedy's assassination, "Senator Clinton's statement before the Argus Leader editorial board was unfortunate and has no place in this campaign." Apparently it does have a place and was a valid concern.
Taking this the next step, does anyone know how the Democrat Party rules would handle an assassination of the "presumptive candidate" prior to convention? Would Hillary become the next "presumptive candidate" or Joe Biden? What about after the convention?
Regarding "badchecks'" comment about delaying the election, I would not like to see the election cancelled or postponed because it would be an effective way for a despot president to remain in power indefinitely (assuming he/she could find enough assassins to keep offing candidates).
August 26, 2008
12:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
diablo_deal writes:
when Obama had announced that he was running this election all that was plastered on the media was Obama, Obama, Obama. From when he announced that he was running Obama's spotlight in the Denver media was on average 15 minutes of coverage on all media during all hours. McCain coverage 3.25 minutes average on Denver's local media. So what ever happened to an unbiased media? Does this exist? I sat there after Obama announced that he was running for a week straight and timed the coverage for Obama and The coverage for McCain then a month ago I timed it again and the averages were what is listed above. I had the help of family and friends with this mission and you know what I also realized that there has been no coverage of any other parties out there just the Asses and Elephants. Welcome to colorado where the media is very biased in the news they report. An assassination attempt on anyone and it would be in the headlines but not to stir up any controversy during the DNC the information was withheld from the public. I wonder how th DNC is going to like it when I take $5000.00 out of savings and pay 250 of Denver's homeless to hang around wherever there is a DNC event so that these high horse politicans can see what the real people in the nation look like!!
Have a nice day
August 26, 2008
12:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
mobed writes:
"paid grade"???
August 26, 2008
12:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Verdad writes:
joggle:
Just a quick re-cap...
"In what way is Obama further left than the Democrat platform? Usually 'radical' is used for people way beyond their platform. I would not call a standard bearer of the Democrat party a radical left..."
This has been exhaustively covered by a variety of news-outlets and seemingly objective rating systems. Here are a few links, again:
http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voterat...
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix...
These things are not hard to find, but as we have noted before, at least SOME subjectivity is involved depending on one's personal understanding of a non-existent "one-dimensional" political spectrum.
Now on the other hand, as we are in the midst of deciding as a country between the two, is McCain's relative "moderate" Conservative rating. Here, again, are a few links... and a quick excerpt:
"For that most recent year in particular [2007], McCain scored only 65, putting him in 47th place for that year"
And to paraphrase the most recent issues that McCain has alienated conservative voters with:
He led legislation to take away our free speech,repeatedly voted against tax cuts, and led legislation that would start the biggest government programs in history: global warming legislation and Amnesty for illegal immigration.
August 26, 2008
12:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Verdad writes:
http://michaelinmi.wordpress.com/2008...
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/0...
Similar ratings and opinions, showing the contrast that you have apparently missed, can be found easily. That a good majority of self-labeled conservatives vehemently despise McCain, and showed this during the early primaries, clearly puts him at least closer to the middle than Obama. Conversely, there are next to no outspoken liberals who suggest that Obama is too conservative, or not liberal enough.
I do not want to draw a line, and suggest where each would lay on this simplistic "left-right" spectrum, but I think it is pretty clear given simple logical skills.
That said, based off of Obama's typical empty rhetoric of "change" and "hope" it is admittedly difficult to place him nearly anywhere on your subjective spectrum. That is why his actual actions and actual VOTES and stances on particular issues is important. Hence the above links. When a typical voter gets a gut-feeling that this guy may just be simply pandering to acquire undecided votes (very well documented), it is understandable that they then look to the "character" traits. This is where Obama's very questionable past associations, friendships, and acquaintances come in as not only interesting, but as necessary for discerning opinions.
Just facts here, boss.
As I have said before, I despise McCain more than I do Obama, but unfortunately for Obama he has not placed himself as close to the averaged "centrist" voting bloc than his Republican competitor.
Do you disagree, joggle?
August 26, 2008
12:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
freespeech34 writes:
Thank you Jay for the definitive list. I will copy and send it to many people to make them aware of what an 'obomination' Barry Hussein is. Everything you listed is true and verifiable. It's no wonder you people are called "dumbocrats"!
August 26, 2008
12:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
Verdad writes:
Not sure if it was posted on this thread or not, but thought the recent Denver-area billboard campaign paid for by the National Black Republicans was entertaining, if nothing else.
http://www.nationalblackrepublicans.c...
"Martin Luther King, Jr. Was a REPUBLICAN"
Funny, that. They paid for 50 of these.
August 26, 2008
12:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
darkheath writes:
I originally wanted a Biden/Obama ticket to begin with, but I'm happy with where we're at now. And I don't even dislike McCain, he's probably the best the Democrats could hope for coming from the right (outside of Ron Paul).
|
All I know is we have got to get the moron out of the White House who's there now, get the hell out of the middle east, and start mending our relations and standing in the world. I'm sure that Obama/Biden is the answer to that. Biden has a great plan for Iraq, hopefully Obama would follow through with it. It's basically what your mother did when you got in a fight with your brother. Separation. "You Sunnis have this part of the country, Shi-ites over here and you Kurds stay up there. And NO talking!"
|
If you Republicans ever get your party back to the the basic, core ideals of what the Republicans USED to stand for (fiscal conservatism) instead of religious fanaticism (and more government to support such ideas), perhaps you'll be worth listening to again. Until then, stay the he|| away.
August 26, 2008
12:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
darkheath writes:
Verdad... the republicans of today do not resemble the republicans of 40 years ago at all.
I'm pretty sure that MLK would be proud of where we are and would be advocating the Democrat party right now. Especially if he had to live through the past 8 years.
August 26, 2008
12:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
YourNeilness writes:
The black republicans have pulled this stunt before, and it was debunked then, too:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/...
http://www.alternet.org/columnists/st...
August 26, 2008
1:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
Verdad writes:
darkheath:
Fully agreed, and the same can likewise be said of the Democrats of many years past. Both parties have been moving further left, toward bigger-government, for decades now.
Not exactly sure as to where MLK would stand today, but it is safe it say it would be very far away from the race-baiters and welfare-pimps such as Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton.
From the NBRA website:
"Dr. King did not embrace the type of secularist agenda promoted by Obama and the Democratic Party of today, which includes fostering dependency on welfare that breaks up families, supporting same-sex marriage and partial-birth abortion, and banning God from the public square."
I was not yet on this planet when MLK Jr. was assassinated, but as far as I understand his activist platform, the above comment is relatively accurate.
You say:
"I'm pretty sure that MLK would be proud of where we are and would be advocating the Democrat party right now. Especially if he had to live through the past 8 years."
I am not pretty sure, and would like to think that he is rolling in his grave with reverence to where BOTH parties stand today. On the topic of civil rights, which was the focus MLK's movement, I do not specifically see which policies or tactics of the most recent Bush administration are contrary to promoting "civil rights".
I would LIKE to think that MLK sincerely was for equality and fairness. Affirmative action is anything BUT equal and fair. I can't help but think of his famous "...not by the color of their skin, but rather by the content of their character" line.
After a quick look, it does appear that MLK was effectively a proponent of compensatory "affirmative action", although it was not labeled as such until after his death.
By definition, race-based affirmative action judges someone EXACTLY BY the color of their skin, rather than their merit or accomplishments (read: "content of their character").
http://academic.udayton.edu/race/04ne...
So, after a few leaps of assumption, it would appear that the billboards are misleading at best. Hard to say exactly. That makes it even more entertaining. I wasn't aiming to spread their gospel; just to point at it.
In other news, his family is having trouble deciding for themselves, as they are quite divided. For that, he WOULD be rolling in his grave. Sad.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2...
August 26, 2008
1:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
darkheath writes:
Shaggy... if who we've had for the last 8 years is "qualified" for being president, I would say that CarrotTop is "qualified".
Obama has NOT played the "race card" at all. Stating that you think the opposition is going to use it is not the same thing. He||, he's half-white (like my son, BTW)!
And yes... Rev. Wright IS an embarrassment, Obama has said that himself. But where the "shrub" has this country, and it's standing in the world, is much more of an embarrassment. And it seems that the 20% of the people who do not feel that way are similar to the people in the pictures at the top of this article.
Obama "scummed" his way to where he is now? What the hell does that mean? He has gotten there by being intelligent and articulate, not because of daddy's money and the fact that his brother is the governor of Florida.
Again... I don't have anything against McCain, but I seriously don't like his ideas for having the Iraq War linger so long.
So to answer your question, Shaggy. I am not joking. Just eager to get the jokes out of the White House.
August 26, 2008
1:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
mobed writes:
Shaggy, it's probably above your "paid grade" as a mere anti-Obama flamethrower, but you might want to get your "facts" straight before you publish them. The Obama vote you refer to regarding medical protection for still-live aborted fetuses was in fact pertaining to the Illinois Born Alive Infants Protection Act, and as such it was legislation introduced in the Illinois state senate, not the U.S. senate. It was presented in both 2001 and 2002, and each time failed to pass the Illinois legislature. If in fact Obama was, as you claimed, "the only one in the senate to vote against" this bill, could you please explain to us how it failed to become law in Illinois? If you're interested in the facts (a wild supposition on my part, I realize) regarding the various votes on and permutations of this proposed legislation in Illionois, I recommend you read Jake Tapper's account of it. http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpun...
If you're not interested, suffice it to say that Obama's opposition to the proposed Illinois bill was due to its wording and his concerns that it would essentially ban all abortions, and in fact he did voice support for similar federal legislation in the U.S. senate in 2004 that included language protective of abortion rights. Of course, much of this is above your "paid grade", since Obama is a legal scholar and you and I are not.
August 26, 2008
1:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
darkheath writes:
Thank you for the well-versed post, Verdad.
Personally, as one thinking that religion has caused too many problems over the years, I'm partial to a "secularist agenda". But knowing that MLK was a Reverend, he would probably not be.
I also am not crazy about "affirmative action". I've seen it in action years ago when I worked in radio. Let the most qualified person have the job, I say. But I do understand it's intentions. If a well-qualified black man were applying for a job that Mister Nathan Johnson in this article were offering, he'd never have a chance and Mr. Gartrell would likely get it. But while well-intentioned in idea, it's application is very flawed as the exact opposite starts to happen. But I think that racism, in general, is not as prevailent in today's society and it's no longer needed.
I'm also totally FOR the death penalty. Screw rehabilitaion! There are some people we just don't need or want in society.
But to me, those are minor issues to me compared to wanting to see the entire country go in a different direction... without Congressional gridlock.
August 26, 2008
1:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
darkheath writes:
Thank you, Mobed.
August 26, 2008
1:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
Verdad writes:
YourNeilness:
The content of those two links does anything but "debunk" the claim of the current billboards. At best, it leaves the argument where it still stands...
From the second link:
"In numerous speeches, even into the early 1960s, King continued to stress personal responsibility, economic self-help, strong families, and religious values as goals that blacks should strive to attain."
This is certainly not the vocal-mantra, nor historical-background, of the Democratic party of the last 20 years.
That the vast majority of blacks today are Democratic voters rather than Republican suggests one of two things, in my mind:
1) Most blacks have been subject to destructive (and resoundingly Democrat-led) policies and law that has been effectively breaking down the black family for over four decades, rewarding blacks who do not uphold the "values of personal responsibility, conomic self-help, strong families, and religious values". Democrats thrive off of this unfortunate fact, and its cause was intentionally mislead by various supporters. Now that they are so far down the rabbit-hole, they actually BELIEVE all of this BS and are under the assumption that only the Democrats can "make right" all of the wrongs that have destroyed their lives and made everything "unfair".
2) MLK was a Democrat.
Which answer holds more historical validity?
Race-baiters such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton do anything but uphold these values for the black community, and in effect thrive off of convincing American blacks that they are repressed, forgotten, and have no chance of success without outside help. They are so far-left that they typically denounce the current Democratic party for not doing enough.
There are at least two-dimensions to actual political theory, and to place MLK on a one-dimensional scale is misleading, at best.
Charlton Heston marched with MLK in the 1960s, and was an open supporter of the civil-rights movement. He correctly understood that racial segregation and subsequent angst was a tool and driving force for Communism.
Throw in there all of MLKs undeniable Communist links, and a third-dimension of political theory starts to show its ugly head.
Funny.
August 26, 2008
1:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
EUGENEKRABS writes:
is anyone really suprised, to bad!
p.s. it's not the republican party
August 26, 2008
1:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
darkheath writes:
The Pro-life/Anti-welfare stance just really confuses me. I honestly can't get my head around the rational.
I saw a billboard in Texas once that said that over 19million babies had been aborted since Roe-v-Wade. I would bet at least half of those were to mothers who had no way to support themselves, much less an extra baby. So factor in some birth-rate of those 19mil over the last 36 years... how many are there now? How many of those are going to live in bad situations and turn to crime or meth or whatever. Now... you get car-jacked by one of these poor bastards or he kidnaps your daughter in a murder-suicide... bet you're wishing mom had an abortion now.
The way I see it is if you're so "pro-life" you need to have some thoughts on support. There are not THAT many people clamoring for adoptions.
In my overly cynical and bitter mind though, there are already far too many humans on earth anyway.
August 26, 2008
2:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Verdad writes:
darkheath:
Thanks for your response, as well.
I am either confused myself, or just confused by people of your ilk. Stay with me, as I am not intending to be insulting in the least.
By your quick explanation of your political leanings and motivations, you and I are completely in line. Between your stance on a secularist agenda, race-based affirmative action, racism today, and the death penalty, it would seem you could closely affiliate yourself as a form of "Libertarian", as I do.
But, I guess, we separate when you say these are "minor issues" in comparison to wanting to "see the entire country go in a different direction". Yes, item-by-item these are minor issues, but they typically point to guiding principles which are the underpinnings of a specific political philosophy. In my understanding, Obama's voting record, "official" stance, and rhetoric run opposite to these (my) particular guiding principles.
In what direction does this "different direction" you speak of point? Yes, it is likely that a McCain presidency would closely parallel that of G.W. Bush's. There are abhorrent and egregious things that have been result of the current Bush administration.
Many, many ideological conservatives absolutely hate McCain and were out-right whining when he won the nomination. He is not a Federalist, and arguably not specifically enticed by a literal interpretation of the Constitution. This is unacceptable to nearly any libertarian... BUT, he is still far "closer" to the libertarian stance than is Obama.
I understand being down-right angry with where the Republican Bush administration has brought this country, but to compromise guiding political principles to support something else just because it is "different" and will lead in a different direction, seems illogical to me. I don't think it is right, but I guess I understand it.
That's not to say it is not "unethical" for a libertarian to vote for McCain just to keep a pseudo-socialist such as Obama out of the White House. It is.
Have I misinterpreted your political and philosophical stance, or are you just THAT disenfranchised by the current GOP? I do not blame you, either way, but there is a lot at stake here.
I am too idealistic in that I see it either as black or white. In this case, it is socialism vs. some perverted and potentially dangerous brand of "neo-conservatism". I really do fear the former infinitely more than the latter. And that is sad, given how much I dislike McCain.
Bumper sticker:
"I love my country more than I HATE John McCain"
Says a lot. Just sayin', is all.
August 26, 2008
2:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
tchoupitoulas writes:
Shaggy.....there is a call for you from Cindy on line one. She's apologizing for stealing your medication from you today (you know..that whole addiction thing is SO hard to kick) and said you should come and pick it up. She'll be in Georgia....which I believe is where her husband would like us to be for the next hundred years.
August 26, 2008
2:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
darkheath writes:
I've been called a Libertarian before, definitely.
And yes... I am THAT disenfranchised with the Repubs (even though I grew up in a Repub environment). I'll see about explaining further, but I have somewhere to be at 2:30pm. Sorry. I'll check back in here when I get back.
August 26, 2008
2:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
darkheath writes:
"She'll be in Georgia....which I believe is where her husband would like us to be for the next hundred years."
Now that was funny. I took it to have a double meaning... with BOTH Georgias! But I'm cynical about rednecks, too. heh...
August 26, 2008
2:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Verdad writes:
darkheath:
Let me try to field your question. I can not speak to the rationale of each person who has a anti-abortion view concurrent with an anti-welfare one, but I think I can help.
Those on the religious right are all about "principle", albeit selectively. In this case, it is wrong to end the life of an unborn child. That is the principle.
Another principle: All able bodies should provide for themselves, when possible.
I fully understand the conundrum of the premise you introduce, and it really does not make sense on a logistical level. You want to keep all of these unwanted babies, but you do not want to pay for the survival that their "unwantedness" requires. This is not logical.
Christians,, who vote primarily with their creed, value faith more than logic, for the most part. This is not mean to be condescending to Christians, but is actual fact. You cannot "prove" with logic that a Christian God exists -- it takes faith.
This fact, in my mind, allows for the convenient slip in logic. On the face of it, at least. Conservative Christians typically are against any form of forced-charity (read: social-welfare tax). Welfare is certainly forced charity. They believe that each individual able to should monetarily contribute to charity. By a decent margin, conservative individuals donate more to charity than do liberals.
http://talkingpoints.wordpress.com/20...
They view donating to those in need as an individual responsibility, rather than one of the State which effectively collects the payment for "charity" through forced "donations". Taxes.
You will not find one sane person out there who says, in general, it is bad to give to charity. When you equate welfare to mean charity exactly, your question makes sense. When you view welfare as a means to reverse natural selection or micro-evolution, it does not. This is where the divergence comes from, and it essentially comes down to the semantics of "welfare".
August 26, 2008
2:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
Verdad writes:
American welfare is inherently broken, and always will be. You do not reward people for behavior, and expect the behavior to improve. This is how I view the current state of "welfare". Granted, Welfare Reform of the 1990s made a horrible system a little less horrible.
It is still wrong to reward people for not providing for themselves adequately.
Ideally, in absence of paying taxes related to social-programs, each individual would donate some money to causes they personally deem worthy. This would effectively stifle the majority of the blatant abuses related to today's government-supported social programs. It also will never happen.
Yes, there are people who rightfully need some form of assistance from time-to-time. I do not find it an inherent duty of the State to provide this assistance, but I do find it a moral duty of society to. The spot between the two ideologies is where the gray area is found, and I think we are forever stuck in it.
I am agnostic. Not sure where this puts me, but in general I do not think it is anyone's business, and especially not that of the government. Although morally reprehensible, abortion is not the duty of the federal government to allow or disallow. Neither is it their right to forcibly collect our wealth in effort to redistribute it to people who cannot provide for themselves.
Now, I am more confused than when I began this rant. Wait -- does this mean I am gay?
Crap.
August 26, 2008
3:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
Verdad writes:
freethought:
Not too sure what the point of your quoting of my post is... but I guess I will humor you anyhow.
Why is killing an unborn child morally reprehensible? killing -- unborn child. Enough said?
Even most vehement "pro-choice" supporters concede that the act of killing an unborn baby is not a good thing. "Morally reprehensible" may be a little strong, but yes, taking the life of an unborn child is not inline with my morals. But, the same pro-abortion supporters typically believe that the procedure is an acceptable form of birth control. That is just lazy and irresponsible.
I will clarify for you: It is none of the government's duty, right, or responsibility to force morality on people. Abortion is a horrible thing. Ask any would-have-been mother who has had to make the decision to exterminate their child, and it is hard to come to any other conclusion. That said, it should be their own decision to do so, unabated.
Ha. If I were gay, I would most likely remain in the same shoes on the topic. Was merely trying to lighten the topic with some humor.
Do you think the average American woman "even care[d]" about the draft being reinstated? By your logic, due to the fact that women were not eligible to be drafted, why would they even care?
Finding morality on a particular issue while also respecting a literal interpretation of the Constitution does not require that you BELIEVE in a god.
Please describe the logic, if it exists, that leads you to suggest that such a stance would put me on a fence.
While you do that, remember my comments on the dimensions of a political or philosophical spectrum.
I see your "free thought" has influenced your moral judgment. There is no such thing. There is a right and wrong, and belief in a specific deity is not required to recognize the difference.
August 26, 2008
4:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
mobed writes:
Shaggy:
I'm not at all surprised you can offer no proof for your baseless claim that "Obama was the only one to vote against giving medical attention to babies still alive after a botched abortion". I've already linked you to a reputable source - Jake Tapper of ABC News - whose report specifically mentions the vote tally each time the Illinois Born Alive Infants Protection Act was put to a vote, and in no instance was Obama the only person voting "no". Do you deny that this bill never passed? Do you think that any bill can fail passage if only one person votes against it and all his colleagues vote for it? You're entitled to your own opinion, but you're NOT entitled to your own facts.
You ARE entitled to ignore nuance and logic and the finer points of how someone could have concerns about one particular piece of legislation as opposed to another one of similar intent (and frankly, after reading your posts I've come to expect you to do just that). But, contrary to your claim, the Illinois Born Alive Infants Protection Act was NOT the same bill as the federal Born Alive Infants Protection Act signed into law in 2002, despite their similar names. Medical professional groups in Illinois opposed the bill in their state out of concern it could open doctors to civil suits and criminal prosecution. If the powerful AMA lobby had the same concerns about the federal bill, there's no way it would have passed Congress until the bill was rewritten to allay their concerns. Furthermore, NARAL did not oppose the federal bill, and there's no doubt they would have if they'd had the same concern Obama did (about the Illinois bill) that its larger motive was to make all abortions illegal.
I'm still waiting for your proof on the above claim, and while you're at it, I'd also like to see your proof for your claim that "Obama himself told us he wouldn't want his daughter to be punished with a baby". I know you yourself wouldn't want to be punished with having to produce evidence to back up your "facts", but come on and give it a try. You might find it to be habit-forming.
August 26, 2008
4:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Verdad writes:
freethought:
I do appreciate the response. As I said, I was not sure as to what your post intended, so my response may have been a little off-base.
I also fully agree with your stance of religion versus morality. To suggest that difference between agnosticism and atheism is simply a matter of "wuss[ing]" out or not is intentionally misleading, or just stupid.
"I do care." Admitting that you do not know what, if any god exists, is not the absence of concern. What you should "care" about is integrity.
In my mind, to say you KNOW one way or another is an absolute joke. You do NOT know. You never will. Ever, ever. To guise your belief under the mask of the simple fact that you "care" is also dishonest. I hold my own integrity to mean that I recognize this fact, and I certainly do not know.
It is been my overwhelming experience, as a have been lucky enough to know a variety of people with many different backgrounds and beliefs, that most self-proclaimed Atheists are essentially very angry with/at religion. Yes, many horrible things have happened in the "name" of religion. It IS the opiate for the masses. It is a means to control an otherwise lawless people. All of these things, on a purely logical level, do not serve to necessarily discredit the belief.
Most all of my atheist friends essentially have a very sour taste in their mouths as result of some brand of religion having been shoved down their throats as children. I almost walked down this path, as I shortly called myself an atheist, mostly in deliberate defiance of Christianity of my youth. I do not know if any higher-power exists. I believe that anyone who claims to KNOW, on either side, is intellectually dishonest.
"As for "morally reprehensible" the fact that someone would refuse a woman's right to an abortion, for whatever reason, (birth control included) is hypocrisy of the highest level. Her life could be in danger, she could have been raped, whatever."
You are letting your emotion get in the way of rational thought. You obviously carry some emotion to the abortion table. First off, there was not one vowel in my language that suggested our national policy should "refuse a woman's right to an abortion".
August 26, 2008
4:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Verdad writes:
Your examples of the fact that an expectant mother's "life could be in danger, she could have been raped" are probably two instances in which it would not be morally reprehensible. Using abortion as a lazy form of birth control, thereby ending what otherwise would have been a human being, is not morally acceptable. In MY definition of morality.
Our divergence in opinion on the topic is exactly why it should NEVER be the role of government to make moral decision for people. I am not saying that abortion should be banned by any means, and I am factually suggesting the opposite. I am opining here in the same manner I would to a close female friend presented with the unfortunate predicament:
"It really is "wrong", but if you must do it, it is by all means your liberty. Just understand that the procedure of killing your unborn child will more than likely affect you negatively for the rest of your life. Just as birthing the child may also have a negative affect on your life. It is up to you."
Masking the choice to have an abortion as a "moral decision" is quite silly. That would be likened to calling someone's decision to have a root-canal performed, breasts implanted, or lasik eye-surgery a moral decision. No, it is what it is, it is your individual freedom to do whatever you want to do to your own body, regardless of how damaging it may be. But, as this is just a manner of semantics at this point, I digress.
I bet you and I would agree on 99% of things during a casual conversation over a few drinks.
I do not think gay people are a joke any more than I think a fat-man with a high-pitched voice, a high-centered two-wheel drive vehicle, or people taking themselves too seriously, are all jokes. I have gay friends who are very happy that I do not tip-toe around their being homosexual. And they are funny.
Humans, as mammals, exist to procreate and further genetic evolution. A homosexual individual, in general, inherently cannot participate in this model. They like to have sex with the likeness of their own body. THAT really is funny, and to diverge means we have very different senses of humor, or you are wayyy too sensitive.
I think we DO agree more than you realize, with the exception that I do my very best to bring in no emotion to my deductive reasoning, and can do so with a sense of humor.
August 26, 2008
4:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
Verdad writes:
Haha.
As you should well know, sarcasm and hyperbole are often hard to recognize in type.
I certainly do not know you personally, freethought, but if you've never been called sensitive, I am guessing that you are certainly not keeping company with a "diverse" group of people.
And I mean diverse in the literal, actual definition of the word, not the "We celebrate Diversity!" meaning.
I was hoping you'd respond to my response with a little more meat. I spent some good time on that!
August 26, 2008
4:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
Verdad writes:
freethought:
Haha. Likewise.
Until then, take care, and may peace be with you.
(...and also with me.)
August 26, 2008
5:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
darkheath writes:
Augh!!!!!!
I was halfway through a LONG post and it just disappeared!!!!!
augh... d@mmit!
August 26, 2008
5:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Verdad writes:
That is no good.
I'm still here listening if you've the patience to restate...
August 26, 2008
5:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
darkheath writes:
OK… just realize that my last post was probably written better . I’m a bit frustrated now.
I call myself an ‘extreme agnostic’. It’s a term I coined that basically says, “I have no idea what the ‘truth’ is, but I’m d@mn sure no one else in the world does either.”
I was saying that we do have similar ideas, Verdad, until we get to this:
“In this case, it is socialism vs. some perverted and potentially dangerous brand of "neo-conservatism". I really do fear the former infinitely more than the latter.”
Neo-conservatism is getting a little to close to fascism for me. But why I lean toward socialism to some extend is probably because of my history. I’ve dated a few women over the years who had children. All of them had pretty much similar stories, but I’ll tell you about one in particular. I’ll call her Barbara.
Barbara had 3 kids between the ages of 11-16. All were born while she was married, both guys were losers or liars or both. We started seeing each other and she eventually moved in with me. I have a decent job with full benefits, but I’m still basically living on the edge of my paycheck. Barb had a job and did NOT take welfare or food stamps which she easily qualified for (was a matter of pride with her). She also was not getting child support from either of these losers. It’s something I brought up, but she didn’t want to cause strife between her and the kids (I told her once that the kids deserved to know that their dad was a d|ckhead, but she’d have none of it).
She also had no health insurance. A LOT of jobs out there only let their employees work about 32 hours a week so that they don’t have to include any benefits. Barb would get incredibly vicious migraine headaches from time-to-time. These were so bad she just couldn’t do anything for a few days. She had a few other “woman” problems from a long ago hysterectomy and toothaches occasionally. But we had no way to take care of all of these things for her. If it got really bad, I’d take her to the emergency room anyway and she’d just ignore the bills when they came (which I think a lot of people do).
We even looked into getting married just for the sake of getting her on my plan, but it would still cost over $300 a month to get her on, which we didn’t have. Luckily the 3 kids were pretty healthy, but they weren’t covered either.
Anyway… that’s the reader’s digest version. I lean toward socialism simply because I see SO MUCH waste in the government. I KNOW that money could be used to better our own country. I’m not even just talking about the billions of dollars we’ve thrown away for an unnecessary war over the last 5-6 years. (Speaking of which, the republicans have no problem killing kids when they are 20 years old… just when they are fetus’), but I saw LOTS of waste when I was in the military 15 years ago when we were not even in a war!
August 26, 2008
5:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
darkheath writes:
He||, even this 4 day shindig that the parties throw every four years. I saw a guy say he raised $50mil in private funds just to get the Dems to consider Denver. It’s a big waste if you ask me. We already know who BOTH nominees are! There’s not even any suspense, so what’s the point? I’d love to know how much BOTH of these conventions cost.
To hit on another point, I appreciate your attempt to explain the pro-life/anti-welfare conundrum, and yes… ideally all of these teenagers should be reading their bibles instead of exploring each other <sarcasm intended>, but that’s simply not the reality. Another extreme misnomer the pro-life people use is that SO MANY people are using abortion as birth control. Hunh? Really? No… that is simply not the case. I won’t say that nobody does that, but the vast majority are kids who mess up, hear that the “withdrawal method” works, the condom breaks, the patch didn’t work, whatever. Getting an abortion is not the easy, mindless thing these people make it out to be. Heck, just coming up with the money is a big ordeal.
OK… that’s it for now. I still think my last write-up was better than this one, but oh well. I typed this in “Word” first though in case it spit me out again like last time!
Cheers,
david
August 26, 2008
9:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
mobed writes:
Shaggy, your link to the Baptist Press analysis on the Illinois Born Alive Infants Protection Act does nothing to prove your claim that Obama was the only one to vote against it. In fact it specifically states the bill was defeated on a 6-4 vote. A FactCheck.org analysis, cited in the BP report, links to a document from a Republican staffer on Obama's Health & Human Services committee which shows it was defeated on a straight party line vote: 6 Democrats against, 4 Republicans in favor.
http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/ObamaK...
On your other claim that the Illinois bill was identical to the 2002 federal bill which Obama later said he would have supported, you are wrong with regard to the 2001 and 2002 versions of the Illinois bill. Neither of those contained the neutrality clause included in the federal bill regarding the rights of an unborn fetus. However, FactCheck.org says that a final version of the bill in 2003 (which never made it out of Obama's committee, per the above vote) was revised to contain exactly the same language as the federal bill, and that Obama has now changed his story as to why he voted against it.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-20...
So on that point I concede that you are correct.
I had asked you to back up your claim that "Obama himself told us he wouldn't want his daughter to be punished with a baby", which I was unaware of him making. I suspected you were quoting him out of context -- and indeed you were, as was the extremely brief video clip you linked to. Other YouTube clips provide more of the context in which Obama made that statement.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbZJYW...
He was speaking off the cuff to a crowd of supporters about the folly of relying on abstinence-only sex education for young people instead of complementing education on morals and abstinence with information about contraceptives. In stating his support for education about contraceptives - and yes, even for making them available to teenagers - he inelegantly stated that he wouldn't want one of his daughters to make a mistake and be "burdened with a baby or an STD" at 16. It was a choice of words he no doubt later regreted, but given the larger point he was making, neither was it as austere as you make it sound
August 26, 2008
9:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
average_joe writes:
those guys are total winners.
August 26, 2008
9:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
mobed writes:
Shaggy, you might want to contrast Obama's consistent support of a woman's right to an abortion with McCain's ever changing abortion stances. McCain told the San Francisco Chronicle on August 20, 1999 that "in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations".
Three days later, his campaign issued a clarification from McCain stating "I have always believed in the importance of the repeal of Roe vs. Wade, and as president, I would work toward its repeal". But, during his 2000 campaign he also said he would not choose a vice-presidential or Supreme Court nominee based on their opposition to abortion rights. Perhaps he was going to get Roe v. Wade repealed by some other means?
Now in 2008 McCain solidly advocates overturning Roe v. Wade, appointing judges who will get it done, and even claimed at Saddleback recently that a baby is entitled to human rights "at the moment of conception" (an untenable position for someone like McCain who also supports stem cell research).
Are you voting for McCain, and if so do you know which one is the real McCain? I sure don't. There are many things I admire about Senator McCain, including his heroism and his often maverick persona. But there have been too many times the maverick has ended up pandering or caving in, he is too prone to military action over diplomacy, and in no way would I gamble on entrusting him to appoint potentitally three more Supreme Court justices. I'd much prefer that he retain his current seat in the Senate and keep playing the bipartisan leadership role he plays so well there.
August 26, 2008
10:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Tnz writes:
Rick-
"All so that some celebrity can give a speech to some morons that worship at his feet like obedient lemmings."
Why don't you think of something better to say, or at least make a rational argument. Do you honestly think that McCain would spare any money in his campaign? Or in a war? Obama's speech is important, and you can't take away from his speech by saying that he is ruining the environment because a few Coloradans have to drive a little out of their way. That's not the issue. Grow up.
August 26, 2008
10:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Tnz writes:
Plus, Rick, I am sure that no matter who you decide to vote for, both candidates should be well protected, no matter how much they spend on security, would you not agree? Security is the issue here in the first place, don't you see?
August 27, 2008
7:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
imiuruwer1 writes:
$50,000. bail? THATS ALL?.......?
for ADMITTING an ASSASSINATION PLOT on a Presidential Candidate by opening fire in the mist of thousands of people and the eyes of the world?????
WHATS GOING ON HERE ???????
Charging them ONLY with drug possession????? with all those weapons, a spotting scope and mask???? WHATS GONG ON HERE????
Is this the new 'bar" of importance we place on such offences?
WHO IS IN CHARGE OF THIS INVESTIGATION ?????????????
August 27, 2008
9:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Why is the Rocky Mountain News putting quote marks around the word "plot"?
Even if it's an ill-planned plot by some ragtag deranged methheads, a plot is a plot, no matter how poorly it's organized.
It seems the RMN is trying to downplay this story for some reason. Even though these guys were armed to the teeth and fully admitting they were going to try and kill Obama.
August 27, 2008
11:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
Verdad writes:
darkheath:
Although your experience with dating multiple single-mothers who undoubtedly worked hard and barely got by financially, you have to remember that the plural of anecdote is not data...
And even if your experiences were indicative of 99% of single-mothers out there, which it is most likely not, the overwhelming concept of the role of government in people's lives, and more importantly its duty to provide for them, does not change in my mind.
Again, you do not reward poor behavior. In your case, as well-intentioned and respectable as Barbara may have been, she still made a "mistake" in not only marrying, but birthing children with dead-beat, loser, lying fathers. It may not be fair, but she did it. I personally do not want my tax-dollars responsible for taking care of people who have made poor life decisions. Just as I would like to take full responsibility for any mistakes I make... I certainly do not want a hand-out, and free or discounted health-care is a form of this.
And the reason again -- you do not reward bad behavior. Here's why: it does not take a stretch of the imagination to theorize where it will eventually lead... full dependence on the State. Alright, maybe not FULL dependence in that every poor soul in our country is waiting for their monthly stipend from the .gov, but you see where I am going.
Eventually, as an increasingly higher percentage of the population are receiving more "social" benefits than they are paying into the system, there will be a tipping point. This also is not hard to understand, and is well exemplified in various European countries of late. If most people are voting with their "pocket books", as they do, once roughly more than half of the population finds themselves on the net receiving end, rather than the contributing end, we are at the mercy of the State. This is what, in my mind, most socialists are striving for -- complete reliance on the State. Once at this point, they are free to do nearly anything they want in the name of "fairness" (read: unabated redistribution of wealth). I fear that once a nation such as ours hits this tipping point, there is no coming back. As far as “neo-conservatism” goes, albeit somewhat representative of fascism, it is not. As much as I loathe big-government “conservatism”, I feel that we, as a nation, would be able to recover from an extended period of time under their control.
Your sentiment that there is too much waste in the government is well taken, and I fully agree. We need to vastly reduce the amount of dollars that go to the government, but to do that and remain fiscally responsible, we need to greatly reduce the size of the government. Socialism, David, is by not even the furthest stretch of the imagination the way to shrink government, and reduce wasteful (or inefficient) spending.
August 27, 2008
11:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
Verdad writes:
It is well understood, on both sides of the ball, that nearly anything government-funded is inherently inefficient and wasteful. Hundreds, if not thousands upon thousands of examples put a rough 2:1 efficiency rate on private vs. government enterprise. When your job is guaranteed by a higher-power (the State) and your pay is, in general, not proportional to the quality of work you produce, there is little to no incentive to produce quality work. Simple as that. I doubt you disagree on this point.
All of this is not to say we should throw the indigent to the streets. We obviously should not. But again, it should not be MY responsibility, as a tax-payer, to pay for other people's mistakes. Not now, not ever. Socialism is well-intended, on the face of it, in that it makes "fair" it's creed. Unfortunately, it is not FAIR, to reward those who make mistakes. It is also not FAIR to punish those who excel by way of tax.
I am paid a relatively high salary, every two weeks, and I worked hard for it. Although I had some help, which makes me lucky, I went through seven years of school with the intention of supporting myself, without credit, upon graduation. On the basis of annual averages, I pay a little more than $200 a day in federal and state income taxes. EVERY day. I am not an anarchist in that I have no problem with paying taxes that are fundamentally necessary for infrastructure and national support -- the CDC, FCC, DOT, DOD, etc... although there are whole careers built off of the exact amount of funding goes to each one of these necessary enterprises, it is pretty well agree that these things are needed to run a safe environment to support a free-market representative democracy.
On your abortion point:
Utilizing a VOLUNTEER military to protect our nation's interests in very dangerous situations is now where near analogous to ending the life of a helpless fetus by way of elective-abortion. Whether or not you think the concept of violent war is moral or not is another thing. I do not specifically disagree with your points, but you offer no potential middle-ground or “solution” -- but I am sensing that you want either one of two things to solve the "problem". One being unabated government support and funding of elective-abortion, and the other being unabated welfare for unwanted babies that would otherwise have been aborted.
August 27, 2008
12:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
mobed writes:
shaggy wrote: "You can lead an Obama supporter to the facts but.....oh well...ignorance is not bliss and denial does not create truth."
Excuse me ... what "facts" have you led me to that would counter the claim you've made here multiple times that Obama was THE ONLY ONE to vote against a Born Alive Infants Protection bill? I have presented you the evidence multiple times that he WAS NOT THE ONLY ONE to do so. I have demonstrated multiple times that the bill in question was an Illinois state bill, and that it was voted down each time it was introduced in the period that Obama was a state senator. I've also asked you multiple times how a bill could be voted down if Obama were THE ONLY ONE to vote against it. You have yet to accept or acknowledge the evidence or to amend your claim. So exactly who is in denial?
Yes, Obama and Biden and Kennedy are liberals. So what? I've never claimed they are not.
August 27, 2008
12:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
mobed writes:
mobed wrote: 'what "facts" have you led me to that would counter the claim you've made here multiple times'...
Sorry, I meant to ask what facts have you led me to that would prove your claim, not counter it.
August 27, 2008
3:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
JOCoKansas writes:
Gee, well regarding Republican morals...
The current debate should be: McCain is he really a Republican at heart - does he really fit in to the party?
Here's a candidate who left his loving wife, who so dutifully waited for him, when she was in her greatest hour of need to have se_ with a women young enough to be his daughter (of course they actually had inte__ourse) carried on the affair while his wife was in hospital - behind her back of course (which goes to the very core of his character); then making a deal with the Devil he sued for divorce and married the rich heiress tramp a month later to finance his political career. Further he now benefits enormously from her business profits, a large portion of which are derive