One thing Obama can't be is too serious. Adds like the one Paris Hilton would do more for Obama than any confrontational ads like the republicans are doing. Where's the humor Obama? You got the cash. That stupid old man McCain is on all the talk shows being a creepy funny old man. Hit America in its funny bone. Democrats are funnier, sexier, smarter and doggoneit...

Posted at August 8, 2008 3:40 PM in response to Obama Camp: McCain's Latest Celeb Ad "Is A Lie"

If you think anything is going to come of this YOU ARE a glutton for punishment!

Posted at August 7, 2008 1:03 PM in response to Spakovsky Subpoenaed in Civil Rights Department Probe

What I don't like about the Democratic talking heads they put on MSM sunday shows. Their not good debaters. John Kerry did a decent job today but Lieberman gave Kerry an opening to slam both Liebermans logic and the lie in the McCain adds against Obama. It was when Lieberman referenced Reagan working so well with the Speaker who Gingrich so shamefully forced out. I can't remember his name now. But Lieberman praised Reagan for doing the same thing Obama wants to do with those shameful republicans. And unless Obama brings out the big guns with the republicans and calls them the liars they are he will lose. Remember America IS a racist nation. Their fear allows despots to manipulate a people to do anything the despot wills.

Posted at August 3, 2008 4:53 PM in response to McCain Camp's Debate Response: Our Town-Hall Proposal Is "Beneath A Worldwide Celebrity"

American's are soon going to stop buying gas made from Arab oil. Will you left wing liberal San Francisco Obama followers agree to join the boycott?

Posted at July 22, 2008 5:51 PM in response to An Obama Joke, at Last!!!

Do you San Francisco type liberals denounce this:

http://www.slate.com/id/2195684/?GT1=38001

A Textbook Case of Intolerance
Changing the world one schoolbook at a time.
By Anne Applebaum
Posted Monday, July 21, 2008, at 8:01 PM ET

Saudi textbooks
Because they are so clearly designed for the convenience of large testing companies, I had always assumed that multiple-choice tests, the bane of any fourth grader's existence, were a quintessentially American phenomenon. But apparently I was wrong. According to a report put out by the Hudson Institute's Center for Religious Freedom last week, it seems that Saudi Arabians find them useful, too. Here, for example, is a multiple-choice question that appears in a recent edition of a Saudi fourth-grade textbook, Monotheism and Jurisprudence, in a section that attempts to teach children to distinguish "true" from "false" belief in god:

Q. Is belief true in the following instances:
a) A man prays but hates those who are virtuous.
b) A man professes that there is no deity other than God but loves the unbelievers.
c) A man worships God alone, loves the believers, and hates the unbelievers.

The correct answer, of course, is c). According to the Wahhabi imams who wrote this textbook, it isn't enough just to worship god or just to love other believers—it is important to hate unbelievers as well. By the same token, b) is also wrong. Even a man who worships god cannot be said to have "true belief" if he loves unbelievers.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Unbelievers," in this context, are Christians and Jews. In fact, any child who sticks around in Saudi schools until ninth grade will eventually be taught that "Jews and Christians are enemies of believers." They will also be taught that Jews conspire to "gain sole control of the world," that the Christian crusades never ended, and that on Judgment Day "the rocks or the trees" will call out to Muslims to kill Jews.

These passages, it should be noted, are from new, "revised" Saudi textbooks. Following a similar analysis of earlier versions of these same textbooks in 2006, American diplomats immediately approached their Saudi counterparts about the more disturbing passages, and the Saudis agreed to conduct a "comprehensive revision … to weed out disparaging remarks towards religious groups."

The promised revision—hailed, at the time, as a great diplomatic success—was supposed to be finished by the beginning of the 2008-09 school year and was accompanied by a Saudi PR campaign. Among other things, the Saudis sponsored an interfaith dialogue last week, one that all participants hailed as a great breakthrough—despite the fact that the actual meetings took place in Spain as it would be too embarrassing for Saudi Arabia to host Christian and Jewish religious leaders on its own soil. But although the beginning of the 2008-09 school year is nearly upon us, the only textbook revisions have been superficial, and the most disturbing part of the message—that faithful Muslims should hate Jews and Christians—remains.

Normally, the contents of another country's textbooks would be of no interest to us. Indeed, I've no doubt that there are plenty of U.S. textbooks that contain insane, incorrect, or otherwise unacceptable information. Saudi school textbooks are a special case, however. They are written and produced by the Saudi government and subsequently distributed, free of cost, to Saudi-sponsored schools as far afield as Lagos, Nigeria, and Buenos Aires, Argentina. Americans are not the only ones who worry about their influence. In Britain, a small political storm began last year when British mosques were found to be distributing Saudi books that called on Muslims to kill all apostates.

Still, even if U.S. diplomacy is a legitimate response to this peculiarly insidious form of propaganda, it clearly isn't a sufficient response. Far more significant, and surely more effective, would be a unified response from the rest of the world's Muslims, the vast majority of whom do not share Saudi views and do, occasionally, say so. The Hudson Insitute report cites a few of them, outside as well as inside Saudi Arabia. It would be useful, for us but especially for them, if they would say so more often and more loudly.

Of course, we are not a Muslim nation, and Americans cannot, by themselves, orchestrate a meaningful Muslim response to Saudi extremism. But we do have a large Muslim population, we do have friends in the moderate Muslim world, and we do have some money, much of which is wasted, to spend on public diplomacy. We also have two presidential candidates who are arguing hard this week about the best ways to combat terrorism, the best way to deploy guns and aid, the best uses of American military power.

Here is a novel idea for both of them: Make sure that children in Iraq, Afghanistan, and in Islamic schools all around the world have decent fourth-grade textbooks. It might save a lot of trouble later on.

Posted at July 22, 2008 4:29 PM in response to At Jordan Presser, Obama Keeps Co-Opting GOP Language On Terror

Obama said this: "You know, the Palestinians are divided between Fatah and Hamas."
How do you deal with a people whose loyalties are divided between two groups of terrorists? Why do you even talk to them? You liberal San Francisco Obama lovers got any answers? You love the Arabs who hate America. Cat got your tongue?

Posted at July 22, 2008 3:47 PM in response to At Jordan Presser, Obama Keeps Co-Opting GOP Language On Terror

How many people on this forum believe the United States should agree to increase monatary aid to the Palestinians?

Posted at July 22, 2008 3:40 PM in response to At Jordan Presser, Obama Keeps Co-Opting GOP Language On Terror

I would point out how easy it is for Obama to throw his supporters under the bus. I fear Israel would be one he throws under the bus we as a country would dearly pay for. Ironic that Democrats who have been historical allies of Israel would elect someone who can't be trusted regarding Israel.

Posted at July 22, 2008 3:20 PM in response to At Jordan Presser, Obama Keeps Co-Opting GOP Language On Terror

Whats that on the horizon? Look way off...See that dark spot? Its called defeat.

Posted at June 3, 2008 3:08 PM in response to AP: Obama Has Clinched The Nomination

Obama said to Senator Clinton, "I'm so so very sorry that my supporters are so limbaugh like and ann coulter like. I'm ashamed to say they are my supporters. I promise you if, and its a huge if, I win the pResidency, I promise you I'll throw them under the bus like I did with Wright and my former church."

Posted at June 3, 2008 1:26 AM in response to Obama And Hillary Spoke Privately On Sunday Night