Are you kidding?! Having lived there, I have to say you are absolutely wrong on this one. Rural California tends to lean Republican, but conservatives are about as common in Los Angeles as snowfall. And most importantly, "Republican" and "conservative" are absolutely NOT the same thing. They haven't been since the 1980's.
Well, you KNOW I agree! However, I would say that Oregon is definitely more libertarian than liberal. That's one of the things I love about Oregon. And I consider myself both conservative and libertarian; the Libertarian Party is considerably more conservative than the Republican Party. Ron Paul, beloved of Oregonians and you yourself I believe, ran for president with the Libertarian Party in 1988.
You're right to a certain point. However, one could just as easily point to the Soviet Union and China as examples of socialism failing on a mass scale. I also know my government and my countrymen; we do not have a live-and-let-live society like Australia and the Netherlands. We have a society that is very much built on forcing others to conform to one's own viewpoints. For that reason, I have a keen interest in adhering to the Constitution and limiting the power of our government. If Obama's socialized healthcare goes through, you will bet your life that it will be open season for bans on "unhealthy" behaviors and denial of coverage for people the authorities disapprove of. We simply aren't the Dutch. I wish we were.
I certainly hope that's not a dig at me. I would think you know me better than that.


Give me a break about the undecided...lol
Obama will win.....all bickering aside....The last election was EXTREMELY close and Democrats had a weak candidate - John Kerry and were just fed up with Republicans. Now we have Obama and people are DISGUSTED by Republicans. They have no chance.
^^^ Count me among those disgusted with the current Republican Party, but I'm still not voting for Obama.
Doc's right, there are a lot of undecided voters and you are not doing your side any favors by playing race cards and calling people nasty names, even when they have it coming. A bit more restraint might better help your cause.




All you had to do was observe the convention my dear to see who the Republicans are and bow down too. It's not that difficult...people look at voting blocks/statistics on different things ALL THE TIME.
It's not MY FAULT the Republicans on this board seem to get off on slamming the democrats. Should I list the names I have been called? But yeah I am SICK OF IT from them and I called him out.





Linking to another source does not back up an opinion, particularly when the source in question is just another opinion and is usually every bit as biased. Op-ed columns, blogs and youtube are not Gospel.
People don't grow any smarter by reinforcing their convictions. They do so by challenging them. That's why quite a few liberals start turning their ideologies towards the right as they get older, start families and have to shoulder more responsibility. Hopefully you'll learn this someday.
Former SCJ now in rehab.





How is a vote for Barack a vote against Israel and Jewish people?
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...icle%2FPrinter
A dumb, misinformed, misguided and vicious accusation is circulating lately in cyberspace. According to anonymous commentators, Barack Obama is "bad for Israel". He has an Islamic chapter in his biography ("radical" says one expert on both Obama and fundamentalist Islam), he called for talks with Iran, Syria and whomever else the US defines as an enemy and has never expounded what are commonly regarded as "Pro Israel" comments.
So troubling and critical were the accusations and their implications, that one Israeli newspaper, Maariv, took this lunacy one step further and sprinted to announce in a page-one headline that there are "Concerns in Jerusalem about an Obama Presidency". Quoting "officials in Jerusalem", the paper explained that Obama's foreign policy inexperience (compared to George W. Bush's extensive experience in managing relations between Texas and Oklahoma prior to his presidency) and calls for a diplomatic dialogue with Iran may result in policies inconsistent with Israeli security interests, hence the "concern". I used to be an "Official in Jerusalem".
There is no way in the world that anyone remotely involved in foreign policy or US policy ever expressed any concerns. At worst, Obama may have been described as a question mark we know little about as were, before him, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush in 1992 and 2000 respectively.
The paper fell just short of recommending that Israel withhold the $2.6 billion military grant it provides the US with annually or refrain from vetoing anti-American resolutions in the UN Security Council.
For due diligence, I am not an American citizen and therefore I cannot vote in US elections. In fact, despite having friends who both work for and support Senator Obama, I'm not sure I would have necessarily voted for him had I had the right to vote. I can vote in elections in Israel every 18 months for patently pro-Israeli candidates, so I probably just don't have the urge.
Trying to refute the ridiculous allegations on their merits is relatively easy: Obama's voting record on issues pertaining to Israel is impeccable. Amongst his supporters and contributors are prominent Chicago and New York Jewish community and civic leaders, and I assume there are many more in Los Angeles, Miami and elsewhere. He has never outlined a policy that Israelis may find incompatible with what they believe a pro-Israeli Mid-East policy should be. In fact, Sen. Obama's essay in Foreign Affairs is balanced and contains absolutely no policy prescriptions anyone in their right mind can define as "anti-Israeli".
This leads me to question the very premise of the argument. What constitutes "Pro-Israel", and who appointed or commissioned anyone to cast a judgment on the issue?
Does it constitute being "Pro-Israel" to support settlements? Is it pro-Israeli to pressure Israel into signing some peace agreement and dismantle settlements?
An American presidential candidate repeatedly pledges his eternal love for and belief that a united Jerusalem should and will remain Israel's capital. He then proceeds, as president to refuse to move the US embassy to Jerusalem. Is he then considered pro-Israeli or just a pandering politician? (Answer: when he said it, he was genuinely pro-Israeli and of course he meant it, as he said in Boca Raton to Cohen and Levy during the campaign. When he didn't move the embassy, it was because of the Arab-loving pencil pushers at the State Department and the corrupt Saudis who control Washington).
But the issue deserves a more elaborate answer. So let's take a brief, broad-brush look at several past presidents who are case studies.
Richard Nixon for example. His background, education, early years in Congress, loathing of the northeast liberal establishment, borderline anti-Semitic remarks made while in the White House hardly made him a prime candidate for centerfold in "Pro-Israel Monthly' magazine. 85% of US Jews voted for Humphrey and McGovern. So was Nixon "Anti-Israeli"? No.
History will judge him as the president who rehabilitated the Israeli Defense Forces after the 1973 Yom Kippur war, launched the annual military grant to Israel and pulled Egypt away from Soviet orbit.
Jimmy Carter, now there is a real anti-Israel president. Oh really? His involvement in the Camp David negotiations was critical and indispensable in enabling Israel and Egypt to sign a peace agreement that has ever since been a pillar of stability (not much "peace" though) and part of Israel's national security posture.
Ronald Reagan, now there is a true Zionist, a man who embodies and defines pro-Israelness. No kidding.
Who sold F-15 jets and AWACS planes to Saudi Arabia? Who consolidated the US-Saudi alliance which in turn contributed to the emergence of Islamic fundamentalism and Wahabi extremism? It sure wasn't Barack Obama. Yet Jews voted for Reagan in unprecedented numbers for a Republican (35%). So Carter facilitates a peace deal between Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat, and Jews vote for Reagan. They did so for perfectly legitimate reasons. They did so for "American" reasons because they thought he'd be a better president than Carter was.
Ah, you say, then came George H.W. Bush, AKA "41". He really hated us. Didn't his secretary of State, James Baker say: "F**k the Jews, they don't vote for us anyway." And didn't he complain about the pro-Israel lobby? And didn't he impede the loan guarantees?
But Bush 41 presided over the disintegration of the Soviet Union, the elimination of Iraq as a viable threat against Israel from the east and invaluably assisted Israel (and never asked for credit) in bringing Ethiopian Jews to Israel.
Bill Clinton was the greatest friend Israel ever had. Until he involved himself in the Israeli-Palestinian process which included recognizing the PLO, establishing a Palestinian Authority and would have entailed, had Camp David in July 2000 produced an agreement major territorial concessions. Then he was somewhat less pro-Israeli in the eyes of some.
And then there is the new greatest friend Israel ever had, the big W. himself. Contrary to all presidents before him since Truman, he called for the establishment of a Palestinian state, an end to Israeli occupation (his words, last week in Jerusalem) and further strengthened ties to the Saudis. He also attacked the wrong menace in the region. Iraq instead of Iran. Of course it's Colin Powel's fault, then Condi Rice's infatuation with Palestinian "suffering".
The point is, an American president is "Pro-Israel" when he profoundly appreciates the basic friendship with Israel, when he respects Israel as a democracy, when he truly believes in Israel as an idea and an enterprise. When his core value system and strategic outlook is similar to that of Israelis.
In this respect, if Barack Obama is not "pro-Israel", then neither are most Israelis.
This ad is just more of the same old false and discredited attacks that Senator McCain knows aren't true. Senator McCain will say or do anything to hide the truth: while Obama will cut taxes for the middle class, McCain will give a billion dollars in new tax breaks to America's eight largest corporations, while his plan provides no direct relief for more than 100 million American Families. And despite his rhetoric, he's refusing to support the bipartisan Senate proposal to expand production and invest in renewable energy because he wants to protect tax breaks for oil companies. We've seen what happens when we put the oil companies and their lobbyists ahead of working families, and that's exactly what Americans want to change in this election," said Obama campaign spokesman Hari Sevugan.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pz5oH...s_tax_at_1.php
Fact: Obama plans a $1,000 rebate this fall will pay for 4 months of increased gas costs per family
Fact: http://www.nysun.com/national/obama-...r-taxes/83970/
A senior policy analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation, Rea Hederman Jr., praised Mr. Obama for proposing a 20% tax rate on dividends and capital gains, lower than a 28% rate he had initially floated, though still more than the current 15% rate. "That's a great step in the right direction," Mr. Hederman said. "It's a big change from what we thought the Obama tax plan would be at the beginning of the summer."
Mr. Hederman said the middle class would likely pay less under Mr. Obama's plan than Mr. McCain's.."
Some Douchebag: "[Pimp C] 12:43 am: its true we got to stick together the black people on SW CK you is teh condoleeza of SW"


Interesting points, thank you for sharing. I'll definitely read and consider those points.
My concern regarding Israel is that Obama seems much more likely to get cozy and talkative with the Arab world, at the expense of Israel. American liberals (for some reason I can't understand no matter how I try) have a tendency toward infatuation with the so-called "palestinian" Arabs and would be happy to see Israel destroyed in favor of a "palestinian" state. So as a Jew and a Zionist, I am highly suspicious of anyone who rises to prominence within the Democratic Party. This is their constituency, after all.
As for the tax issue, I'm not a McCain supporter either. Just because I don't support Obama doesn't mean I do support McCain. Frankly, they both scare me. And I agree that life would not be any better for the average American under John McCain than it is currently under Bush.
Now wait a minute. That's fucked up. How is that any different than my earlier comments about republicans? If I was wrong, and I was, aren’t you just as wrong for saying that liberals like myself would be happy to see the people of Israel destroyed?
I certainly don’t feel that way about Israel and neither does ANY other liberal minded person I have ever met in my entire life. We want peace in the region. For both sides. And not at the expense of one side or the other either.
Why is ok for conservatives to make broad brush (and in this case actually false) comments but not liberals? Why do rules that are supposed to apply to liberals not apply to conservatives?
It makes no sense and is a great example of why I get so hot under the collar about people on your side of the aisle in the first place.





The only comment I will make is this ...
The actual cross section of American voters are in a familiar historic position. If there is an active war (which is now arguably 'over' since the death toll has dropped to nothing) they worry about the lives of their sons and daughters. If there isn't an active war (which is now arguably the case) they worry about their own wallets. This election cycle the 'wallet' issues involve oil / gasoline / utility bill prices (drilling will lower prices, a proposed 'carbon tax' will increase prices), tax rates ( i.e. a called for near doubling of the capital gains tax on everyone regardless of income), loss of jobs (aggravated by higher corporate taxes, a proposed 'carbon tax', and stricter environmental / worker safety laws /costs) etc.
Ok, now I'll admit I know very little about the Israel/Palestine conflict but what I gather is Palestine was a country, European Jews immigrated there and wanted their own Jewish country. Many Palestinians left because of this but the later came back when certain resolutions were passed which gave both Jews and Arabs sovereignty in the now divided Israel/Palestine. However, Israel wasn't happy with this so there was a war and they've been fighting for control of the country ever since because both sides want the whole country and don't just want the piece they've got. I'm oversimplifying but do I at least have the basics right? Someone who is more knowledgeable please correct me if I'm mistaken anywhere.
I'm not taking sides or anything because I don't know enough but I want to know why Yekhefah seems to think Liberals want to see Israel destroyed.
"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never accurate because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand." - Bertrand Russell
"It's just a matter of people having low self esteem and being way too easily offended." -Random Guy on a Internet Forum
In other words: Boo-motherfucking-hoo
I didn't say that all liberals were bad people. I did say that the Democratic Party and a *lot* of modern American liberals are extremely anti-Israel. This is demonstrated fact.
We'd all like to see peaceful coexistence in the region. I'd like to see a million dollars in my bank account. On a more realistic note, either you support Israeli autonomy or you don't. It's your prerogative to choose which, just as it is mine, and I choose Israel. And I won't vote for a candidate who is supported by the "pro-palestinian" movement.
Then please point me in the right direction. I am really clueless. I don't want to discuss it, I just want to know the facts.
"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never accurate because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand." - Bertrand Russell
"It's just a matter of people having low self esteem and being way too easily offended." -Random Guy on a Internet Forum
In other words: Boo-motherfucking-hoo
So am I correct in assuming that it is totally impossible to have discourse on politics without mudslinging and soapboxes? Nobody's here to learn?
"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never accurate because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand." - Bertrand Russell
"It's just a matter of people having low self esteem and being way too easily offended." -Random Guy on a Internet Forum
In other words: Boo-motherfucking-hoo
"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never accurate because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand." - Bertrand Russell
"It's just a matter of people having low self esteem and being way too easily offended." -Random Guy on a Internet Forum
In other words: Boo-motherfucking-hoo





well, here is some background material to get your brain cells moving ...
(snip)"JERUSALEM – The board of a nonprofit organization on which Sen. Barack Obama served as a paid director alongside a confessed domestic terrorist granted funding to a controversial Arab group that mourns the establishment of Israel as a "catastrophe" and supports intense immigration reform, including providing drivers licenses and education to illegal aliens.
The co-founder of the Arab group in question, Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi, also has held a fundraiser for Obama. Khalidi is a harsh critic of Israel, has made statements supportive of Palestinian terror and reportedly has worked on behalf of the Palestine Liberation Organization while it was involved in anti-Western terrorism and was labeled by the State Department as a terror group.
In 2001, the Woods Fund, a Chicago-based nonprofit that describes itself as a group helping the disadvantaged, provided a $40,000 grant to the Arab American Action Network, or AAAN, for which Khalidi's wife, Mona, serves as president. The Fund provided a second grant to the AAAN for $35,000 in 2002.
Obama was a director of the Woods Fund board from 1999 to Dec. 11, 2002, according to the Fund's website. According to tax filings, Obama received compensation of $6,000 per year for his service in 1999 and 2000.
Obama served on the Wood's Fund board alongside William C. Ayers, a member of the Weathermen terrorist group which sought to overthrow of the U.S. government and took responsibility for bombing the U.S. Capitol in 1971.
Ayers, who still serves on the Woods Fund board, contributed $200 to Obama's senatorial campaign fund and has served on panels with Obama at numerous public speaking engagements. Ayers admitted to involvement in the bombings of U.S. governmental buildings in the 1970s. He is a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago.
The $40,000 grant from Obama's Woods Fund to the AAAN constituted about a fifth of the Arab group's reported grants for 2001, according to tax filings obtained by WND. The $35,000 Woods Fund grant in 2002 also constituted about one-fifth of AAAN's reported grants for that year.
The AAAN, headquartered in the heart of Chicago's Palestinian immigrant community, describes itself as working to "empower Chicago-area Arab immigrants and Arab Americans through the combined strategies of community organizing, advocacy, education and social services, leadership development, and forging productive relationships with other communities."(snip)
and also
(snip)"AAAN co-founder Rashid Khalidi was reportedly a director of the official PLO press agency WAFA in Beirut from 1976 to 1982, while the PLO committed scores of anti-Western attacks and was labeled by the U.S. as a terror group. Khalidi's wife, AAAN President Mona Khalidi, was reportedly WAFA's English translator during that period.
Rashid Khalidi at times has denied working directly for the PLO but Palestinian diplomatic sources in Ramallah told WND he indeed worked on behalf of WAFA. Khalidi also advised the Palestinian delegation to the Madrid Conference in 1991.
During documented speeches and public events, Khalidi has called Israel an "apartheid system in creation" and a destructive "racist" state.
He has multiple times expressed support for Palestinian terror, calling suicide bombings response to "Israeli aggression." He dedicated his 1986 book, "Under Siege," to "those who gave their lives ... in defense of the cause of Palestine and independence of Lebanon." Critics assailed the book as excusing Palestinian terrorism.
While the Woods Fund's contribution to Khalidi's AAAN might be perceived as a one-time run in with Obama, the presidential hopeful and Khalidi evidence a deeper relationship.
According to a professor at the University of Chicago who said he has known Obama for 12 years, the Democratic presidential hopeful first befriended Khalidi when the two worked together at the university. The professor spoke on condition of anonymity. Khalidi lectured at the University of Chicago until 2003 while Obama taught law there from 1993 until his election to the Senate in 2004.
Khalidi in 2000 held what was described as a successful fundraiser for Obama's failed bid for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, a fact not denied by Khalidi.
Speaking in a joint interview with WND and the John Batchelor Show of New York's WABC Radio and Los Angeles' KFI Radio, Khalidi was asked about his 2000 fundraiser for Obama.
"I was just doing my duties as a Chicago resident to help my local politician," Khalidi stated.
Khalidi said he supports Obama for president "because he is the only candidate who has expressed sympathy for the Palestinian cause. "(snip)
~
Last edited by Melonie; 09-10-2008 at 04:48 PM.
OK, very very very condensed summation:
Israel has been Jewish for several thousand years. During the Roman occupation of Judea, Jews were oppressed and the Romans renamed the region Palestine (after the Philistines who also lives there) in order to subvert Jewish authority there. Due to various political upheaval, many Jews left to other countries, but plenty remained. The Muslim/Arab world gained political control of the Middle East and the country known as Palestine was mostly barren desert and third-world conditions.
Around the late 1800's, Zionism spread throughout European Jewry and many fled anti-Jewish communities in Russia and other nations to go home to Israel. They built farms and kibbutzim and communities, and brought technology and other improvements. For the first half of the 20th century, Zionists lobbied hard to remove the British from power (Palestine was then British property) and yeah, there was terrorism from both Jews and Muslims who wanted them out. Around the end of the 1940's, the British finally gave Palestine over to the UN to divide. It was split into a Jewish state (Israel) and an Arab state (Transjordan, now called Jordan).
It was commonly accepted that the Arabs would not condone the existence of a Jewish nation in the middle east, and everyone expected civil war to break out in Israel on Independence Day. Arabs were encouraged to leave to get away from the fighting, with the promise that they would reap the benefits and gain more land (the Jewish land) when the war was over. It was supposed to be pretty short. War did indeed break out on Independence Day, but to everyone's surprise the Jews won. Since then the Arab world has made a concerted sworn effort to "drive the Jews into the sea" and eliminate the Jewish state.
Every war that Israel has fought has been defensive. Israel has no agenda to eliminate Arabs or take over Jordan. But the fact remains that there is ALREADY an Arab-Palestinian state, and it would be suicidal for Israel to stop fighting back from those who are sworn to destroy her.
BTW, no one was a "Palestinian" before the 1960's. Yasser Arafat coined the term as a political ploy to gain sympathy from the West, and it worked. It's a bogus term so don't believe the hype.
Hope that helps!





Conservatives are the ones who want to take away our personal freedoms and Constitutional rights. One of our most basic personal freedoms is our right to freedom of religion and to be protected from government establishment of religion. Conservatives want to turn our country into a Christian theocracy. Please read about the harassment a Jewish family received from these people, just because they didn’t believe in Jesus:
http://www.jewsonfirst.org/06b/indianriver.html
These are the people who now control the Republican Party. An invited speaker to the church of vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin, said in his speech that Jews were responsible for a Palestinian Terrorist attack in Israel that killed many Jews, because Jews refuse to accept Jesus. This was said while Sarah Palin was in attendance.
Conservatives want to interfere in the most personal decisions a woman has to make. Not only are they against a woman’s right to have an abortion, they are against contraception. They continue to push for abstinence-only education, even after though it has been proven a failure. They support the rights of pharmacists and hospitals to deny contraception to women because of their religious beliefs. This even includes the morning-after pill for rape victims.
Conservatives are opposed to giving people the right to decide who it is they love the most and whom they want to spend the rest of their life with. It is only acceptable to them for people to choose someone of the opposite sex. Of course these same people who claim to be for defending marriage are often adulterers, divorcees, whore-chasers, and seek sex with other men in airport bathrooms. Many of these people are the most immoral, hypocritical people you will find.
Obama is not for higher taxes unless you are making more than $250,000 a year. Even for those people, Obama said he will hold off on raising taxes while we’re in a recession. He is not calling for any major increases in spending on welfare programs. The amount of money our government spends on welfare programs takes up a very small percentage of the federal budget. It is very insignificant compared to the amount of money we must spend on interest on the national debt run up by conservative presidents.
Here is a page with Obama’s plans for healthcare:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/
Please show me where it restricts any and all behavior that the government decides it doesn’t like. The ones who want to restrict behavior are conservatives who want to impose their religious views on others.
Obama has always been a strong supporter of Israel. Also, from his website, here are his positions on Israel:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/fo...licy/#onisrael
Ensure a Strong U.S.-Israel Partnership: Barack Obama strongly supports the U.S.-Israel relationship, believes that our first and incontrovertible commitment in the Middle East must be to the security of Israel, America's strongest ally in the Middle East. Obama supports this closeness, stating that that the United States would never distance itself from Israel.
Support Israel's Right to Self Defense: During the July 2006 Lebanon war, Barack Obama stood up strongly for Israel's right to defend itself from Hezbollah raids and rocket attacks, cosponsoring a Senate resolution against Iran and Syria's involvement in the war, and insisting that Israel should not be pressured into a ceasefire that did not deal with the threat of Hezbollah missiles. He believes strongly in Israel's right to protect its citizens.
Support Foreign Assistance to Israel: Barack Obama has consistently supported foreign assistance to Israel. He defends and supports the annual foreign aid package that involves both military and economic assistance to Israel and has advocated increased foreign aid budgets to ensure that these funding priorities are met. He has called for continuing U.S. cooperation with Israel in the development of missile defense systems.
Thanks Yekhefah. Any sites I should check out for further info?
Melonie I have no idea what you posted but I think you're tying Obama to Ayers and Arab terrorists or something via a fundraiser for Arabs in Chicago? What are you trying to say. Speak plainly please. I have pregnancy brain and I'm not as quick as I used to be.
"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never accurate because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand." - Bertrand Russell
"It's just a matter of people having low self esteem and being way too easily offended." -Random Guy on a Internet Forum
In other words: Boo-motherfucking-hoo
Bookmarks