Is Obama Trying to BORE Voters to Death? Posted by on 4 April, 2010 at 1:17 pm. 90 comments already! [DELETED BY AUTHOR] Patvann says: April 5, 2010 at 7:06 pm @Archer52 Khalid Rashidi was the guy who shepherded Obama through college/university. GaffaUK says: April 5, 2010 at 8:16 pm @Archer52 I believe at least 25 out 44 of the US President were lawyers (well over half!) – including John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, FDR, Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. Were they dumber than whale snot?;) archer52 says: April 5, 2010 at 8:24 pm And again, as we argue over whether Obama is qualified to lead by personality, cultural background, education or ideology, he answers the question on his own. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/world/06arms.html “Mr. Obama’s strategy is a sharp shift from those of his predecessors and seeks to revamp the nation’s nuclear posture for a new age in which rogue states and terrorist organizations are greater threats than traditional powers like Russia and China. It eliminates much of the ambiguity that has deliberately existed in American nuclear policy since the opening days of the cold war. For the first time, the United States is explicitly committing not to use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, even if they attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons or launched a crippling cyberattack. Those threats, Mr. Obama argued, could be deterred with “a series of graded options,” a combination of old and new conventional weapons. “I’m going to preserve all the tools that are necessary in order to make sure that the American people are safe and secure,” he said in the interview in the Oval Office. ” So why is a man, who frankly has trouble with basic economics and market forces, is now intent on putting his mark on war and nuclear policy. Why? Well, one- he hates America as she is now known. But more importantly he thinks he is the smartest man in the room and like all lawyers, he can’t leave anything handed to him alone. My ex-partner, who assembled RICO cases all the time, used to tell the story about how the State Attorneys would handle his case files. One time he had two identical affidavits submitted by two officers who were doing some surveillance. The affidavits were identical, a simple cut and paste issue. The attorney reviewing the statements made a point of going through the first one with a red pen and a flashy style. He would circle a word or sentence and comment on how he would do it differently. My buddy was a quiet man, willing to hide his superior intelligence behind a very dry wit, said nothing. The attorney finished the first statement and went on to the other, which was exactly the same. He read it, studied it and announced, “Now this is the way it should be done. It’s perfect.” Only later did my partner point out the obvious to a sputtering attorney who was trying to prove, “he was the smartest man in the room.” archer52 says: April 5, 2010 at 8:48 pm Yes, but the ones you are talking about were of a different breed than the ones practicing law today. You simply cannot compare the level of intellect built on life experiences and sacrifice to those of the majority of the lawyers operating today. Thomas Jefferson practiced law, but was also a farmer, philosopher, spoke five or more languages, studied the ancient Greeks and Romans, etc. He was a brilliant man, who happened to be a lawyer on occasion vs. a man who claims to be brilliant BECAUSE he is a lawyer. See the difference? By and large, being a lawyer in of itself is not all that much. I’ve worked with them all my life. Some are very, very professional and intelligent and knew how to make the law work for them. Many more are not. I’ve seen some so badly qualified they reminded me a journeymen plying their trade just above competent. In addition, HOW they are taught has changed immensely over the years. Now they are trained in such tactics that would have caused their disbarment two hundred years ago. Eco-suits, ACLU suits, suing anyone for anything to collect a fee, crippling your way of life and mine. I can’t see Adams or Jefferson or even Lincoln acting in such a manner. When money became the driving force behind wanting to become a lawyer, their profession suffered a lethal blow. Now for using FDR, Nixon and Ford as examples, well you are making my point more than yours. Do you think Jefferson and Adams had the same mental processes in place that FDR and Nixon had? Not hardly. You could also use the same technique to compare Clinton to Lincoln. Or maybe Wesley Clark to Washington. Or a top heart surgeon to Kevorkian because they were both “doctors.” anticsrocks says: April 6, 2010 at 12:18 am @archer52…Thank you for clarifying that Obama was a senior lecturer and far from being close to an “adjunct professor.” The weak excuse we have for a main stream media in this country conveniently seem to pass that little nugget of info by. Makes one wonder how they would treat a Republican in the same circumstances. @Tom…You said: “Mr. Antics, I’m not sure what your driving at regarding Chris Matthews, but if you read my original post, my point was that pissing all over Obama for responding to the most prevalent criticism leveled against him or any other liberal seems a bit ridiculous.” You never heard Chris Matthews say this? Yeaaaah riiigggghhhttt. “I have to tell you, you know, it’s part of reporting this case, this election, the feeling most people get when they hear Barack Obama’s speech. My, I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don’t have that too often.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=no9fpKVXxCc Your intimation that Bush never took hard questions is laughable. Do you really think that the left leaning (NBC, ABC, CBS and CNN) and far left media (MSNBC, The NY Times, Washington Post) that gives Obama softball questions would cut George Bush a break?? Such questions as this one that Brian Williams from NBC asked of then candidate Barack Hussein Obama, “What was it like for you last night, the part we couldn’t see, the flight to St. Paul with your wife, knowing what was awaiting?” Or his follow up to BHO, “And you had to be thinking of your mother and your father.” And in his “detailed response” to the lady named Doris, in his 17 minute rant, Obama still managed to NOT answer her question. This is what you call treating a constituent with respect? Filibustering to avoid a direct answer as to why he is increasing taxes in the middle of a recession? You have a strange sense of what respect means. Old Trooper says: April 6, 2010 at 12:30 am @Tom Doris is still overtaxed and Obama did not answer the question. GaffaUK says: April 6, 2010 at 3:50 am @Archer52 I would say Jefferson outshines most of the other Presidents and is the exception rather than than the rule. As for the amount of suing – well if people didn’t feel the need to sue so often I wonder how many lawyers would go out of business in modern America? Although I’m suprised you criticise money becoming the driving force which has ruined law – isn’t that the grease that turns the wheels of capitalism? As for Nixon and Ford – I thought they are well regarded on this site. And I think FDR deserves his place in history – winning four elections through a depression & beating Hitler. Adams was only 1 term President. The Presidents who were lawyers in the 20 century have on average a higher approval rating than those from the 19th century using the Times 2008 poll. Clinton beats ex-Presidents as Van Buren, Tyler, Fillmore, Pierce, Buchanan, Hayes, Arthur & Harrison. The only ex-lawyer President who rated higher than FDR was Lincoln. Do you think US would be better if it’s Presidents had all been ex B-movie stars?;) Missy says: April 6, 2010 at 4:26 am @ilovebeeswarzone: densest element in the known universe they called it PELOSIUM That’s funny……and so appropriate. Wonder what it does when it’s mixed with botox. 😉 Donald Bly says: April 6, 2010 at 4:27 am FDR is the beneficiary of revisionist history… Nixon was a Rino Republican and a crook, he actually instituted price controls… go figure. Ford wasn’t around long enough to matter much one way or the other. What greases the wheels of capitalism is profit from value produced. Lawyers produce nothing. The value of a President lies not in their x-professions but in the value of their ideas and their backbone in standing up for those ideals. Donald Bly says: April 6, 2010 at 4:31 am Pelosium mixed with Botox causes brain damage Missy says: April 6, 2010 at 4:52 am Although I’m suprised you criticise money becoming the driving force which has ruined law – isn’t that the grease that turns the wheels of capitalism? I believe you may want to consider John Edwards method of greasing wheels of capitalism, that’s closer to the point, the anti-Jefferson, Lincoln, etc. So fortunate for us that he never made it to the OO. Krauthammer to the rescue: “I don’t know why your surprised. It’s only nine times longer than the Gettysburg Address. And, after all Lincoln was answering an easier question on the higher purpose of the union and soldiers that fall in battle. Look the president had an easy answer. He could have said, “Hey I wanted to make history with health care and to do it and to make the CBO numbers look OK I had to raise your taxes. Sure it’s not a good time economically in the middle of a recession but politically I had to because I have a window a majority in Congress and I’m going to lose in November.” End of answer.” ilovebeeswarzone says: April 6, 2010 at 7:44 am DONALD BLY ,hi, well the scientist mention also that any other objects getting close to PELASIUM are loosing a good amount of their body’s components,,bye 🙄 ilovebeeswarzone says: April 6, 2010 at 7:57 am OLD TROOPER2,hi did the french soldiers behave ok after you told them the french note? i forgot to mention that they might jump on you and kiss you on both cheeks after,,also hope you endulge in EASTER lamb,whine and creamy deserts y’all bye 🙄 Tom says: April 6, 2010 at 8:55 am Archer, stating that lawyers do not good presidents make is certainly an interesting point that can be argued from both sides (I think, as GaffaUK points out, there’s quite a robust sample to choose from). That wasn’t, however, the point you originally made and the one I took issue with. Your original post stated that Obama is “stupid” and your search for proof of this landed you at his being a lawyer. In other words, you started with a conclusion and then assembled your evidence. This is a lot different than arguing lawyers don’t make very good Presidents, or even arguing the merits of Law as a calling in general. What you’re doing is treating your opinion about the man as a generally agreed upon fact upon which you can then construct whatever arguments you want. So Obama is stupid, therefore people who graduated from Harvard law are also stupid, therefore Presidents who are lawyers are not good Presidents. Does that seem like a logical argument to you? You can’t base an argument upon the foundation of a dubious claim and expect reasonable people to just go along with it. anticsrocks says: April 6, 2010 at 11:11 am “…and expect reasonable people to just go along with it.” Well that leaves you out, Tom. GaffaUK says: April 6, 2010 at 2:57 pm @Ilovebees #39 I hear there is a very lightweight material called Palinium (sometimes called Fool’s Gipper). Despite it’s shiny veneer it’s quite unstable and totally unsuitable to build anything with as it’s likely to quit under any sort of pressure;) ilovebeeswarzone says: April 6, 2010 at 3:21 pm GAFFA UK you took me by surprise there,i had to reach 39 to make the possible connection,i never heard of PALINIUM..but the name ..pelosium .is realy what the scientist gave that smallest denser object from known universe,but the name being so close to palinium could have a connection of some even remote reason,also could be connected with te scientist ,who knows,thank you 🙄 Missy says: April 6, 2010 at 4:56 pm @ilovebeeswarzone: Beezy, it was an internet joke, no such elements, no Pelosium nor Palinium. This is what is being posted in several blogs: Heaviest Element Yet Known to Science Discovered Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California has now identified with certainty the heaviest element known to science. The new element, Pelosium (PL), has one neutron, 25 assistant neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons, and 198 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312. These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons. Pelosium is inert, and has no charge and no magnetism. Nevertheless, it can be detected because it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact. A tiny amount of Pelosium can cause a reaction that would normally take less than a second, to take from 4 days to 4 years to complete. Pelosium has a normal half-life of 2 years. It does not decay, but instead undergoes a biennial reorganization in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places. Pelosium mass will increase over time, since each reorganization will promote many morons to become isodopes. This characteristic of moron promotion leads some scientists to believe that Pelosium is formed whenever morons reach a critical concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as critical morass. When catalyzed with money, Pelosium becomes Senatorium, an element that radiates just as much energy as Pelosium since it has half as many peons but twice as many morons. For Palin it started on a Ohio blog. She was due to appear at a book signing in their city and the blogger thought it would be fun to make up Palin words, Palinium was one of the made up words. Gaffa is teasing you. __________________ ilovebeeswarzone says: April 6, 2010 at 6:07 pm MISSY,i read that at MARION’s blog and it was among very serious quotations,i took it for granted with so much explaining to it scientificly ,i must say, that PELOSIUM crack a smile on my face but i beleived it all and now GAFFA?,,i’ll get back at GAFFA for that one and also to MARION,,geez you must have had a few laughs on me? that’s okay at the end y’all had fun,bye thank’s for lighting my candle,,this my day for stupidity i went to visit the post [OBAMA RULESOF ENGAGMENT IN AFGHANISTAN the post is from last september and tragic death of military and i react strongly thinking it had just happen theses last days again and again,,bye 🙄 you came in at the right time to differ my sadness, archer52 says: April 6, 2010 at 7:25 pm Tom, What I am attempting to do, what was pointed out to me when I too suffered the “But he’s a Harvard graduate, he can’t be that uniformed!” moment was to explain that one thing does not guarantee another. Being a lawyer does not guarantee intelligence. Being a Harvard graduated lawyer should mean you are at the upper level of being a lawyer. Which again, may be a good thing in the world of lawyers, but does not translate into honor, duty, sacrifice and honesty. Does it?? And it doesn’t by default mean they are qualified for anything beyond being an attorney. But they will throw up being a graduate from Harvard or Columbia as something we should be in awe of. All I was trying to accomplish was to finally eliminate the illusion that being from some university, that can arguably be said does not reflect the values of our nation or our culture anymore, is not an automatic pass on whether or not the guy or gal is smart, has common sense, or can reason their way out of a water soaked paper bag! Further, allowing politicians to be selected from lawyers is how we ended up with people without a sense of right and wrong, real world experience, morals, and a sense of justice. I know lawyers. And at the sake of generalizing here are some cold facts. One- many (not all) people who chose lawyering as a profession like to argue, for the sake of argument. It is the case that matters, not the outcome or the damage. Two- Many lawyers, in general, aren’t in the profession for righteous reasons. It is usually about the money and for a number of decades many went into college for that reason- making the cash. (John Edwards comes to mind.) Three-I was told that a number of law schools teach theories that do not push justice and respect for the constitutional histories, but how to get around the laws and push your agenda (which may explain a lot about the following list). Should politicians be lawyers? Tom, you and others argue there were good politicians who were lawyers. Sure. And there were good politicians who were businessmen, experts in economics, doctors, even pest control company owners. But let’s be honest. If you had a choice of having your fate decided by a man who ran his own business with honor and integrity, making payroll, laying awake at night worrying about taxes, expansion, regulations, or a doctor who ran an office, talked with patients about coverages and procedures. A man who knew what it was like to lose real people he cared about and what may be need to be changed to prevent that from happening again. OR, you could pick a leader from a profession designed to make money, argue fine points of the law to win the case- regardless of the impact on society. A man who believes because of his profession alone he is someone to be reckoned with. Who was trained in the theory that winning is everything rather than being taught that justice is what we are really seeking. If you had a choice, who would you let influence your life or the lives of your children? Here some examples of public servants who aren’t from Harvard according to their bios. Senator Tom Corburn- doctor (not a lawyer). Graduated from Oklahoma State University with an accounting degree. Managed and grew a business from 13 employees to 350. Sold the business, went back to school and became a doctor. Paul Ryan, a man Obama thoroughly fears, graduated from Miami University of Ohio with a degree in economics and political science. Jim DeMint- MBA graduate, ran his own business before entering politics. You argue lawyer can and do make good politicians. I agree, depending on their mindsets Here are a few that I would give some credit. Eric Cantor- who did graduate as a lawyer but spent a number of years with the family business and handling real estate before getting into politics (real life experiences). Michelle Bachmann- she’s a lawyer but used her talents, according to the Poltico, to represent tax litigants, and that either drove her to her principled positions, or she had the principles and used her profession to achieve her goals. Mike Pence- who seems to be a good conservative man who is a lawyer by profession, not by identity. On the other side of the spectrum you have- Charlie Schumer- Harvard- late sixties Harry Reid- George Washington University law school – mid sixties Hillary Clinton- Wellesley and Yale- she went super radical in the sixties Max Baucus- did get a degree in economics and then went into lawyering at Stanford- again the sixties. And one of my absolute favorites for being clueless- Henry Waxman- lawyer, UCLA- mid sixties. And another- Shelia Jackson Lee- lawyer and political science graduate. and one more- William Jefferson- Harvard early seventies (Gee, my theory of the ongoing “civil war” being perpetrated from the inside for forty years may have some merit??) Here is my last question to be asked. Is being a lawyer by training in any way something that weakens a man’s sense of right and wrong? Is it that a profession that doesn’t not lean heavily on universal justice, and right and wrong, attract a certain type of person, and that person is attracted to politics because of the same prejudices against right/wrong and justice/injustice that seems to permeate politics? Isn’t it a little funny the same theory of “ends justify the means” dominants both professions? And knowing that, if given a choice to eliminate one profession from politics, would it not be the profession of attorney? Just to be sure? Yes, some good would be thrown out with the bad, but in the big picture of things… just my opinion. MataHarley says: April 6, 2010 at 7:39 pm No, @Tom… he’s an ass for not answering the question, and using his regular “run out the clock” drone to avoid it. But, as Aye Chi likes to say, “thanks for playing!” Skookum says: April 6, 2010 at 9:25 pm Missy, thank you, that was so funny, I was laughing out loud. It makes you wonder whether the people of San Francisco are so in love with the Witch that they are willing to force us to endure her until she buys the farm? Tom says: April 6, 2010 at 9:34 pm Archer, I appreciate you taking the time to articulate your position so thoroughly. The Presidency is a job that’s so unique it almost defies ‘job description’ in the conventional sense, so I think many different people will come to many different conclusions. You state your case in detail and it’s an interesting case. I think it’s strongest when you stick to training and professional experience, but you lose me a bit when you go into character or integrity or moral fiber vis a vis different professions. I understand you have your own experiences with people that have informed you, but I know lawyers you could trust with your life ten times over and business leaders you wouldn’t trust with the cash box from your daughter’s lemonade stand. To me, it all comes down to the individual, not what’s hanging in the frame on the wall. Just my opinion as well. Thanks for your thoughts. Tom says: April 6, 2010 at 9:59 pm Archer, One more quick point. You mention that being a lawyer is a profession that’s “usually about money” and overall you seem to believe strongly that lawyers can’t have a firm sense of justice, because they’re mainly interested in winning an argument rather than being on the right side of one. I would just say that many lawyers do in fact go into areas of the law, or take jobs, that aren’t lucrative because they feel strongly about something in a moral sense. Law school isn’t cheap, so the motivation to go into a higher-paying field is a strong one, but there are plenty who are in it for other reasons. Just something to think about. archer52 says: April 6, 2010 at 11:02 pm Tom, Agreed. Like I said, and tried to explain without “droning on” is that lawyers in fact do take cases based on the argument or the money. Explain to me how the DOJ can hire lawyers that defended terrorists to prosecute or make policy pertaining to those same terrorists? Or like what we witnessed just recently where Ted Olsen is on the side of invalidating the gay marriage proposition 8 in California http://www.newsweek.com/id/229957 Here is Olsen’s incorrect statement of fact but the justification for his involvement- “Many of my fellow conservatives have an almost knee-jerk hostility toward gay marriage. This does not make sense, because same-sex unions promote the values conservatives prize. Marriage is one of the basic building blocks of our neighborhoods and our nation. At its best, it is a stable bond between two individuals who work to create a loving household and a social and economic partnership. We encourage couples to marry because the commitments they make to one another provide benefits not only to themselves but also to their families and communities. Marriage requires thinking beyond one’s own needs. It transforms two individuals into a union based on shared aspirations, and in doing so establishes a formal investment in the well-being of society. The fact that individuals who happen to be gay want to share in this vital social institution is evidence that conservative ideals enjoy widespread acceptance. Conservatives should celebrate this, rather than lament it.” What you have just witnessed is a lawyer’s argument created to make a point but based on erroneous facts. He starts out with a straw man and then tries to tie in marriage and commitment to the health of a society, regardless of what kind of commitment and relationship that may involve. The argument over gay marriage has nothing to do with gays, but everything to do with the re-definition of marriage. If gays want to be in a long term commitment all the power to them. But to intrude into what society recognized as “marriage” for the last five thousand years is something else altogether. Especially when it is tied to all the other agendas brought forth by the more radical gay elements. Tom, you talk about moral fiber. I guess where I get off the train is about here when Olsen talks about his good friend David Boies. “Together with my good friend and occasional courtroom adversary David Boies, I am attempting to persuade a federal court to invalidate California’s Proposition 8—the voter-approved measure that overturned California’s constitutional right to marry a person of the same sex.” In my line of work, law enforcement, the lines between good guys and bad guys were brighter. I could not imagine having a relationship with someone on the other side of the law where I could say, “Hey, on Mondays and Wednesdays my good friend, the felon, and I shoot pool and take in a movie, but on Tuesdays and Thursdays he robs banks and I chase him around.” However, lawyers don’t have this problem because the argument supplants the issue of whether or not you are on the wrong side. It is how they manage to move around inside the system without criticism. As far as making money or fighting for justice, fine. Like I said, I don’t have a problem with lawyers being lawyers, just their sense of heightened importance. Make as much money as they can, change as much as they can. Just don’t assume they are brilliant or moral because of their profession. They aren’t. They are just like the rest of us. If not a tad worse on occasion. anticsrocks says: April 6, 2010 at 11:52 pm @ilovebeeswarzone…You said: …i must say, that PELOSIUM crack a smile on my face but i beleived it all and now GAFFA?,,i’ll get back at GAFFA for that one… No worries, I found this definition: GaffaUK / gaf*fa*yoo*kay / spelled gaffauk -noun: GaffaUK=far left hackneyed wisenheimer / informal a wiseacre or smart aleck statist whose comments trend to the commonplace, stale; trite: The hackneyed comments of his concerning Palin were quite trite. GaffaUK says: April 7, 2010 at 3:03 am @anticsrocks #73 lol – seemed like I touched a nerve there:D Seems like you’ve had a humorectomy… http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=humorectomy btw – the below definition can actually be found at http://www.thefreedictionary.com Antic – A buffoon, especially a performing clown Rock – To disturb the mental or emotional equilibrium of Anticsrocks – a disturbed buffoon – suits you sir:) Missy says: April 7, 2010 at 4:29 am @GaffaUK: Mr. Master of Google, I thought your first response in this thread might be to Beezy, you disappoint, man up. @ilovebeeswarzone: geez you must have had a few laughs on me? that’s okay at the end y’all had fun,bye thank’s for lighting my candle,,this my day for stupidity The fun was thinking they did actually name that element after Pelosi, so no, it was not your day for stupidity, I don’t forget all the other contributions you made yesterday. When Gaffa came along with Palinium I had a “wait a minute” moment, knowing what he’s all about, suspicion set in. 😉 GaffaUK says: April 7, 2010 at 4:44 am @Missy ‘Fraid not – I only spotted Beezy rock comment when you commented. But come on I did put a 😉 after my Palinium jibe. I thought it was quite inventive- unfortunately some seem to feel humour is only valid if it aimed at their opponents. As for stupidity – well I confused a blurred Tennessee flag for being a neo-nazi flag – so we all have our off days don’t we?;) ilovebeeswarzone says: April 7, 2010 at 5:16 am MISSY,thank’s for making me feel that there is hope for my brain to recover,,,and to GAFFA UK ,you had your answer from MY FRIENDS MISSY and ANTICSROCKS better than i would have done ,,but i am not finish with you there always a time to rise above your oponents and it will come when the time is appropriate soon,,bye thank you 🙄 GaffaUK says: April 7, 2010 at 5:31 am @ilovebees lol – I wasn’t trying to make fun of you. anticsrocks says: April 7, 2010 at 9:27 am @ilovebees lol – I wasn’t trying to make fun of you. Yeeeah, riiigghhhtt. At least when I use ridicule against someone, I admit it. I made fun of you for picking on ilovebeeswarzone. We get that you hate Palin, we get that you hate everything that isn’t over to the far left. GaffaUK says: April 7, 2010 at 3:29 pm @Antics Yes that it is right. I am ridiculing Palin. I thought it was fairly obvious it was a joke. By the way I’m a republican. anticsrocks says: April 7, 2010 at 8:47 pm @GaffaUK…good for you. I can’t tell you how happy that makes me. Are you a Rotarian, too? 😛 Skookum says: April 7, 2010 at 8:53 pm No, he belongs to the Kiwanis and the Elks. Antics gets my chuckle award today! anticsrocks says: April 7, 2010 at 11:29 pm I am honored to accept Flopping Aces Chuckle Award. Is there a statuette involved? GaffaUK says: April 8, 2010 at 12:57 am @Anticsrocks Rotarian? 😯 Not Republican as in US Republican – just like to see Liz II go. But I guess that’s not right-wing;) Conservatives in UK and Down Under wanna keep her. Shame on them. How as far as far left goes – I guess you lump anyone who isn’t a Conservative into far left – Liberal/Socialist/Communist. Does that make you far right? Do you prefer brown or black shirts;) Currently there’s an election campaign that underway in the UK. Although I have chosen not to vote for the first time (seems hardly fair if I’m not living there currently) – I don’t mind if Cameron from the Tories win. Preference would be the Liberal Democrats but they haven’t won since the early 20th Century (as Liberal Party as it was called then). Any one but Gordon (the socialist who wrote the cheques to fund the UK for going to war in Iraq). At least Cameron is a moderate Conservative rather than the nutty far right version we see in Palin. Patvann says: April 8, 2010 at 5:42 am Please give us your definition of “nutty far right” inre: Palin, et al. I am honestly interested. anticsrocks says: April 8, 2010 at 10:13 am @GaffaUK…honestly, every time you post, you keep proving my daffy definition of you is close, if not totally on target. You keep making assumptions about me and what I think and what I believe; makes no difference to me what you assert. As far as UK politics, well since that is your country, I will leave those machinations up to you. It would be as silly and pointless for me to comment on your politicians as it is for you to comment on Palin. I mean have you done any research on her? Or do you only get your info on Palin from the main stream media? I suggest you check her considerable accomplishments during her tenure as a mayor and also as Governor of Alaska where she doubled state revenues, cut state spending and forced oil companies that had been sitting on leases for decades to begin drilling. She also worked through a deal on a natural gas pipeline. So you go ahead and call her nutty if you wish, if your definition of nutty refers to her record as a good, Constitutional Conservative, then so be it. I will take her “nutty” actions over Obama’s “pragmatism” any day of the week and twice on Sundays. And BTW: Rotary International is an organization of service clubs known as Rotary Clubs located all over the world. It is a secular organization open to all persons regardless of race, color, creed, gender, or political preference. There are more than 32,000 clubs and over 1.2 million members worldwide. The members of Rotary Clubs are known as Rotarians. The stated purpose of the organization is to bring together business and professional leaders to provide humanitarian service, encourage high ethical standards in all vocations, and help build goodwill and peace in the world. GaffaUK says: April 8, 2010 at 3:36 pm @anticsrock What assumptions do I ‘keep’ making about you? Your foolish assumption was that I’m far left. So I thought I would paint you in the same extreme colours to see if it fits. Beyond that I don’t see any assumptions I have made about you. btw I don’t see what’s wrong with people making comments on politicians of other countries. Do you have no opinions on Putin, on Sarkozy, on Karzai etc? As for Palin – I dislike her appeal to what she calls the REAL America (really – is there a fake America?), her views against abortion, her views on gun control (you really need semi-automatic assault weapons) , her views on evolution, her views on same-sex marriage, her skepticism on climate change, her views on stem cell research, her support for the Iraq war, her opposition to the current health care reform and I think she is soft on illegal immigration. I support her views on drilling in Alaska, her desire to less reliance on foreign oil, I think she has done well in getting where she has, she obviously speaks for a large section of the US and she has brought a lot of colour, energy and debate which is a good thing where a lot of politicians are dull. In my opinion the ways she expresses herself and some of her views I would consider nutty. I think she shot herself in the foot by resigning as Alaska Governor. She went for fame & money rather than fulfilling the duty to those who voted for her. I have seen views on her from the BIG BAD BIAS MSM and on the totally non-bias FA. I would consider myself as politically being in the centre with a slight right bias (which in your view means I’m far left). What puts me off conservatism – is the social conservatives. Those who talk about freedom but at the same time want to curtail people’s freedom – as to what we can and can’t do depending on what they consider the social norm. I think conservatives would do a lot better focusing on work and fiscal responsibilities – creating a fair society within capitialism with opportunity for all. Rather than focusing on God and what goes on in your bedroom etc. This why I would prefer Thatcher over Palin any day. Despite her faults – Thatcher was a lot sharper. btw. I know what a Rotarian is – but didn’t get the reference. MataHarley says: April 8, 2010 at 3:43 pm Gaffa: I dislike her appeal to what she calls the REAL America (really – is there a fake America?) That might be a question you might want to pose to billy bob one of these days, who calls his progs the “real America”. Might we assume you consider that just as offensive coming from him? Just a question… not a judgmental call. GaffaUK says: April 8, 2010 at 8:17 pm @Mata Absolutely. Too often we hear stuff about the Real America – or in UK’s case the fabled Middle England. It’s BS – whether it’s left or right perspective. As if one side of the political spectrum represents the entire – or core values – of a country. There is no Fake America and there is no outer England. Let’s get real. anticsrocks says: April 8, 2010 at 8:51 pm @GaffaUK…You seem to like to throw in little snide comments such as, “I would consider myself as politically being in the centre with a slight right bias (which in your view means I’m far left).” Nahh, you aren’t making assumptions. As to my saying you seemed far left, well let’s look at that particular judgment call that I made, shall we? “As for Palin – I dislike her appeal to what she calls the REAL America (really – is there a fake America?), her views against abortion, her views on gun control (you really need semi-automatic assault weapons) , her views on evolution, her views on same-sex marriage, her skepticism on climate change, her views on stem cell research, her support for the Iraq war, her opposition to the current health care reform and I think she is soft on illegal immigration. ” We will leave your observation of “fake” America to the side, even though she was speaking to those outside of the beltway, those of us in the “flyover” states. By your own words, you are pro-abortion, pro gun control, pro gay marriage, you think man causes global warming, you are against the war in Iraq and you are pro socialist medicine. Oh, and you are evidently against illegal immigration, so other than that last issue, you take every liberal, progressive, far left stance and call yourself a centrist with a slight right bias. That is absurdly funny. You also said, “I think she shot herself in the foot by resigning as Alaska Governor. She went for fame & money rather than fulfilling the duty to those who voted for her.” She left office in Alaska in order to fulfill the duty to her constituents. Under Alaska law, ANYONE can file an ethics charge on an elected official and the state then has to spend a lot of money to investigate those charges. The person filing the charges does so with no filing fees and no expense in the pursuant investigation or possible court hearings. The elected official also has to pay for their own defense counsel. The minute she was chosen by the McCain campaign to run on the ticket as the Vice Presidential candidate, the Obama campaign sent over 40 “investigative” journalists up to Alaska to dig up any dirt on her that they could find. They found none. What they next did was to tie up the Alaskan courts with bogus ethics charges, eventually filing somewhere around 20 of them. NONE of them stuck and most were thrown out, but the Alaskan taxpayers were on the hook for millions in the costs of those phony ethics violations. Palin was in the red for nearly a half a million dollars in her own legal fees in order to defend against the phony ethics charges. Some of those charges alleged that because she took a photo holding a fish while wearing a jacket that had some company logo on it, she was being unethical. Yeah, it got that dumb. But the left was relentless in their harassment of Palin, so she stepped down in order that the state of Alaska and the Alaskan taxpayers no longer had to spend money on investigating any more fish pictures or jackets with logos on them. I admire her for what she did, it took guts because she knew how a lot of people might see her resignation and entirely dismiss what the left was bringing to bear on her and the people of Alaska. So you go ahead and call yourself a centrist with a slight right bias and go ahead and make fun of Palin since that evidently makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside. But stop calling me “far right.” I am a Constitutional Conservative and damned proud of it. BTW, being a conservative is not far right. Many of our Founding Fathers were conservatives and all of them believed in the Constitution, so I guess that means you think they are far right.