noahstephenson

And for the record, all you've done is edit and place in Colorado where it wasn't before

AND your math is still off

Niceday: Your math does not add up. You're missing Colorado (Obama) and New Hampshire is NOT going McCain....you HAVE been paying attention over the past 3 months right?

Even if you give McCain Ohio (unlikely) and Florida, Obama still wins. He only needs the Kerry states plus New Mexico, Iowa, and COlorado (all likely though CO is close) and he's got it.

By "standing up to Russia", McCain risks igniting a new Cold War....does that cost really outweigh the benefit of your intangible need to "stand up" to someone?

By "standing up to Russia", McCain risks igniting a new Cold War....does that cost really outweigh the benefit of your intangible need to "stand up" to someone?

oneday: You seem almost as confused as John McCain.

It was wrong for Edwards to have an affair just as wrong as it was for McCain to dump his first wife because she had been disfigured in a car accident and so he wanted to marry a younger, more beautiful, and to him much more importantly, a very rich and connected woman.

Edwards is not the candidate of change so your comment about that was just silliness.

You say that since Mccain did not "preach" to us it is okay that he first cheated on and then dumped his first wife?  That kind of logic doesn't make a lot of sense to me.  Yet somehow since Edwards "preached" to us it was not okay for him??? And by the way, Edwards never preached morality to the country-his message to end poverty in America was not a religious argument, but a secular and deeply profound one. 

In addition, if you really wish to pursue the "preaching" argument, McCain's campaign has been built on his supposed reputation of personal honor and dedication to his country.  Where is the honor in dumping your wife because she was disfigured in an accident?  Where is the honor when you dump the woman who had 3 kids with you and who waited for you the entire time you were in POW camp?  The honor you returned her was to cheat and then divorce her.  But hey, at least you bought her a cheap house in Florida right?

oneday: You seem almost as confused as John McCain.

It was wrong for Edwards to have an affair just as wrong as it was for McCain to dump his first wife because she had been disfigured in a car accident and so he wanted to marry a younger, more beautiful, and to him much more importantly, a very rich and connected woman.

Edwards is not the candidate of change so your comment about that was just silliness.

You say that since Mccain did not "preach" to us it is okay that he first cheated on and then dumped his first wife?  That kind of logic doesn't make a lot of sense to me.  Yet somehow since Edwards "preached" to us it was not okay for him??? And by the way, Edwards never preached morality to the country-his message to end poverty in America was not a religious argument, but a secular and deeply profound one. 

In addition, if you really wish to pursue the "preaching" argument, McCain's campaign has been built on his supposed reputation of personal honor and dedication to his country.  Where is the honor in dumping your wife because she was disfigured in an accident?  Where is the honor when you dump the woman who had 3 kids with you and who waited for you the entire time you were in POW camp?  The honor you returned her was to cheat and then divorce her.  But hey, at least you bought her a cheap house in Florida right?

A campaign founded on fear got us George W. Bush-it's not going to work this time my friend.

The politics of fear is the politics of yesterday.  Good luck with your website, but I look forward to seeing Barack Obama in the White House!

Obama '2012!

A campaign founded on fear got us George W. Bush-it's not going to work this time my friend.

The politics of fear is the politics of yesterday.  Good luck with your website, but I look forward to seeing Barack Obama in the White House!

Obama '2012!

You can't seriously believe that GWB restored "dignity and morality" to the White House do you?  I find no morality in war and no dignity in deceit.

You can't seriously believe that GWB restored "dignity and morality" to the White House do you?  I find no morality in war and no dignity in deceit.

No mention of Tim Pawlenty?

No mention of Tim Pawlenty?

Judging by the reaction from the McCain camp over the conflict in South Ossetia, you would think we're still in the Cold War.  He issued a press release that blamed Russia for the conflict, demanded they "unconditionally" withdraw, and announced that NATO should get involved in the dispute.

Let's reconnect these points real quick.  Mccain blames Russia, despite the fact it was GEORGIA which sent troops into South Ossetia (if you recall the region gained de facto autonomy from Georgia in the early 1990s), escalating the conflict dramatically.  While it is true that Russia uped the ante by expanding the conflict into Georgia proper, placing total and immediate blame on one party is not only incorrect, it is irresponsible.

In addition, NATO is a Cold War era security organization created to contain Russia's (then USSR) power.  John McCain is displaying some rather maverick INEXPERIENCE here when he invokes the memory of the Cold War by threatening Russia with NATO-what does he really think will come of all this except heightened tension between us and the Russians?

Under a McCain Adminstration we would enter a new Cold War era.  As you may recall, Mccain already favors kicking Russia out of the G8.  His unnecessarily provocative press release may sound good on the streets of Savannah, but its effect on the international stage would be chilling and further alienate us abroad. 

Finally, it is noteworthy to report that McCain's chief foreign policy advisor is a lobbyist for the Georgian government.  Are we really then so surprised that McCain's stance was so blindly pro-Georgian and reactionary anti-Russian?

What do you guys think, is McCain's bellicose stand against Russia correct?

Judging by the reaction from the McCain camp over the conflict in South Ossetia, you would think we're still in the Cold War.  He issued a press release that blamed Russia for the conflict, demanded they "unconditionally" withdraw, and announced that NATO should get involved in the dispute.

Let's reconnect these points real quick.  Mccain blames Russia, despite the fact it was GEORGIA which sent troops into South Ossetia (if you recall the region gained de facto autonomy from Georgia in the early 1990s), escalating the conflict dramatically.  While it is true that Russia uped the ante by expanding the conflict into Georgia proper, placing total and immediate blame on one party is not only incorrect, it is irresponsible.

In addition, NATO is a Cold War era security organization created to contain Russia's (then USSR) power.  John McCain is displaying some rather maverick INEXPERIENCE here when he invokes the memory of the Cold War by threatening Russia with NATO-what does he really think will come of all this except heightened tension between us and the Russians?

Under a McCain Adminstration we would enter a new Cold War era.  As you may recall, Mccain already favors kicking Russia out of the G8.  His unnecessarily provocative press release may sound good on the streets of Savannah, but its effect on the international stage would be chilling and further alienate us abroad. 

Finally, it is noteworthy to report that McCain's chief foreign policy advisor is a lobbyist for the Georgian government.  Are we really then so surprised that McCain's stance was so blindly pro-Georgian and reactionary anti-Russian?

What do you guys think, is McCain's bellicose stand against Russia correct?

"they will find the way" ?  Find the way to what? Ultimately making peace with Israel?  Because you do realize that is the likely and probably (by now) inevitable end-result in the Middle East, annihilation comments aside (that's political pandering of the worst kind)

You do realize that you do not find Khameni making public comments about the destruction of Israel right? That is because under the Iranian Constitution, the President of Iran plays only a symbolic role in Iranian foreign policy-that is reserved for the Ayatollah.

Couldn't you just as easily see this headline: US oks Iranian Uranium Enrichment In Exchange for Recognition of Israel?

"they will find the way" ?  Find the way to what? Ultimately making peace with Israel?  Because you do realize that is the likely and probably (by now) inevitable end-result in the Middle East, annihilation comments aside (that's political pandering of the worst kind)

You do realize that you do not find Khameni making public comments about the destruction of Israel right? That is because under the Iranian Constitution, the President of Iran plays only a symbolic role in Iranian foreign policy-that is reserved for the Ayatollah.

Couldn't you just as easily see this headline: US oks Iranian Uranium Enrichment In Exchange for Recognition of Israel?

President Bush brought Israel back into the news by suggesting Democrats are appeasers.  Also, it is being reported on NPR and elsewhere that indirect negotiations between Syria and Israel will resume in Istanbul in a about a week.  With the Israel-Palestinian peace process stalled for the foreseeable future (or at least until we have a new President and Israel has a new Prime Minister), many analysts are sounding off on the best way to negotiate a successfull end to the long and ardous Palestianian conflict.  Here are a listing of the two most prominent resolutions I have heard proposed by prominent diplomats, think tanks, and government officials.

1. Bi-national State.-Israel and Palestinian territories are combined into a bi-national state with proportional representation for each of the major ethnic groups (Palestianian Arabs, Druze, Jews, Bedouin, Christians, etc.)

2. Two-State Solution.  Currently supported by Bush and European allies.  Would involve the continuation of Israel as a 'jewish state' and the creation of a viable, economically independent Palestine composing some or all portions of east Jerusalem, the West Bank, and Gaza Strip.

I personally favor a two-state solution comprising the entirety of the West Bank and Gaza Strip (with appropiate connecting mechanisms between the territories which are currently separated by Israeli settlements or Israeli-claimed land) with the entire city of Jerusalem adminstered as an international area under UN jurisdiction with joint Israeli-Palestinian control (with separate religious control over holy sites for each respective religion).

What do you guys think?  Which option above or one of your own would have the greatest likelihood of resolving the long-standing conflict between Palestinians and Israeli's?

President Bush brought Israel back into the news by suggesting Democrats are appeasers.  Also, it is being reported on NPR and elsewhere that indirect negotiations between Syria and Israel will resume in Istanbul in a about a week.  With the Israel-Palestinian peace process stalled for the foreseeable future (or at least until we have a new President and Israel has a new Prime Minister), many analysts are sounding off on the best way to negotiate a successfull end to the long and ardous Palestianian conflict.  Here are a listing of the two most prominent resolutions I have heard proposed by prominent diplomats, think tanks, and government officials.

1. Bi-national State.-Israel and Palestinian territories are combined into a bi-national state with proportional representation for each of the major ethnic groups (Palestianian Arabs, Druze, Jews, Bedouin, Christians, etc.)

2. Two-State Solution.  Currently supported by Bush and European allies.  Would involve the continuation of Israel as a 'jewish state' and the creation of a viable, economically independent Palestine composing some or all portions of east Jerusalem, the West Bank, and Gaza Strip.

I personally favor a two-state solution comprising the entirety of the West Bank and Gaza Strip (with appropiate connecting mechanisms between the territories which are currently separated by Israeli settlements or Israeli-claimed land) with the entire city of Jerusalem adminstered as an international area under UN jurisdiction with joint Israeli-Palestinian control (with separate religious control over holy sites for each respective religion).

What do you guys think?  Which option above or one of your own would have the greatest likelihood of resolving the long-standing conflict between Palestinians and Israeli's?

I agree.  I was volunteering at the Portland rally and there were barriers set up between the section where people had been screened and the back section where people had not.  During the rally (keep in mind there were 75,000 people there) two guys decided to hop the barrier when the police weren't looking to attempt to get a little bit closer.....literally within 5 seconds a plain dressed guy (who I assume was secret service) had grabbed BOTH of the guys and forced them away...sometimes it's easier to criticize then to appreciate the complexity of protecting a candidate in a sea of tens of thousands of people.

I agree.  I was volunteering at the Portland rally and there were barriers set up between the section where people had been screened and the back section where people had not.  During the rally (keep in mind there were 75,000 people there) two guys decided to hop the barrier when the police weren't looking to attempt to get a little bit closer.....literally within 5 seconds a plain dressed guy (who I assume was secret service) had grabbed BOTH of the guys and forced them away...sometimes it's easier to criticize then to appreciate the complexity of protecting a candidate in a sea of tens of thousands of people.

GoUSA: By your thinking then, Bush was appeasing North Korea when he entered talks with them over nuclear disarmament-and let me remind you, he did this AFTER they tested a nuclear weapon.  When he concluded talks with Libya and removed them from the State Dept's list of terrorist states, was that also appeasement?  How is it that if Bush does it, it is not appeasement, but if a Democrat does it, it is????

GoUSA: By your thinking then, Bush was appeasing North Korea when he entered talks with them over nuclear disarmament-and let me remind you, he did this AFTER they tested a nuclear weapon.  When he concluded talks with Libya and removed them from the State Dept's list of terrorist states, was that also appeasement?  How is it that if Bush does it, it is not appeasement, but if a Democrat does it, it is????