Hahahahahahahaha....no, he at least appears to be ignorant and stupid for someone claiming the same level of expertise that he does...and that's the rub. If you or I made such mistakes well it's just grist for the mill. But McCain't is claiming to be the MAN and it is clear he's not the MAN.

As for who McCain't really is, I would suggest a comparison be made between Bush and McCain't for in many ways they are the same worthless spoiled ne're do wells. I don't believe either is capable of assembling a lawn chair.

__________________
I'm Proud I never Voted For Bush!



PAT PAULSEN FOR PRESIDENT

OH, I see.. so N'OBAMA is different.. He meant something else.. I see.

How about the 57 islamic states? He did go to Islamic School and had training in the Koran.

That was what the would be tyrannical N'obama meant.. Islamic 57 states.

I see, you are counting and keeping score? count 143 days of experience for N'obama.. 143 days in Congress with most of that on the campaign trail.

So that makes the tyrannist N'OBama better?

You keep calling Obama a tyrannizer. Why?

__________________
I'm Proud I never Voted For Bush!



PAT PAULSEN FOR PRESIDENT

this statement Makes your name very ironic.

__________________

I guess that means anyone who ever studied Islam can't be a good american. I admit it - I read the koran once. Where do I turn in my citizenship papers.

Truth - try living up to your name, or is it meant ironically?

__________________
Happiness is always a by-product. It is probably a matter of temperament, and for anything I know it may be glandular. But it is not something that can be demanded from life, and if you are not happy you had better stop worrying about it and see what treasures you can pluck from your own brand of unhappiness.
- Robertson Davies

Yes, and look at what the combined experience of Cheney and Rumsfield brought us to - you make my argument for me!

__________________
Happiness is always a by-product. It is probably a matter of temperament, and for anything I know it may be glandular. But it is not something that can be demanded from life, and if you are not happy you had better stop worrying about it and see what treasures you can pluck from your own brand of unhappiness.
- Robertson Davies

You state that "the people that say this will do an about face and listen to Fox News, O'Reilly," etc. (emphasis added). To merely listen to a center-right (or even right-wing) source is fundamentally different from offering a biased source's commentary as proof of the point under discussion.

Nonetheless, I would like to comment upon each of these sources individually:

Fox News. Many of the hosts lean center-right (although Shepard Smith, who hosts two different shows each weekday, has no discernable political leanings). But I believe those hosts treat their guests fairly, and unfailingly so. Most of the center-right bias that exists is confined to commentary. (One exception: Brit Hume sometimes inflects his language in such a way as to indicate disapproval or outright shock at some outrageous behavior.)

In the end, I prefer FNC to CNN, and much prefer it to the rather unprofessional (and often mean-spirited) MSNBC.

Bill O'Reilley. He is a center-right populist, with whom I often agree. His style is a bit more brash than I would prefer; but his commentary is obviously just that--commentary--and could not easily be confused with an objective news report.

Sean Hannity. I like Hannity. He is rather articulate (although not as much so as Rich Lowry or George Will, for whom I have the highest regard). And I do not find him at all mean-spirited.

Rush Limbaugh. Most often, I agree with Limbaugh's political views. But he is rather bombastic, in my opinion; and, unlike Hannity, he can seem a bit mean-spirited at times. All in all, I find him a mixed bag: very good in some ways, not so good in others.

Ann Coulter. Very good with pointed one-liners. But she has a tendency to be over-the-top at times, and can indeed appear mean-spirited toward those with whom she does not agree. I do not consider this an especially useful or admirable approach, in dealing with one's political and philosophical adveresaries.

National Review. Probably the best of the publications targeted to a conservative audience (yes, even better than The Weekly Standard). Its founder, the late William F. Buckley Jr., was exceedingly erudite, and a spectacularly trenchant thinker. When William Rusher was an important part of the publication, in the 1980s, and when John O'Sullivan was, in the 1990s, I found them also quite intelligent. Later additions, such as Rich Lowry (mentioned above) and Richard Brookhiser, have also been excellent choices.

The Washington Times. It is probably the best of the center-right daily newspapers. Its rival, The Washington Post, is really a quite good newspaper, with better-than-average investigative reporting and a fine repertoire of syndicated columnists (from the conservative George Will to the moderately liberal David Broder). But I prefer the editorial viewpoint of its smaller, same-city counterpart.

Again, however, I would not wish to conflate the editorial viewpoints of any source with an objective news story.

What is the change that N'Obama wants to impose?

HE, the Messiah, wants to impose a tyrannical government on you.. one where HE, the Messiah, tells you how you MUST and Will live your life.

"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said.

AFP: Obama camp spies endgame in Oregon


He, the Messiah will dictate what you can do. That is tyranny.. not freedom

Certainly they each brought more experience than the Messiah, N'Obama.

Just because you disagree with their politics does not mean that they were inexperienced.

Obama was just a street Organizer for ACORN.. That is it.. and friends of Criminals, terrorists, Communists, drug dealers and racists.

I guess that makes Obama experienced...