I had no idea there was so much rough trade in here. I mean ladies I have loved coming here and will continue to do so but I’m overwhelmed sometimes at the fury. I picture some of you with lips curled back, teeth exposed hurling flaming whirlwinds. The bummer is having to learn about trolls. I picked up on them right away. But I have learned and been broadened. I have hopes the good outweighs the nutters.

Every word Barack Obama said was correct and true and valid: his words were taken out of a paragraph and put out there on their own and given an entirely different context in order to make them seem to mean something in dirrect oppositon to what he was actually saying to his audience. The audience, and any audience who hear all of what he said, will agree entirely with him. This is just dirty, lying political tricks in order to smear a candidate of opposition, and Sarah Palin degrades womanhood when she uses her mouth to put out this filthy smearing.

Susan B, thank you for the link to the article by Sam Harris. That’s the first time I’ve seen the Palin problem in all of it’s possible ramifications described and explained so perfectly and brilliantly.

http://www.dailykos.com:80/storyonly/2008/10/7/131120/885/357/622049 The above is an article from Chicago that PROVES Sarah Palin is lying through her teeth about that so-called terrorist. Obama was working on a REPUBLICAN community project put together by Walter Annenburg, a life-long Republican and Ambassador under both Nixon and Reagan, and it was ANNENBURG who invited Ayers to be part of this group. Obama ONLY met the guy through these committees and the fellow NEVER had anything to do with Obama’s campaign! Scheesch! The lies! The lies! The lies! All the Republicans I know are turning against McCain in disgust.

“All the Republicans I know are turning against McCain in disgust.” By MaryPage Drake on 10/08/2008 6:02 pm I wish I could say that MaryPage. Most of the reps I know will vote for him because he’s the rep candidate. I’ve had many tell me that nothing I say to them about the issues is going to make a difference because they have no choice about who to vote for. They’re reps, have always been reps, their parents were reps, they’re Christians and no true Christian could ever vote for a Democrat, Obama “scares” (racist code word) them, etc, etc, etc. This is the base Palin’s shamefully outrageous allegations are directed to. I was very disturbed by something I heard on GMA this morning from somebody who has been one of my favorite morning show personalities since she joined the cast. Robin Roberts was interviewing representatives from each of the campaign re: the dirty turn the campaign(s) have taken. The interview is here on the GMA site. http://abcnews.go.com/GMA The McSame campaign adviser is justifying the smut slinging character attacks on Obama. The Obama adviser on the other hand simply comes back with statements about McSame’s misrepresentations of his record on the issues. The part that really annoyed me with robin Robin was when she told them that both their responses in the interview are examples of the dirty campaign rhetoric. How is discussing an opponent’s misrepresentation of his political record as sleazy as the dishonest character assassination of an opponent?

I wish a few of these rednecks would attend a Palin rally. http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081009/pl_afp/usvoteobamarednecks

So now I have to add: do not wear heels until after the election to my list. Sarah the P is putting on the heels and taking off the gloves. I gave up winking because of the VP debate . I think it was around 10­:08 PM that I winked for the last time. Actually, Walter thought I was losing all hope as well as the ability to breath on my own, so he asked for me to to wink once if I knew, beyond any reasonable doubt, that Michelle Obama would be our next First lady. What else will I have to give up? Okay, so now this hockey mom who wears lipstick that she swiped from a sleeping pit bull, who winks during a vice presidential debate(you would have gotten in trouble for doing that during a high school debate), who okays the aerial shooting of wolves, who reads all the newspapers in the universe but can’t remember a single one…okay, so now Sarah Palin is saying that Barack Obama’s BFF is a former member of the Weathermen Underground from the 1960s. I wish I could make this stuff up. (I know that sentence is about 100 words too long !) Okay, Barrack was about 8 when Bill Ayres was a member of the Weathermen. We are talking 40 years ago when the world was a very different place. Young people were having a voice for the first time, they were opposing a war that would put them on the front lines because men could not come up with a better, less fatal way to deal with disagreements. They were also very mad at the country and most took to peaceful ways of civil disobedience but some did go in more troubling ways of getting their point across. The country was in total chaos and Sarah was 4 years old. Violence is never right. Just wanted to say that so people don’t think I agreed with some of Mr. Ayres’ thinking. Senator Obama and Bill Ayres met at a meeting in 1993. I wonder, If I counted all the times I was in the same room with an ultra conservative or a member of the NRA, would I be guilty by association? God, I hope not. A member of my family was killed by her husband (that is a whole different blog) so does that make me a murderer? Ronald Reagan’s limo drove by me while I was waiting for a light to change on Fifth Ave.? Am I a republican because we shared space? When we were upstate last week, I saw a donkey on a farm. Does that make me an ass? Well, if it does, I am not the only one.

Click or copy and paste this link (at the bottom of the page) and watch the videos of, and about, Sarah Palin who used to belong to the Alaskan Independence Party, that wants to secede from the Union. “The Alaskan Independence Party is anything but a “Country First” organization. The party promotes the secession of Alaska from the United States. In other words, they don’t want to be under the thumb of the federal government (like everyone else) and want to separate themselves. As if that weren’t enough the co-chair of the Alaskan Independence Party, Dexter Clark, was caught on video during the AIP’s convention held in Tennessee (reportedly last year) confirming that Palin was a member of the party before she became mayor. “Is the pot calling the kettle black Mrs. Palin?…………lol http://www.whisperdispatch.com/news/special-opinion/politician-palin-sym…

All of these “volatile” comments. Just imagine how it would be if Hillary had been chosen instead of Obama. Palin taking on Hillary. (“This way to the egress”), Quickly !

Lets ask PALINS son about all the Men and Women who want out …its called Courage to Resist ! We have Broken all records in AWOLS and SUICIEDS from ALL Wars EVER and if you want to see the truth go to this web site and read and I bet you cry ..If ya have a Heart you will … Tony Anderson fights uphill conscientious objector battle “As more troops refuse to deploy, getting conscientious objector status is an uphill battle” By Sarah Lazare, Courage to Resist Project Coordinator, for Alternet. October 8, 2008 “I don’t feel that it’s right to take someone else’s life,” said 19 year-old Tony Anderson, Private in the U.S. Army, in a quiet voice on the phone. “I felt that if it came down to it, I couldn’t kill someone, in Iraq or anywhere.” Anderson was speaking while under the line-of-sight supervision of his commanding officer at Ft. Carson, Colorado where he is stationed. The young soldier, who refused to deploy to Iraq in July of this year, is under close restriction by the military and has been threatened with a prison sentence for refusing to fight. Despite these dire consequences, Anderson has decided to join the growing ranks of troops who are openly resisting service in the Iraq War. After haggling with his commander, Anderson received permission to take the rest of his call in private. It was then that he shared his story. Hailing from the small city of Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, Anderson says that he was never very attracted to military life, but joined the service at the behest of his father, who had always regretted not joining the military himself. Once in the ranks, Anderson realized that he had made an unfortunate decision. During basic training, he found himself ethically opposed to taking a human life in a military conflict. He was disturbed by seeing soldiers on his base return from Iraq deeply traumatized from their experience in combat. “I didn’t want to mess myself up for the rest of my life doing something I didn’t want to do to begin with,” he says. Anderson had vague thoughts about filing for conscientious objector (C.O.) status but was discouraged from doing so by his commanding officers, who told him that it would not be possible for him to obtain, and even falsely informed him that he was “not the right religion.” Anderson was led to believe that filing a C.O. application would be futile. When he was ordered to deploy to Iraq on July 1st, Anderson decided he could not go. Just hours before boarding his flight, he went AWOL, eventually turning himself in after 22 days in hopes of diminishing the severity of his punishment. On his return, Anderson was again ordered to deploy to Iraq immediately. This time, he simply refused, and he says, “they haven’t tried to deploy me since then because they realize I’m not going to go.” Anderson is not alone: a growing number of U.S. troops are refusing to fight in the so-called “war on terror.” Army soldiers are resisting service at the highest rate since 1980, with an 80 percent increase in desertions, defined as absence for more than 30 days, since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, according to the AP Press. Over 150 resisters have come out publicly against the war, and some cases, such as Lt. Ehren Watada, the first army officer to refuse to deploy to Iraq, have garnered widespread support and attention. Meanwhile, an increasing number of active duty G.I.s have been joining Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW), an organization comprised of over 1,200 U.S. veterans who have served since September 11, 2001. With 12 active duty members at Anderson’s base alone, IVAW has taken a position of open support for G.I. resisters. The rising number of troops who do not want to join the war face a challenge because conscientious objector status is difficult to obtain. C.O.s must prove that they are opposed to war in all forms, that their objection is based on “religious training and belief,” which can include moral or ethical training, and that their beliefs are “sincere and deeply held.” The application process is arduous and includes written applications, a series of examinations, and a hearing with an investigative officer. A decision on an application can take up to a year, and in the interim a C.O. application cannot forestall deployment to a combat zone, although it can help ensure that applicants are assigned duties which conflict as little as possible with C.O. convictions. Applicants face pressures to drop the issue from commanding officers, who “accidentally” lose the applications, impose informal punishments on C.O. applicants, or give false information about the process, as in the case of Anderson. There has been no reliable study of the difficulty of obtaining C.O. status. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report finding that between 2002 and 2006, the Marine Corps and Coast Guard approved a third of C.O. applications, Army officials approved 55 percent, the Air Force approved 62 percent, and the Navy approved 84 percent. Critics claim, however, that these figures are grossly misrepresentative, as they do not factor in the number of potential applicants who are deterred at all stages of the process: anyone who did not make it entirely through the application process was not counted by the GAO. Elizabeth Stinson, Director of the Sonoma County Peace and Justice Center, urges potential applicants not to be deterred by the difficulty of obtaining C.O. status and counsels them to seek support from allies in the peace movement. “Applying for conscientious objector status is hard,” she says. “You will be abused, hazed, systematically degraded and dehumanized whenever possible. Still, I would love to see the amount of conscientious objector applicants go up. For some, it can be the most liberating thing ever.” “There is a huge problem with people being discouraged by the chain of command from going through the process of applying for C.O. status,” said Andrew Gorby, who was discharged from the Army in May 2007 as a conscientious objector and now works for the Center on Conscience and War, a counseling organization that works to defend the rights of conscientious objectors. “But being granted C.O. status is possible. It is a matter of getting in touch with a qualified C.O. counseling organization.” Private Anderson recently chose to apply for C.O. status, this time with the extra help of his lawyer. “I am nervous to see what’s going to happen to me,” said Anderson over the phone. The military is charging Anderson with disobeying a lawful order from a commissioned officer during a time of war and desertion with intent to avoid hazardous duty. Anderson’s civilian lawyer, James Branum, is currently talking to the military in hopes of avoiding a court martial. However, he expects the case to go to trial in October or November. Branum expressed frustration with the lack of options for C.O.s, citing the recent case of Robin Long, an Iraq War resister who was deported from Canada into U.S. military custody last month and sentenced to 15 months of confinement. According to Branum, Long’s arguments in court about his conscientious objection to war were met with little sympathy, and possibly even hurt his case. “There is no fair process for cases of conscience,” Branum says. The Center on Conscience and War is currently crafting a Military Conscientious Objector Act that seeks to make this a more fair process. The act, which advocates hope will soon be introduced to Congress, protects objectors’ rights to apply for C.O. status and broadens the definition of conscientious objection to include opposition to specific wars, something recognized by Amnesty International. “Tony’s refusal to deploy simply underscores that he is a conscientious objector, and it is not his fault that the military denied him the opportunity to go through the application process,” said Jeff Paterson, Gulf War resister and Project Director for Courage to Resist, a group that supports war resisters. “I commend his courage in sticking to his conviction and refusing to deploy, despite the challenging situation he faces.” Asked whether he regrets his decision to refuse deployment, Anderson said that, given the lack of options, it was all he could do. He expressed dismay at having disappointed his father and fear of the punishment he faces from the military. “The consequences suck,” he said just before getting off the phone. “But more than anything else, I am happy that I am not going to Iraq.” Sarah Lazare is the Project Coordinator of Courage to Resist, an organization Please go here and email these Beautiful Kids ..They are so afraid …They need Pen Pals and Money …even $5 bucks in a card ..Please America ?

Of course I agree with all writers’ comments about S Palin, but the thing that most infuriates me is when she has the temerity to question Obama’s loyalty to America when her husband was for years a member of the Alaska Independence Party which if you Google them, wants to secede from the United States lower 40. She herself only registered as Republican when she ran for Mayor of Wasila. Her biggest claim to fame is going up against “Big Oil” and getting rebates for ALASKA!, not the U.S. Why do I only occasionally see this alluded to in the newspapers, and almost never on TV. Thanks to Joy on the View this morning for mentioning it before getting shouted down by sweet elizabeth. Gotta go, getting that sick feeling in my stomach again.

When McCain/Palin supporters are actually shouting “kill him” in response to the mention of Obamas name and neither of the candidates immediately, forcefully state they do not endorse political assasination as a legitimate course of action, by their silence they condone it. I think it is necessary that their response be highlighted in an ad. It would show their supporters comments and their non-response. Then a voice-over condeming their endorsement by silence (to prevent their having to take responsibility for their non-behavior—-after all, “I didn’t say it”, “of course that wasn’t what I meant”). People need to be jolted into the realization that saying nothing is dangerously close to encouraging a worked up mob to assassinate another candidate.

Great Posts ladies!!! Do you watch the Rachel Maddow Show? She is very informative and an excellent debater. Finally an alternative - an answer to Rush Limbaugh!!!