Thanks for the clarification, Jafo

While it may be seen as a 'Wee bit OT', essentially my statement

is correct, with perhaps the minor addition of 'et al'.

While some have no moral qualms about attacking those they do not know personally based on an opinion, or even worse, someone else's opinion, some feel it is wrong.

Not too hard to realize what has led to the sorry state of politics and political discussion these days.

Bzzt, wrong.  There have always been parties in this nation.  Almost always two of them, competing in the middle, just like now.

From the Democratic Republicans and the Federalists, to the Democrats and the Whigs, to the Democrats and Republicans, it's always been that way and it's not going to change.

Believe me, I'm not saying that it's all 'peaches and cream' over there. My point is that alot of what you said, you got from the main stream media...who only report on the bad things! If the news was actually "fair and balanced", it would be showing the good things too.

If you wish to consider the Federlists a political party, etc.,  I occur although that definition allows for a great deal of leeway when used as a comparison to the current two party system which has Pres and vp candiadates from the same party. Jefferson came in second to Adams and yet was his VP.  The Republican party that we know today was actually named after the Jefferson Republicans and its members came form the  Democratic Whigs and the Free Soliers Party. It was formed in 1854.

My reference was to the modern two party system.

More arrogant spew.  And the left denies they 'hate'.  Since 9/11 they've been calling Bush the greatest terrorist in history, much worse than Bin Laden, now they get their knickers in a wad when their messiah gets called 'hurtful' names.

Seems like everyone that agrees with you is brilliant and those against are idiots?

you asked for it...

It's the last line that is key.

"That sort of thing is exactly what courts have said is barred by the First Amendment," Eggan said.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jspz4lcOKD2yXSmGqR2iChjP9D5gD93OC6D80 

She wasn't vetted..... and now she is a cancer.

The course of every intellectual, is he pursues his journey long and unflinchingly enough, ends in the obvious, from which the nonintellectuals have never stirred” Aldous Huxley

succinctly, articulately, suffer no fools gladly statement Craig....

Judicial Watch Uncovers Documents Detailing Suspicious Illinois State Senate Earmarks by Barack Obama

Night Train -

The article you linked bothers me far less than BO's religious history.  AP tries very hard to insinuate evil here where none exists.  I'd have no problem if they wrote in the same tone about Obama & his church.  It would be more consistent if those on the left would also at least insist on a separation of Black Liberation Theology from the public square.  If she's a cancer, BO's Lou Gehrig's disease.

Xiandi, just so we don't end up debating things on the basis of misunderdtandings/crossed wires, please let me clarify some things here....

Firstly: I do not get my news and current affairs from mainstream media. I mostly watch the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Commission, which is non-commercial and a completely different kettle of fish to Fox, CNN and the like) for my news/current affair and documentaries, etc.  I prefer it bacause I can not stand sensationalist journalism that glorifies/focusses on war/the bad things just to drive up ratings.,, the ABC does not do this, but presents news and current affairs 'more as a matter of fact' and without bias, drama, sensationalism

Secondly: I did not say that all Iraqis despise the US and its forces. I know there are some who are happy US troops remained to help reduild and offer security measures,  However, there are various sources (Iraqi politicians, clerics, tribal chiefs, and community leaders who frequently petition government leaders to oust US forces because the majority of their people don't want them there.  Both the ABC and BBC ran stories on this and conducted interviews with a good cross-section of these people and members of the general public, most of whom want the US to leave Iraq.

Thirdly: while many Iraqis complain they are worse off, and possibly some are, I do know that US forces are in league with many private companies to help rebuild Iraq.  I have seen programs by the ABC, BBC and even National Geographic that have shown many heart warming stories showing Iraqis and US forces happily working hand in hand to help improve daily life in Iraq for everyone

And lastly: while I will never agree with the invasion of Iraq, I firmly believe the US can not exit Iraq in the current Middle East political climate, not unless the UN backs a multi-national peace keeping force and rebuilding program.  Trouble is, the UN is a toothless tiger these days and too piss weak to act when needed to..... meaning the US has to remain there to pevent/deter something far worse than Saddam Hussein's regime from rising to prominence, thus destabilising the region even further.

We have troops in Iraq as well, so I really do hope it can all be over soon so ALL the troops can come/go home to be with their families and friends.

I won't be voting for McCain or Obama.  But I would vote for Palin.

The fact that so many people are making much ado about the fact that she insisted on firing a state trooper says a lot. She was well within her rights to do so and did it. I have every certainty that if Palin was a Democrat, many of her attackers would be defending her (and many of her defenders would switch sides too).  

I know of moderators, on this very site, who have banned people simply because they didn't like them. 

But getting back to the point:

I would vote for Palin because I agree with her general political philosophy of a smaller government, lower taxes, and less governmental intrusion into our lives.  

There have been polls over the years in Iraq that show that the majority (super majority) of Iraqis are glad the US got rid of Saddam.  There is certainly a majority of Iraqis who would like to see the US leave as soon as possible which merely makes them in agreement with virtually every American.  

Feel free to point to legitimate poll that shows that most Iraqi's hate the United States. Good luck.

JoeUser isn't exactly full of democrats, and moderates seems to be quite hard to find as of late. Maybe posting on a moderate or leaning democrat forum will get you more responses (one when you don't get nasty responses for not being in the line...).

Here is my answer (as an "outsider"):

There is nothing "wrong" with her as a person and no reason to hate her really. I simply disagree with a lot of what she did and what she stands for. I can see myself voting for someone like McCain one day (the McCain from 2000 was a no-brainer, the one from 2008 I don't like so much, but still), but I would probably never vote for Palin.

Here are some issues I have with her:

• Somewhat dishonest: almost all politicians lie, but she doesn't even seem to care. She can tell you that the government should stay out of our lives and that it should regulate the hell out of everything in the span of an hour. She fights against earmarks, but was a big recipient while governor and mayor. She didn't sold the plane on ebay or at a profit as she said (why she couldn't just tell more of the truth, I don't understand; the intention was good and she still sold it for a good price).
• Not fiscally responsible: she left her town in debt (grew from $1M to $25) and got quite a lot of earmarks for a variety of projects (note that I don't mind earmarks and some of those were probably useful). Long term investment in infrastructures via debt is understandable, but a $15M sport complex (with a lawsuit) while cutting spending on museum and library (elite culture maybe?), I don't like the sound of that. Earmarks, earmarks, earmarks as governor. Her use of travel allowance for personal convenience instead of staying at the governor mansion while campaigning against government waste.
• Ethics: Pressuring officials to have someone fired because of personal reasons (violation of ethics laws), use of yahoo emails to try to escape record-keeping laws (and potentially having confidential state information accessible to hackers...). Promoting friends to positions they aren't qualified to hold (I like cows too, can I have a job?).
• Transparency: she wants to control all information (already did it as a mayor) and refuses to talk to the press. As a potential VP (and maybe president), it's just not understandable and raises a lot of questions.
• Competence: Never hold a passport until 2006. Does not strike me as someone interested in foreign affairs (she can read a lot of books, but if you could meet directly with the people involved, would you pass the opportunity and stay with only written knowledge?). Not good for someone aspiring to be VP. She may have to deal with foreign leaders one day. Her interviews with Couric were a train wreck (and those were not tricky questions!). The fact that she does not want to do any other interview does not smell good.
• A lof of unknows: she is new to the national stage and since she doesn't want to talk to the media, it's hard to really understand of know her position on a lot of other things. This will probably become less of an issue (as VP or presidential candidate she hopefully won't be able to remain silent, and if she loses and returns to her job as governor, nobody will care anymore).
• Social/Environmental views: I oppose most of her views on social and environmental issues (abortion, stem cell research, sex-ed, gay rights, global warming, etc.). And while she said that religion is a private matter, she certainly wants to push some of her religious views (the government should stay out of the way, unless it has to do with you private life, in which case it's ok...).

So here you go, the first 6 points are real problems I see and the last one is probably why a lot of people hate her...

Note for idiots: I know Obama, Biden and a lot of other politicians are probably much the same, no need to give me a long list of their "accomplishments".

The mere mention of any religion by these condidates in they're speeches sickens me...as far as I'm concerned religion itself is a cancer. Believe in any religion you want...just keep it to yourself and out of government. If they want to continue to have any behind the scenes say or involvement in government in any way....then they should all start paying taxes like the rest of us and pay the admittion price or shut the hell up. As far as Palin...it only shows me how desperate and senile McCain is. And anyone in government that feels it neccessary to propose a $150.00 bounty and the front left foreleg of the wolves she's having killed off in Alaska is not someone I want in charge of this country...and I really don't give a rats ass about anything else she has to say. Personally she reminds me of Britney Spears....as vacant as space itself.

This is an example of thoughtful assessment.

I pledge allegiance to the Flag
     of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
     one Nation under God, indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.

it's freedom of religion...not freedom from it.

WG, don't you think that our leaders should have a moral background? You sound like you think that all religion is terrible.