Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article

from now this Sunday, November 09, 2008 - 04:27 (Agree/Disagree?) so he won't release his birth certificate, but this? crack smoking and gay? http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6sy61ASW6k&feature=related (reply to this comment)

From Samuel Sunday, November 09, 2008, 13:25 (Agree/Disagree?) So what?  When did he smoke crack?  Because there is a big difference between smoknig crack on the campaign trail and smoking crack 20 years ago as a college student.  I don't like Obama's policies, but he will soon be my President and he deserves to be defended against unproven attacks.  If these attacks can be proven by a source other than "Globe" magazine, then have at it.  President Obama should then make all information available to the public so that they can decide whether he is innocent or guilty of these accusations. I admit that the fact that Obama has yet to release originals of his birth certificate is troubling, but there could be other reasons why he is not doing that.  It doesn't mean he was born in a foreign country or is ineligible for citizenship or the Presidency.  I mean, why would Barack Obama do that?  He knows whether he is qualified to be President or not, so why would he run for office and put the Democratic party through that kind of an embarrassment if he knew he was not eligible to be President?  Especially since there was a more than qualified candidate who had plenty of experience running for the same nomination?  You see, if Obama were born abroad, he would still be qualified for his past job as a US Senator.  Now, Senators have a lot of power.  For one thing they have a strong voice, and a vote that counts for 1% in every bill that passes through the Senate.  They have a salary of $167,000 a year, and can decide when they want to vote themselves a raise.  He only has to run every six years, and can serve as many times as he wants, as opposed to President who has to run every four years and can only win twice.  He can go on official trips if he likes, but is not required to go on State trips or make a lot of speeches.  He can support or vote against a war without having to worry too much about how his decision is going to affect the military.  And if things go wrong, he can also blame it on the other 99 members of the Senate.  To be frank, Barack Obama had it good.  So why would he quit that job, that he was qualified for, to run for a job he knew he wasn't qualified for?  It just doesn't make sense. If you really care that much about whether Obama is gay or not, then you have way too much time on your hands. Now, about Obama's birth certificate, let me see if I can help you on that.  The State of Hawaii has sealed Barack Obama's original birth certificate, saying Obama would have to request it himself.  Apparently, this is standard procedure in Hawaii, as birth certificates are not consdiered to be public record.  Philip Berg (no relation I hope to David Berg), the man who has filed suit against Barack Obama, does claim to have a tape of Obama's Grandmother confirming Obama's birth in Kenya.  His claim is that under Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the accused party should provide written answer or objections to charges within 30 days, or they are considered to have legally admitted the matter.  In his opinion, Barack Obama has admitted the allegations because he has not answered them, but has only brought motions to have the suit thrown out of court. A court challenge has also been filed in Washington State alleging "Wayne Madsen, Journalist with Online Journal as a contributing writer and published an article on June 9, 2008, stating that a research team went to Mombassa, Kenya, and located a Certificate Registering the birth of Barack Obama, Jr. at a Kenya Maternity Hospital, to his father, a Kenyan citizen and his mother, a U.S. citizen." Berg also claims that the birth certificate found on http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate is not valid. Now, I have seen the videos, and I know that Philip Berg believes that factcheck.org has ties to Barack Obama.  So to avoid any appearance of impropriety or favoritism, we won't use factcheck.org.  Let's use Politifact.org instead. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/ I'll leave you to read all that for yourself and just summarize it: "There is not one shred of evidence to disprove PolitiFact’s conclusion that the candidate’s name is Barack Hussein Obama, or to support allegations that the birth certificate he released isn’t authentic." So you can call him President Obama, call him Barack, call him whatever you want.  Just don't call him Mohammad.  Then there is this: http://www.kitv.com/politics/17860890/detail.html?rss=hon&psp=news (selected quotes) "The state's Department of Health director on Friday released a statement verifying the legitimacy of Sen. Barack Obama birth certificate." " 'There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate. State law (Hawai‘i Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record,' DOH Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino said." "Fukino said she and the registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, have personally verified that the health department holds Obama's original birth certificate. 'Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures,' Fukino said." More here: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-birth-certificate-30-oct30,0,1742172.story  (reply to this comment)

from the adams family Friday, October 31, 2008 - 05:23 (Agree/Disagree?) obama and bush are cousins two puppets -one puppet master. http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=_ldZS9PL9KE&feature=related (reply to this comment)

From bloodlines Friday, October 31, 2008, 05:31 (Agree/Disagree?) http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=OjwgkCZFP5U&feature=related(reply to this comment)

from prophet powel Wednesday, October 29, 2008 - 14:07 (Agree/Disagree?) http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=pLPOeQZdHYw&feature=related (reply to this comment)

From Samuel Wednesday, October 29, 2008, 15:20 (Agree/Disagree?) You've got the brain of a four year old boy, and I'll bet he was glad to get rid of it! To suggest that Powell and Obama are in cahoots and working together to destroy America is ludicrous!  Innuendo is no proof of anything, just a tease.  Furthermore, I would like to see what proof you have that Tom Brokaw is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.  Now put up or shut up!  (reply to this comment)

From rainy Friday, October 31, 2008, 03:59 (Agree/Disagree?) Put up with what? A four-year-old brain is a brain at its peak. Learning and absorbing at a prodigious rate.(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Friday, October 31, 2008, 04:41 (Agree/Disagree?) Okay, you're right, Rainy.  That insult bombed.  But what do you say to someone who will see Powell on TV talk about a "crisis" coming around on the 21rst of January (the day the new President in inagurated) and automatically assume that he's in bed with Obama trying to destroy America?  I really don't like Obama and I would hate to see him or his socialist policies in the White House, but I also realize that he wouldn't be pushing these policies if he didn't think they were best for America.  I beleive he loves this country and would not do anything purposely to hurt it.  Maybe he's a bit naive when it comes to foreign policy, but that is not the same of malice.  And Powell is a retired Army General, wehy would he fight for a country that he wanted to destroy?  It makes no sense whatsoever, but innunedo rarely makes much sense.(reply to this comment)

from Baxter Tuesday, October 28, 2008 - 11:39 (Agree/Disagree?) Jeezuz!!!! I pop my nose in after a long extended absence, and what do I find? No major surprises, just absurd cliches, paranoia and the traditional fear of state funded health care!!!! WTF!!! Glad to see little has changed on the home front, Sam! Still time to dust off the shotgun and sandbag the porch, coz the NI__ERS are coming fer ya, and wit a Brotherman in the White House, there aint nuthin stoppin 'em. IT'LL BE RAPE N' PILLAGE 'CROSS THE LAND!!! At what point do people like you stop insisting on assumption of responsibility, and start actually assuming responsibility? Gotta say, We in Blighty will breathe a massive sigh of relief once it does happen. (reply to this comment)

From Lance Tuesday, October 28, 2008, 21:37 (Agree/Disagree?) Good to see you again Baxter! The conversation has recently gone to the dogs. It's good to actually hear intellectualism where it counts -or intellectualism in general.  Maybe this site isn't dead just yet?  (reply to this comment)

From Samuel Tuesday, October 28, 2008, 12:45 (Agree/Disagree?) Finally, someone actually takes the time to read what I've written, think about it, and explain why they don't like it.  (Just so you know, absurd cliches are quite common in satire.)  The problem with state funded health care is that the government that once helped police the health care industry in this country would suddenly become the provider of it.  You can't have the fox watching the hen house.  In addition, government sponsored health care takes away choice and reduces quality of care.  Please note the following: In Quebec: About 70 per cent of Quebec's dentists have opted out of the public health-care system, leaving children under 10 and welfare recipients scrambling. http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/healthcare/candentist2.html At the same time, Canada is "sending patients South", and by South they don't mean to the Bahamas.  http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v5/content/subscribe?user_URL=http://www.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2Fstory%2FRTGAM.20080301.wheart01%2FBNStory%2FNational%2Fhome&ord=108782161&brand=theglobeandmail&force_login=true Wait times for surgery and medical treatments are at an all time high!  http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/healthcare/cansurgery4.html Across the pond in Australia, we see a similar situation.  Staff and bed shortages lead to a painful wait for care.  http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/healthcare/auspainfulwait.html Russia's health care system is crumbling.  The Wall Street Journal calls it a "national emergency" of sick, dwindling populace.  http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/healthcare/ruscrumbling.html Now, let's check out the situation in your native England, shall we?  Heart patients are dying due to poor hospital care, lung patients are denied drugs or as the Daily Mail put it "condemned to death", and health inequality has gotten worse under the labour party. http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/healthcare/ukheartdelay2.html http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/healthcare/uklungpatient.html http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/healthcare/ukinequality.html See, the difference is if my Blue Cross/ Blue Shield plan gets that bad, I can always cancel it and find a different one.  If your health care gets that bad, you still have to pay into the system as long as you are working, am I not correct?  Where is the choice?  Why should I have to pay into a health care system that treats me like dirt?  And what about people who choose not to have health insurance, do they get to opt out of the NHS plan or are they forced to go along? For those reasons, and more, I beleive that a socialized medicine system is inferior to a free market system where consumers are free to choice which health care provider and options they want, and if they want health care coverage at all.  And the government can impartially enforce the laws having no direct connections to the health care industry.          (reply to this comment)

From rainy Wednesday, October 29, 2008, 14:00 (Agree/Disagree?) Samuel, I don't understand. You're blaming the entire world's healthcare crises on a person who may or may not become America's next president? How do you figure?(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Wednesday, October 29, 2008, 14:50 (Agree/Disagree?) No, Rainy, I'm just comapring systems of coutnries that already have socialized medicine.  Considering that Obama wants socialized medicine if he becomes President, I think it make sense to do that to get an idea of what our health care system would look like under him.  (reply to this comment)

From rainy Saturday, November 08, 2008, 05:30 (Agree/Disagree?) One of the reasons I've never lived in America is because of the lack of healthcare. I'm just not game enough to bring up my child in a country where every time he needs medical treatment, I have to think about how I'm going to afford it. No wonder it's the home of the brave!(reply to this comment)

From rainy Saturday, November 08, 2008, 05:45 (Agree/Disagree?) Read this, Samuel: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care "The United States is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not have a universal health care system." "Americans have a lower average life expectancy than those in other industrialized nations with universal health care, such as Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Sweden."(reply to this comment)

From rainy Saturday, November 08, 2008, 05:49 (Agree/Disagree?) If even India, with 1 billion people (the vast majority of whom live in abject poverty) can get a working system of free healthcare for all, I'm sure you can do it! Read this: "India has universal health care system run by the local (state or territorial) governments. The "government hospitals", some of which are among the best hospitals in India,[55] provide treatment at taxpayer cost. Most drugs are offered free of charge in these hospitals. ... Primary health care is provided by city and district hospitals and rural primary health centres. These hospitals provide treatment free of cost. Primary care is focused on immunization, prevention of malnutrition, pregnancy, child birth, postnatal care, and treatment of common illnesses. The primary health centres are staffed by general practitioners (primary care physicians), nurses and midwives trained in labour and delivery. Patients who receive specialized care or have complicated illnesses are referred to secondary (often located in district and taluk head quarters) and tertiary care hospitals (located in district and state headquarters or those that are teaching hospitals)." I didn't know that about India, and I'm very impressed!(reply to this comment)

from Lance Thursday, October 16, 2008 - 22:28 (Agree/Disagree?) One word response: Your an idiot. (reply to this comment)

From Lance Thursday, October 16, 2008, 22:30 (Agree/Disagree?) Three word response actually.(reply to this comment)

From Lance Thursday, October 16, 2008, 22:34 (Agree/Disagree?) And it's "You're an idiot."  Seriously your article deserves a one word response: Idiot. That's all.    In my own enthusiasm I wasn’t paying attention to details.  (reply to this comment)

From scarface Friday, October 17, 2008, 12:22 (Agree/Disagree?) What an admirable point you make. You leave absolutely no doubt who the primary idiot is, and it only took you three tries. Too bad you can’t transfer some of your unhinged/paroxysmal “enthusiasm” into determination to go to rehab. I used to think it was amusing to jab you into your foolishness, now I just feel like a jerk. For your own good, please get some professional help. (reply to this comment)

From Lance Friday, October 17, 2008, 17:53 (Agree/Disagree?) I guess I deserved that. Here I am, writing a clear insult and I end up giving a clear example of irony. (reply to this comment)

From Lance Friday, October 17, 2008, 17:52 (Agree/Disagree?) I guess I deserved that. Here I am, writing a clear insult and I end up giving a clear example of irony. (reply to this comment)

From Samuel Friday, October 17, 2008, 06:26 (Agree/Disagree?) And we have another Obama fan! Good, maybe you'll like this video then http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKsoXHYICqU Don't take it so personally, Lance, it was just a joke.(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Sunday, October 19, 2008, 11:02 (Agree/Disagree?) What I find to be particularly disturbing is the way that so many on this site - who of all people should know how to recognise the dangers of cultic behaviour - are falling for Obama's "messianic" personality cult. I would have thought that one look at his evangelical style speeches and rallies would have sent a cold chill down the spine of anyone with the kind of exposure to cults that Moving On members have had. I guess I was wrong...(reply to this comment)

From conan Wednesday, October 29, 2008, 13:04 (Agree/Disagree?) This is an idiotic, insulting comment. Just because you're a supporter of a more conservative, Republican stand does not imply that every one who is either more liberal, Democratically inclined or who thinks that Obama is the better alternative to a troubled United States is following Obama because they're mindless enough to buy into his "messianic" like following. That boring, rehashed excuse of an accusation can be used for the supporters of McCain or the cult of Palin's personality. Are you for real? Of course there's a cult of personality involved in an election, but that goes for each side, and not limited to either the Obama or McCain campaigns. What would send a cold chill down my proverbial spine would be four more years of failed economic and foreign policies decided on by dogmatic, right wing Christian NeoCons who believe that it is their mission to rid the world of Islamic regimes and governments. I'm not voting for either of the two candidates who attended the Presidential debates, because I don't believe either is the best option for myself, as a struggling, middle class US citizen who has yet to complete his college education to the desired graduate levels. If you're naive enough to believe that people are voting for Obama because they're falling for a cult-like mentality, you're naive enough to think that bombing Iran is the next logical step for your country to team up with this one on, to continue to bring 'peace and stability' to the Middle East. That being said, reading some of the comments below, it's painfully clear that too many people have no fucking clue how US politics actually work which means there is hope for McCain's campaign yet (unfortunately)(reply to this comment)

From Lance Tuesday, October 28, 2008, 22:21 (Agree/Disagree?) I disagree; though I know exactly what you mean. We have long been subjected to cult influences –but that was when we were in a cult, and that is why we are no longer in one. Today, we listen and make our own decisions.  A few days ago I had the luxury of voting in this election. I voted for Obama in a state that has always been republican. I live in the state of Texas, it represents my family and my history, and I am proud of it! And while close family ties do not allow me to challenge their republican ideals, I am perfectly willing to challenge you sir for your complete ignorance.  How long did you live in the cult? Do you know anything about deception? Do you know anything about propaganda? Did Obama threaten to separate you from your children? Or demand that you have sex with strangers? I beg you to check yourself and your statement.    Yes, the masses share the same blind and misguided desperation that led our parents to join a cult. (thankfully the sixties are over) But Obama isn’t raising a three finger salute here. Obama is running for president.   (reply to this comment)

From Not falling - gambling. Sunday, October 19, 2008, 23:18 (Agree/Disagree?) I don't think that everyone is so awestruck with Obama. Most people know it's all bullshit anyway. Personally, I think Clinton was the only candidate with any real qualifications or abilities. But voting Obama is the only way to keep the Republicans out of the Whitehouse. It's been eight years of mismanagement and I'll take a gamble on Obama before trusting the Republicans to do anything other than the same lousy job they have been doing till now.(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Tuesday, October 21, 2008, 06:25 (Agree/Disagree?) Gambling it is.  A Democrat White ZHouse, a Democrat controlled Senate and House.  That can never be good when you have two branches of government controlled by the same party?  Now, what about the Judicial branch?  Well, Obama would pick the Attorney General, which would be subject to confirmation by the Democrats in Congress, so it's fair to say Democrats would at least have control over the Prosecuting side of the Judicial branch.  At least the Supreme Court is Republican- but that's only if no one dies or retires in the next four years.  (reply to this comment)

From a gamble is a gamble Tuesday, October 21, 2008, 06:56 (Agree/Disagree?) I know it's a stretch, but maybe then there's a slight chance that they will actually do something aside from playing politics. If one party can at least decide on some direction, they might not have to play games to lobby or trick the other party into playing along. Gambling by it's very definition is not a sure thing, but I still say give the Democrats four years and see what happens. The Republicans are getting punished by voters for backing ludicrous policies and bad government. Maybe this will serve as a wake up call. There will be some shifting and change, perhaps they will come back in four years and be in the right about some things. I think they're out of touch right now and need a few years of "time out" to think things out and try to get back in touch with the people they are supposed to be serving or representing.(reply to this comment)

From scarface Sunday, October 19, 2008, 17:01 (Agree/Disagree?) Do you hear it, can you hear it? It’s the sound of change, real change. kaching KAChing KACHING KACHING!!!!!!!! Change coming out of your pocket. Ha ha ha ha ha ha !!(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Sunday, October 19, 2008, 19:12 (Agree/Disagree?) Ha Ha! http://www.investors.com/editorial/cartoons/IMAGES/CARTOONS/toon010708.gif(reply to this comment)

from Fish Monday, October 06, 2008 - 07:41 (Agree/Disagree?) Holy SHIT! Does anyone else trade forex here? The dollar just tanked against the yen! ITS THE CRASH!!!! ARGGGGG! THE GREEN FUCKING PAPER FUCKING PIG!!!! I think it just went "poof!" It came as quietly as the comet!! NOOOOOO! (reply to this comment)

From Samuel Monday, October 06, 2008, 08:21 (Agree/Disagree?) Easy come, easy go.  But did you really think the dollar was going to do well with America's economic situation the way it is?  Give it a month, real change is on the way!(reply to this comment)

From Fish Monday, October 06, 2008, 18:23 (Agree/Disagree?) You moron. Of course I was betting against the dollar. And whats this "easy come" perversion? Sounds like a personal problem to me! Real change is on the way? Yep, Im sure it is. Come election day the American people will be given the fine choice between traditional fascism and national socialism: Would you rather have your cash appropriated for affirmative action and welfare or to bomb Iran? Would you rather pay an electricity tax, or go fight in the middle east? Would you rather lose your job to someone of a different skin color because they're a "minority" or lose it to China because they're cheap? Would you rather coddle muslims or get nuked by Russia? Choices, choices....Regardless, Mccain is insane and Palin is inane. God I hate that smile.(reply to this comment)

From chaos* Monday, October 06, 2008, 22:59 (Agree/Disagree?) Not just her smile, her overall ignorance.(reply to this comment)

From Talk about ignorance Saturday, October 18, 2008, 12:16 (Agree/Disagree?) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyvqhdllXgU(reply to this comment)

From Funniest doomsdayer watch ever Sunday, October 19, 2008, 09:21 (Agree/Disagree?) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRL2196HwxA&feature=related(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Sunday, October 19, 2008, 10:29 (Agree/Disagree?) WTF?  LOL, concentration camps?  chemical warfare?  Some dreams this moron is having.  (And I thought Berg's dreams were bad)(reply to this comment)

From chemtrails?? Monday, October 20, 2008, 13:14 (Agree/Disagree?) http://www.infowars.com/?p=4345&cp=12 http://educate-yourself.org/ct/ (reply to this comment)

From Samuel Monday, October 20, 2008, 19:18 (Agree/Disagree?) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory "Federal agencies have received thousands of complaints from people who have demanded an explanation.  In 2000, this led officials from four agencies in the United States to jointly publish a fact sheet refuting the rumors and explaining the science of contrail formation." If people din't listen to these conspiracy theorists, then these four agencies could have been doing something more productive instead of having to explain contrail formation to the public, don't you think?...DO you think?  (reply to this comment)

from shikaka Thursday, October 02, 2008 - 11:13 (Agree/Disagree?) Something to hang on your wall, Sammy boy. http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/uncyclopedia/images/5/51/Logikul.jpg   (reply to this comment)

From Samuel Thursday, October 02, 2008, 13:17 (Agree/Disagree?) You, shikaka, are the same one who said you can prove anything with statistics. However, seeing that you have changed your tune in this matter, I would like to present this analysis of your statistics. http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/religion_vs_iq.html What the analysis shows is that religion is not a factor as much as the country and education system there is.  A person from a country with a better education system will perform better on IQ tests than a person from another country, regardless of whether they are religious or not.  (reply to this comment)

From observing Thursday, October 02, 2008, 15:58 (Agree/Disagree?) I guess it's just coincindence then, that countries with secular governments most often have better education systems than those with religious governments.(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Friday, October 03, 2008, 04:42 (Agree/Disagree?) Why thank you, Captain Obvious!  How much thought did it take you to come up with that one?  Obviously countries with secular governments are more open minded, and thus will do better job at teaching.  Just remember that a secular government does not mean a secular country.  As much as America's founding Fathers believed in God, they still wanted a secular government because they had seen what could happen if the government were to enforce a particular denomination.  When there is a dictatorial religious government (and I'm afraid that it inevitable where there are religious governments because power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely), the free marketplace of ideas tends to dissappear.   And without a free exchange of ideas, people lose the will and the ability to learn.(reply to this comment)

From shikaka Thursday, October 02, 2008, 13:23 (Agree/Disagree?) Haha! Get stuffed. For your next assignment, I want you to present scientific evidence as to why "yo momma" jokes are unrealistic and absurd. Its a joke, Nimrod. (reply to this comment)

From Simon Cowell Friday, October 03, 2008, 04:58 (Agree/Disagree?) "Yo momma" jokes?  Dear God, what is that?  This is utter jibberish!  And who in hell is Nimrod?(reply to this comment)

From Oddman Friday, October 03, 2008, 05:49 (Agree/Disagree?) In the simplest terms, a nimrod is one who doesn't know what a nimrod is. Check the dictionary, or Wiki it. Yes, it's a word.(reply to this comment)

From Simon Cowell Friday, October 03, 2008, 15:02 (Agree/Disagree?) I have consulted my Oxford Dictionary. http://www.askoxford.com/results/?view=dict&freesearch=Nimrod&branch=13842570&textsearchtype=exact nimrod:  noun- a skillful hunter Samuel a skillful hunter?  Do explain.  (reply to this comment)

From Fish Saturday, October 04, 2008, 01:50 (Agree/Disagree?) "Skillful hunter?" BWAHAAHAAAHA! Does anyone remember that horrid movie "The Bible?" I believe the highlight of it (beside perhaps the Noah's ark scene where for about ten minutes it showed a pair of turtles plodding along to the tune of appropriately comedic music,LOL!) was the brief yet memorable Nimrod scene. Some guy wearing a ton of eyeshadow was running around, and everyone had to lay flat on the ground when he came by, to show that he was evil. Suddenly he jumps up on a styrofoam prop and demands "MY BOW!" A dude with a huge fake beard hands him it, and he dramatically fires off a shot at some clouds, doubtless as some kind of primitive meteorological experiment. I expected the next part would have something to do with cosmetics ("MY MASCARA!"), but apparently god was pissed off by Nimrods superior fashion sense and lightninged the styrofoam platform he was standing on. The scene ends rather incomprehensibly with nimrod and bearded dude running around and shaking old men by the shoulders, only to illicit "strange tongues." Ahh...the dangers of eyeshadow.(reply to this comment)

From ( @ - @ ) Timmeh Friday, October 03, 2008, 20:35 (Agree/Disagree?) http://www.thefreedictionary.com/nimrod http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=nimrod http://aolsvc.merriam-webster.aol.com/dictionary/nimrod http://ask.yahoo.com/20040211.html If you both lived a couple thousand years ago near Ninevah and you just shot down a Vulture with a rubberband, then Shikaka definitely meant, "you skillful hunter, you". If you and Shikaka live deep in the woods somewhere on the bible belt, you have brothers with names like Ahab, Cush, and Jehosephat, your mother skins alligators for breakfast, and your entire family resembles the one in the Wrong Turn movies, then yes, it is absolutely possible that Shikaka meant to say "atta' boy, you skillful hunter". On the other hand, if Shikaka is a foulmouthed ex soldier, you both live in the new millenia, you bag groceries at Publix, talk out of your ass, and have never been laid, it's most likely Shikaka just told you in the nicest way he knows "Sam, you're really really daft". Now go look up "daft" in your online compact oxford dictionary.(reply to this comment)

from madly Monday, September 29, 2008 - 21:36 (Agree/Disagree?) Off the subject: Happy Birthday, JW... hope you are well. :-) (reply to this comment)

from Oprahnation Monday, September 29, 2008 - 14:07 (Agree/Disagree?) Ack, forget about Barack. Give this one to McCain who has better experience. But next time, Oprah should run and be the first woman president, and the first black president all at once. Yay. Religious nutjobs versus Oprah. http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=pwGLNbiw1gk&feature=related (reply to this comment)

from Obamanation Or Obamination? Monday, September 29, 2008 - 11:52 (Agree/Disagree?) Obama's no Bill Clinton. Probably will end up another Jimmy Carter. Must admit though, he can talk. Not much else though. (reply to this comment)

from oden77 Saturday, September 27, 2008 - 11:44 (Agree/Disagree?) I can imagine that the drug business will be having a hay day now that the USA will have to try to get themselves out of their economic crisis. According to the latest news the USA are now moving their focus from Afghanistan elsewere. I see it that they dont wanna disturb the largest drug producing country in the world now that they are having this major economic crisis. (reply to this comment)

from ...... Monday, September 22, 2008 - 03:59 (Agree/Disagree?) http://loveforlife.com.au/node/5471 (reply to this comment)

from scarface Sunday, September 21, 2008 - 03:20 (Agree/Disagree?) An inconvenient truth   http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-2008-political-pulse-obama-race   Given a choice of several positive and negative adjectives that might describe blacks, 20 percent of all whites said the word "violent" strongly applied. Among other words, 22 percent agreed with "boastful," 29 percent "complaining," 13 percent "lazy" and 11 percent "irresponsible." When asked about positive adjectives, whites were more likely to stay on the fence than give a strongly positive assessment. ……………… The survey broke ground by incorporating images of black and white faces to measure implicit racial attitudes, or prejudices that are so deeply rooted that people may not realize they have them. That test suggested the incidence of racial prejudice is even higher, with more than half of whites revealing more negative feelings toward blacks than whites.   (reply to this comment)

From Fish Saturday, September 27, 2008, 17:57 (Agree/Disagree?) What a stupid test. I wonder what percentage of blacks would apply negative adjectives to whites. Well over a paltry 20 or 30 percent to be sure. And "complaining?" When the most visible black public figures are those constantly moaning about the evils of the white man, its hardly surprising one would associate "complaining" with "black." (reply to this comment)

From scarface Monday, September 29, 2008, 16:50 (Agree/Disagree?) Fishhead earns thumbs up from me as well for being the first person to call my opinion stupid. Unlike the other idiotic morons who assail my person as stupid. Most people don’t understand what I’m saying or they correctly identify my intellectual supremacy and lay into my personality as a desperate attempt to justify their ignorance. This man is as bigoted as he is wise. (reply to this comment)

From Samuel Thursday, October 16, 2008, 09:55 (Agree/Disagree?) OMG!  You have intellectual supremacy?  Your articles certainly don't show it!  You have no personality, so what is there to lay into?  I am not one to defend Fish, but just because he sees through the smoke screen and came up with a rational answer to your rhetoric does not mean he is bigoted.  But to be fair, he has not shown himself to be wise either lately.(reply to this comment)

From cheeks Thursday, October 16, 2008, 10:36 (Agree/Disagree?) I can't take it any more!I haven't been mean in a while and I am not preggers anymore so here goes. You two need to shut up or get a room. Your drivel makes little sense and frankly is highly annoying. We don't care about your political preferences, your religious preferences or anything else about you. You guys cheapen this site by your daily dose of bullshit. Neither of you possess any form or intellectual supremacy and I don't know why you posers think you do. (reply to this comment)

From shikaka Monday, September 29, 2008, 11:22 (Agree/Disagree?) I agree with you, that survey is tripe. In my experience, I've seen black people to be more outspokenly racist and entitled than any white I've met.(reply to this comment)

From cheeks Monday, September 29, 2008, 11:47 (Agree/Disagree?) I have to agree with you. I have seen far more raciest black people than white people, I have neighbors who will not let my children play with their children because my children are white.(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Sunday, September 21, 2008, 08:26 (Agree/Disagree?) Some people are just so desperate to make this into a racial issue - rather than recognising that some people simply consider he's not the right person for the job! Interesting how it is almost exclusively the self-proclaimed liberals who talk about race - whether positively themselves, or claimed racial bias from the other side.(reply to this comment)

From scarface Monday, October 13, 2008, 23:28 (Agree/Disagree?) “Some people are just so desperate to make this into a racial issue.” Don’t believe me, don’t you own words, don’t believe the statistics. Seeing is believing. McCain-in-the-membrane http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5X8V_OpsMAo Will the real Hussein please stand up? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sy2DgDWne2E http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_MA4BINoLg&feature=iv&annotation_id=event_328174 Either governor Palin is a racist or she is an under cover blond model with an outstanding, top-secret hair dye ingredient. (reply to this comment)

From Samuel Thursday, October 16, 2008, 08:54 (Agree/Disagree?) No one shouted "Kill him" at the rally. http://www.timesleader.com/news/breakingnews/Secret_Service_says_Kill_him_allegation_unfounded_.html I don't know, maybe they heard the crowd chanting "Drill, baby, drill!" and some dimwit misunderstood.(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Thursday, October 16, 2008, 08:20 (Agree/Disagree?) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ha5HEc-vOJs Louie Farrakhan calls Obama "the Messiah".(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Tuesday, October 14, 2008, 07:22 (Agree/Disagree?) So they called him a terrorist.  They said he associates with terrorists such as Ayers.  They guy in the grey shirt said he doesn't want someone who is friends with Ayers selecting the next Supreme Court Justices.  The blonde woman then says that she has heard about Obama and he's an Arab.  Not necessarily a racist remark, but definitely uneducated.  Notice that John McCain took away her microphone right away.  We don't know if the woman had something else to say about her reasons for not wanting Obama to be President, and was just beginning her argument.  Perhaps the fact that he is a Muslim had little bearance on her.  We don't know what her reasons her, because the microphone was taken away from her prematurely.  Apparently this woman has never heard of snopes.com, and doesn't know the difference between an Arab and a Muslim.  She should.  She also didn't have time to expalin why she beleived he was a Muslim.  Maybe it's because of his sympathy toward them, or because of what is happening right now in Africa.  It's easy to claim "Oh, she was lying" or "She's a racist" when the person is not given enough time to fully present their case.  Also notice that this is MSNBC.  The anchors on MSNBC are so liberal that they had to remove two of them (Mathews and Olberman) just last month after viwers complained and move them to the backrooms, only to be brought out from time to time as analysts.  Stupid association games?  Excuse me?  Doesn't an association with a domestic terrorist say something about Obama's judgment?  Do you really want a President with bad judgment running the country through a very difficult time?  Character assassination?  If the media would pick up on these issues, then the voters wouldn't have to go around the media and find these things out for themselves!  Of course getting all yuor information from the media is never a good thing anyway.  Character assassination is when you bring false charges against someone, like if the media claims that Palin is lying when  she said she stopped the "Bridge To Nowhere", or that she faked her pregnancy to cover for her daughter.  The media are the ones that are race baiting here, and I really don't appreciate it. That is one reason why I respect John McCain.  He goes out of his way to be fair to his opponent, even if it means he could lose the election.  It's not about winning for him, it's about putting his country first. The analysts suggest that the only thing that could help McCain win now is a motherload of racism or a national emergency overseas that McCain handles better than Obama (I guess the war in Iraq doesn't count.  McCain promises to bring the soldiers home with victory and honor, Obama simply promises to bring them home within 16 months. And no military bases there.)  Do you see what just happeend though?  If Obama loses, MSNBC already has their deck stacked up as to what they are gonig to blame for it, a motherload of racism.  So much for being fair and balanced. As for the other two videos, this is one person at a Sarah Palin rally.  He doesn't represent othes at the rally, only himself.  And just because someone laughs at something he does doesn't mean they agree with it.  I laughed when Obama talked about how much land the oil companies have leased and that he would make them "use it or lose it".  They would be using it right now if it weren't for all the government red tape!  That doesn't mean I agree with what he said, I just saw right through it.(reply to this comment)

From scarface Sunday, September 21, 2008, 20:05 (Agree/Disagree?) Let me start by thanking you for finding the time and the concern to climb down from your corporate royal perch to inform me of my irrational biases. I confess I am quite confused when it comes to this stuff and it’s heart-warming to know that all humanity and charity is not lost on this site. You make an incredibly fascinating and convincing point, I am truly mesmerized and I want to hear more. I realize that I am young and inexperienced (like Barack), I recognize that life is a learning process and the more opinions I am exposed to and digest, whether I agree with them or not, the wiser I become. All I ask in return is for you to at least listen to what I have to say, reflect on it and see if we cant learn something together.   “Some people are just so desperate to make this into a racial issue - rather than recognising that some people simply consider he's not the right person for the job!”     While I wish the world was bursting with idealists, I’m not sure that is the case. Of course this isn’t all about race there is plenty more to it then that. Its all about corporate greed and political power in my humble opinion. I think we can both agree on that.     “Interesting how it is almost exclusively the self-proclaimed liberals who talk about race - whether positively themselves, or claimed racial bias from the other side.”     This may be hard for you to believe but I am not a liberal. What did I say to give you that impression? You don’t know me and it’s hardly fair of you to label me like that when all I have written is a three letter pun. Don’t be turned of by the title, I was just trying to be witty although I may have failed miserably. Your accusation that I am a liberal sounds suspiciously close to a straw man fallacy. Another combustible fallacy was Obama’s theoretical inexperience. After 8 years of useless, failed government I wonder if its really experience we need. Now even Mccain is proclaiming “change is coming” so perhaps he to realizes that Americans wont fall for that asinine political gimmick yet again. I look forward to being proved wrong, make me proud.(reply to this comment)

From clark Tuesday, September 23, 2008, 07:46 (Agree/Disagree?) It seems to me that the more "experienced" someone is in the US politically, the more corrupt they are. I'm excited about the possibilty of having someone in the white house who is not in bed with corporate america or old oil boys. Or willing to have a war just to line their own and their friends pockets. We need a president who is concerned about the enviornment and the middle class. Who cares if he happens to be black?  I will proudly display my Obama sticker just as soon as I get it in the mail. (reply to this comment)

from scarface Sunday, September 21, 2008 - 03:19 (Agree/Disagree?) An inconvenient truth     (reply to this comment)

From oh dear! Sunday, September 21, 2008, 06:26 (Agree/Disagree?) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm http://educate-yourself.org/zsl/inconvenienttruth20jan08.shtml http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zeGY8zbzc8&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OZkWZOIaQc (reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Sunday, September 21, 2008, 08:32 (Agree/Disagree?) Good to see someone else on here not buying into the neo-religious orthodoxy.(reply to this comment)

from DeeJay Saturday, September 20, 2008 - 21:50 (Agree/Disagree?) I don't know a whole lot about American politics, or politics in general, but here are a few notes from an ordinary person's perspective. Everyone knows that the whole "inflating your tyres" thing was blown totally out of proportion. And yes, it is true that the proper inflation of tyres cuts down on fuel consumption. Also, it's been proven in many economies, that shielding consumers from the full price of oil has been a short-sighted and ultimately harmful practice. It encourages greater consumption, ultimately raising the price in the long term. It's been said that oil, given current market conditions, should be somewhere around 80 dollars a barrel. Bottom line, the price of oil can't really fall much further. Personally, I think this is a good thing as it will finally force corporations to more fully explore and commercialize alternative fuel sources. We have lived in the golden age of oil for long enough now. It's time to take seriously the fact that the planets oil reserves are not endless. Why do republications always feel the compulsion to employ force in every and all situations. I've seen you make the comment that Clinton weakened the CIA. I think Clinton didn't need the CIA. When the economy is healthy and everyone loves Americans, you are far safer than the CIA could ever make you. Bush's aggressive, stubborn and narrow outlooks on everything are the reason American's now have to live in fear. His policies are the reason so many people in the world hate America and want to attack it. BUSH HIMSELF CREATED THE PHENOMENOM OF FEAR WHICH HE NOW HOLDS OVER OUR HEADS AND STRINGS US ALONG TO BACK ALL OF HIS WAR-MONGERING POLICIES WITH. America's military supremacy will/can not last forever. I think that the soft power employed by Clinton was a much subtler but stronger and preferrable alternative. I believe that you'd find it hard to contest the point that America was much safer under Clinton and a weak CIA, than under Bush with all his emphasis on the military. At least no one hated us enough to hi-jack four commercial airliners and attack us on our own soil. It's easy for you to say staying in Iraq is the right decision - safe behind your keyboard. The fact of the matter is that America cannot afford to police the entire world like this. Nor should we. I don't believe in pursuing our own "freedom", if you want to call it that, at the expense of the freedom of others. And make no mistake, that is what we are robbing them of by insistant, long-term meddling in a government that has nothing to do with our own. We preach democracy, yet stand against any people who disagree with us. That to me is hypocrisy plain and simple. In order for a country to be truly democratic, it must reach that point on it's own terms. Forced democracy is not democracy. No-one smart person takes everything said in an election campaign so literally and seriously. No system is perfect, ultimately the health of the economy lies in one thing - balance. Whether it's cutting into the food supply to grow fuel crops, which may actually in cut down on oil consumption, which may actually lower it's price. For progress to happen in any field, something's always got to give. Whatever actually! Look at the economy now! Who got it there? Bush and the republicans who so blindly follow him in fear and paranoia. I say the sooner we run them out of office the better. Take Clinton's eight years, then take Bush's eight years and tell me you honestly think the republicans have the right policies on the economy. (reply to this comment)

from exfamily Friday, September 19, 2008 - 23:52 (Agree/Disagree?) For some reason I keep equating Samuel with Captain America from Generation Kill. (reply to this comment)

from Where have you been the last 8 years? Friday, September 19, 2008 - 23:33 (Agree/Disagree?) You and your beloved christian conservatives have been flushing America down the toilet. You elected that abomination of a president. Now the government is bigger and more corrupt than ever, our economy is about to implode and everyone in the World hates us...and you complain about Obama? FUCK YOU SAMUEL! FUCK EVERY SINGLE SCUM-SUCKING REPUBLICAN ON THE PLANET!!! (reply to this comment)

From Samuel Saturday, September 20, 2008, 06:37 (Agree/Disagree?) Are you telling me you think it's okay to have a President who: is buddies with a domestic terrorist from the '60s.  If a domestic terrorist gave you $200 and invited you to his house for a fundraiser, would you accept?  William Ayers is the Environmentalist version of Timothy McVeigh! doesn't care to do anything about gas prices, and encourages Americans to check their tire pressure instead, as if that will bring price/gallon prices down. would negotiate with a terrorist leader that were involved in the hostage situation in Iran back in the '80s, has vowed to wipe Israel, a free and independent nation, off the face of the Earth in violation of international law, and wants to produce nuclear weapons. has little or no foreign policy experience.  Going on a photo op trip to the Middle East and Germany with the media doesn't count.  This is not the same thing as Sarah Palin having little foreign policy experience.  She would be Vice President, not President. wants to pull US troops out of Iraq within 16 months, whether Al Qaeda is still there or not.  We tried that before in Vietnam, and it doesn't work well. A president who can't decide how he feels about important issues until he listens to his advisors and the media first.  He is an opportunist who will say one thing in one place, and a completely different thing somewhere else, depending on what is convenient. A President that is against domestic drilling.  Just look at his voting record in the Congress, he is very against domestic drilling.  At the same time, China is currently drilling off the of the US coast.  WTF?  Why are we letting China drill, and not letting American companies do the same?  Maybe if the CEO's learn Chinese the Democrats will let them drill?  Oh, and $12 a gallon for gas?  He said that himself.  He probably regrets it now, but that is what he suggested gas might rise to. A President that is for socialized medicine.  I've heard it, you've heard it: This many million American workers cannot afford health insurance.  We.ll guess what?  Obama doesn't care, he'll raise their taxes to pay for it anyway.  He'll have to raise taxes on everyone to afford socialized health care whether they can afford it or not.  What's wrong with having choice?  What's wrong with allowing doctors to make choices, instead of the government? A President that actually claims that he will lower our taxes by increasing corporate taxes.  I mean, how stupid does he think we are?  Have you noticed that the price of gas has gone up?  It's because oil costs more!  Have you noticed that the price of groceries has gone up?  it's because it costs more to get them to the store!  Have you noticed that restaurants are raising their prices?  It's because the minimum wage went up, so they have to budget more for their employees, plus the food costs more because it costs more to the get it to the restaurant!  Are you seeing a pattern here?  Raising corporate taxes is going to hurt everybody in higher prices.  Don't let Obama trick you into believing otherwise, that is a rule of economics.  Now, McCain might not know much about economics but he did say "Raising taxes is the worst thing we could do right now." so in that sense, he seems to have more economic sense than Obama. A President that doesn't realize that using food crops for the purpose of making biofuels reduces the food supply and raises food prices further.  Tying your fuel supply to the food supply is one of the stupidest things you can do.  It's much more stupid than swearing at someone without signing in to the site.  It makes no economic sense.  I think Obama is very dangerous for America, especially if the Democrats keep control over the House and the Senate. I think you're exxagerating when you say everyone in the world hates us.  If I were Bush, I would have gotten rid of Donald Rumsfeld earlier, he really wasn't handling the war right.  It's a shame, did you know that we had a chance to get Osama BinLaden in the early days of the war in Afghanistan, but Rumsfeld didn't want to put that many soldiers on the ground?        (reply to this comment)

From yah right Sunday, September 21, 2008, 05:15 (Agree/Disagree?) george get rid of Cheny, Rumy or Wolf??? are you serious? They are higher up then bushy boy. (reply to this comment)

From cheeks Saturday, September 20, 2008, 14:34 (Agree/Disagree?) Are you kidding me? Do you honestly think the Republicans have helped the country in the past eight years? At the very least we would have a president who is intelligent enough to be able to read and understand the nuclear weapons report that the inspectors write. We would at the very least have a president who can say nuclear. Do you have any idea whatsoever how many tax breaks the government has given to the oil companies, why in God's name should we give them anymore. We at the very least would have a president who believes in dialog and not force. When you have a daughter and you have to go to the emergency room in the middle of the night and have to pay $800 dollars for two flu test that at the very most would have cost sixty at the doctors office then you can talk about heath care and making it affordable. Perhaps we as Americans should start talking about using less gas instead of how to get more. Perhaps we should give engineers and car companies who want to increase gas mileage to fifty miles a gallon a tax break. If you don't think everyone around the world hates us perhaps you should go on a trip and find out. At the very least right now it is embarrassing to be an American and have a President who is so damn dumb.(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Monday, September 22, 2008, 13:28 (Agree/Disagree?) http://www.webloggin.com/blame-democrats-for-financial-crisis/ http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/what_kind_of_tax_breaks_does_the.html http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/03/14/clinton_pitches_plans_to_battle_rising_energy_prices/?rss_id=Boston.com+--+Latest+news http://www.standardnewswire.com/news/625143149.html I agree that we should start thinking about how to use less gas.  In the meanwhile, why do we have to import it from hoistile nations in an unstable region when we can tap into our own oil resources?(reply to this comment)

From cheeks Monday, September 22, 2008, 14:57 (Agree/Disagree?) Ours is ten years away from production if they decided to start drilling today. It is in a wildlife reserve or in the ocean where we could do irreparable damage if something goes wrong. It is not a matter of turning on a facet and having oil come out. It is hundreds of miles of pipeline, roads, huge drilling machines just to get started on a few of the issues. We would be far better served if we took the money it would cost to drill for oil and use it to start green, sustainable energy companies, wind and solar power & hydro-electric cars.(reply to this comment)

From happy b'day cheeky ;-) Wednesday, September 24, 2008, 16:00 (Agree/Disagree?)  are you a Libra or Scorpio? (reply to this comment)

From [x x] How Wednesday, September 24, 2008, 20:31 (Agree/Disagree?) would she be Scorpio?(reply to this comment)

From I meant Virgo Wednesday, September 24, 2008, 21:05 (Agree/Disagree?)  (reply to this comment)

From scarface Wednesday, September 24, 2008, 15:39 (Agree/Disagree?) Happy b-day butt-cheeks! May this be the most progressive and feminist year of your life. (reply to this comment)

From cheeks Saturday, September 27, 2008, 20:36 (Agree/Disagree?) I am a Libra and thanks for the good wishes. (reply to this comment)

From Lithium Saturday, September 20, 2008, 10:05 (Agree/Disagree?) All I can see are a bunch of words strung together in haphazard, nonsensical, regurgitated brain mush crapped out of your ass. Did the internet teach you all that Sam? (reply to this comment)

From Samuel Saturday, September 20, 2008, 10:28 (Agree/Disagree?) Then I'm afraid there's no hope for you.  Perhaps this nonsensical regurgitated brain mash will make more sense to you? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LfftMmsldo At least the girl is hot.(reply to this comment)

from steam Friday, September 19, 2008 - 16:07 (Agree/Disagree?) The mind that brought you the above list explains the intellectual capacity that allowed George Bush to become president, and America to become the laughingstock of the whole world. Sad and scary to be sure, but that he actually thought this psychotic rambling passed for humor is the scariest of all. (reply to this comment)

From Jeremiah Wright Friday, September 19, 2008, 17:18 (Agree/Disagree?) You want psychotic rambling?  I'll show you psychotic rambling!  America's chickens...are coming home to roooooost!(reply to this comment)

From Fish Thursday, October 02, 2008, 10:42 (Agree/Disagree?) Incidentally, I think he was right on that point. However, the solution is simple: Eat the chickens when they are eggs. Failing this, stand on the porch with a shotgun and blast any clucking creature that comes near the house.  (reply to this comment)

from shikaka Friday, September 19, 2008 - 13:08 (Agree/Disagree?) Im guessing that this moronic and inexplicable list sounded much better in your head. (reply to this comment)

from katrim4 Friday, September 19, 2008 - 12:36 (Agree/Disagree?) Sigh......and we once had such insightful, thoughtful political debate on this site. All good things do come to an end. (reply to this comment)