The Next President of the USA will be?

[Dzldoc]

Ok here's the skinny on tires, I do this for a living and have done so for the last 24 years.

The label on the vehicle has nothing to do with how the tire wears.

It's rated psi is for the way that particular vehicle handles on the road during various conditions.

Now having said that, the higher the pressure the less tire area makes contact with the road. The less contact the less rolling resistance but also less traction.

Rotating tires, I don't do it. Why? because the front tires will wear out first no matter what.

So I never rotate them. Then when they wear out I need only buy 2 tires and put them on the rear of the vehicle and move the rear tires to the front.

You always want the best tires on the rear of the vehicle.

Why? Because you have control of the front wheels but no control over the rear.

It's better to have a flat on the front than the rear. It may feel worse when the front goes flat but you can control the front.

Always have your alignment checked if the tires are wearing abnormally.

Chances are your steering and suspension parts may be worn, get them replaced.

It used to piss me off to no end when someone would come in for tires and the front end was shot but the salesmen would sell them $600 worth of tires and they would have nothing left to repair the front end. I was like "YOU" mount the mfing tires

[bigstickbonzo]

I think we may be voting for the one with the best running mate

Someone who understands the 08 election.

....Unfortunately for us.

[cryingbluerain]

This will make its first appearance on The New York Times best-seller list for nonfiction hardcovers today - at No. 1.

[The Rover]

McCain said last night, that:

"I'd go the the Gates of Hell"

to find Obama, and to bring him his Justice.

I don't know what that means.... But I like the way it sounds......

I think I'll Vote for McCain.

Thw World is getting Nastier....Look at what Russia is pulling.....

I want a Tough American in the Driver's seat.....

Now is not the time for "feely-good" political babble.

From the CSPAN replay of the R. Warren event of 8-16-08.

[Pb Derigable]

Umm... you mean like the last eight years of those good Republican/Bush checks and balances?

What was meant was that if B. Hussein Obama wins, the dems will have a filabuster proof majority in the senate (60-40) and a overwhelming majority in the house ( something like only 10 gop reps will have to cross the aisle to pass a bill). So you will have one party running the system for the next 4 years. That means no matter what B. Hussein Obama says he will do or won't do won't matter. He will not step on the toes of Pelosi and Hilrod. He will do as he was told. An empty suit. If you have a G.O.P. white house, nothing won't be done (like Pres. Bush) but the dems won't be finding and passing every single issue they had since 1965.

[Eric Marsh]

This will make its first appearance on The New York Times best-seller list for nonfiction hardcovers today - at No. 1.

Obama's response to this and other smears are at Fight The Smears. Specifically his response to this book is at Unfit for Publication.

[Uncle Bill]

Obama's response to this and other smears are at Fight The Smears. Specifically his response to this book is at Unfit for Publication.

You do realize the links you provided are nobama propaganda/ spin room sites don't you?

This IS interesting:

Obama Confirms Relationship With Red Mentor

WASHINGTON, Aug 15, 2008 /PRNewswire-USNewswire via COMTEX/ ----AIM Vindicated in Reporting on Frank Marshall Davis

Accuracy in Media editor Cliff Kincaid said that coverage of the Obama campaign's fierce attack on Jerome Corsi's book, The Obama Nation, misses the point that the campaign has finally acknowledged that the mysterious "Frank" in Obama's 1995 book, Dreams From My Father, is in fact the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) member Frank Marshall Davis.

"This identification by AIM and others hasn't been disputed by the media, which has desperately tried to ignore the Obama-Davis relationship, but the Obama campaign has not responded to it until now," Kincaid writes in a new column posted at www.aim.org.

Kincaid writes that, "The admission that Obama's mentor was Frank Marshall Davis, an identified CPUSA member, can only add to growing public concern about Obama's relationship with a Communist pawn of Moscow who was the subject of security investigations by the FBI and various congressional committees which examined Soviet activities in the U.S."

Kincaid notes that a 40-page Obama report that is intended as a "rebuttal" to Corsi's book makes no admission that Davis was a communist and doesn't dispute anything Corsi documents about Davis's membership in the Communist Party. Instead, Kincaid notes, the report attempts to play down instances in which Obama soaks up Davis's anti-American thoughts and pro-communist "poetry."

Kincaid praises Corsi's book, saying, "It is clear that Corsi is to Obama what the National Enquirer is to admitted adulterer and liar John Edwards. The Enquirer exposed Edwards' secret life when the rest of the media were refusing to investigate the candidate and making fun of the Enquirer."

AIM confirmed the identity of Frank Marshall Davis and his relationship with Obama last February.

Accuracy in Media is a citizens' media watchdog organization whose mission is to promote fairness, balance, and accuracy in news reporting. Founded in 1969, AIM is the oldest non-profit press watchdog group in America. For more information, please visit www.aim.org.

[Eric Marsh]

What was meant was that if B. Hussein Obama wins, the dems will have a filabuster proof majority in the senate (60-40) and a overwhelming majority in the house ( something like only 10 gop reps will have to cross the aisle to pass a bill). So you will have one party running the system for the next 4 years. That means no matter what B. Hussein Obama says he will do or won't do won't matter. He will not step on the toes of Pelosi and Hilrod. He will do as he was told. An empty suit. If you have a G.O.P. white house, nothing won't be done (like Pres. Bush) but the dems won't be finding and passing every single issue they had since 1965.

It is really an unsupported assertion that Obama will let the Congress walk all over him. Bush didn't do so when there was a veto proof Republican majority. In fact, if memory serves, the Republican Congress rubber stamped just about every Bush proposal.

[Eric Marsh]

You do realize the links you provided are nobama propaganda/ spin room sites don't you?

That's what politicians and just about anyone else involved in politics does. However the distinction is that Obama provides citations for their assertions where Cosi made up a lot of material out of whole cloth.

[Uncle Bill]

That's what politicians and just about anyone else involved in politics does. However the distinction is that Obama provides citations for their assertions where Cosi made up a lot of material out of whole cloth.

lol. right I take it you read the book?

[cryingbluerain]

Obama's response to this and other smears are at Fight The Smears. Specifically his response to this book is at Unfit for Publication.

And where are all the "smears" against McCain? Oh I know, it's a vast right wing conspiracy..

[Pb Derigable]

It is really an unsupported assertion that Obama will let the Congress walk all over him. Bush didn't do so when there was a veto proof Republican majority. In fact, if memory serves, the Republican Congress rubber stamped just about every Bush proposal.

Exactly. Do you think the president would propose somthing that he can't get even his own party to vote for.

So you just made the point to vote McCain. If the g.o.p. fucked up this country, im sure the Dems will have an easier time to fuck up this country if they are in power.

anyways, Obama, 97% vote among party lines, will just follow the liberal agenda. No walking over B. Hussein Obama, he'll just open the door.

[Eric Marsh]

So you just made the point to vote McCain. If the g.o.p. fucked up this country, im sure the Dems will have an easier time to fuck up this country if they are in power.

I suppose that just depends on whether you think the candidate will do the right thing (i.e. what you believe is correct) or not. In essence I think we've had eight years of almost constant criminal activity in the Executive branch now. The Constitution is systematically being trashed. If you think that moving in a new direction is a good thing then you would want a president who is empowered. If you think that change is a bad thing then you would want a president who is hamstrung by the Congress.

Personally I am just sick of the same old politics. I'm seriously ready for a change. IMHO we need to restore the Constitution, pay down the national debt, promote education, fix the infrastructure, get us out of Iraq and spend the money on something useful, do something about greenhouse gasses and the energy crisis. I don't know that Obama is going to do all that but I damn well know that McCain won't.

[redrum]

Hell, I do that all the time.

[Eric Marsh]

I am suprised that you would say such a thing and then support Obama. Obama is the one that is the "Same old politics" of voting straight down the old party line. McCain has been reffered to as a "Maverick", one that will not sell himself out, one that has worked with both sides of the isle on many occasions. Even to the point of offending his party many times. Now that is "Change", not just a empty talking point. McCain has done "Change" with actions, unlike Obama who has just done it with empty words.

I don't see it that way.

MaCain isn't the maverick he used to be. Now (IMHO) he's just an older, dottering, more extreme version of Bush.

[Trouble-Free Transmission]

Anyone who gives Corsi's book any credibility is a fool.

Anyone who gives the book's "#1 Best Seller" rating any credibility is doubly a fool.

The New York Times has this book at #1 on

its best seller list .. with a dagger against it.

From the best seller list legend:

"Rankings reflect sales, for the week ended [--], at many thousands of venues where a wide range of general interest books are sold nationwide. These include hundreds of independent book retailers (statistically weighted to represent all such outlets); national, regional and local chains; online and multimedia entertainment retailers; university, gift, supermarket, discount, department stores and newsstands. An asterisk (*) indicates that a book’s sales are barely distinguishable from those of the book above. A dagger (†) indicates that some bookstores report receiving bulk orders."

What does that mean? In this case it means that right wing fringe groups are buying the book in bulk simply to get the #1 rating, and the NY Times is bringing it to peoples' attention that the #1 rating is NOT an accurate reflection of how many individuals have bought the book. In other words, it's a right wing #1 Best Seller sham.

But hey,.. I doubt anyone is surprised.. or fooled.. by this.

We all know that lies and deceit is how the right wing operates.

I don't see it that way.

MaCain isn't the maverick he used to be. Now (IMHO) he's just an older, dottering, more extreme version of Bush.

Spot on observation, Eric.

"McCain the Maverick" is ghost of the past; he's a figment of right wing imaginations.

Nowadays John McCain is nothing but a forgetful, right wing pandering sell-out.

Make no mistake about it, a vote for McCain is a vote to continue the failed domestic (economic and social) and foreign polices of GWB; it's a vote to continue the erosion of civil liberties, of the US Constitution, and of US relations with rest of the civilized world; it's a vote for more saber rattling instead of diplomacy; and it's a vote for more unnecessary wars. A vote for Barack Obama is a vote to change the disastrous course charted by neocon marionette GWB.

Btw, Eric,.. I should let you know that regardless of the merits of your arguments, there is no reasoning with "srplane". His mind is so consumed with anti-Obama hatred that he's simply not capable of rational political discussion at this point. You see, "srplane" isn't really pro-McCain; he's anti-Obama. He absolutely hates Barack Obama. He's one of those people who thinks Obama is both anti-American and Muslim. If that doesnt tell you all you need to know, get this: "srplane" *ahem* supported Hillary Clinton in the democratic primaries, and he maintained to the very end that Hillary had "a good mathematical chance of winning" the nomination. He swore that if Hillary lost to Obama he was then going to vote for McCain. That's how politically confused in the head he is. He's so confused that even though he very enthusiastically agrees with Hillary Clinton's policy positions, he's now going to vote for John McBush, a politician whose policy positions are polar opposite from Clinton's on almost every issue, rather than voting for Barack Obama whose policy positions are very much in line with Clinton's on most issues. Go figure.

[Dzldoc]

I just don't see age as much of a factor, one person is not going to change the whole planet alone.

Example 91yo and still going strong Amazing career.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000308/bio

[moose351]

The fact that hermit dwells so much on age shows how little substance there is to any "Real" negatives about McCain. McCain has a track record of working with both sides of the isle. You can tell when the Obama groupies are digging for straws. They throw out the "Hate" card. They are about as predictable as Obama and his campain itself. Lets see now, the polls show that the majority of Americans want to drill for more oil. Obama is now changing his position on that. The war in Iraq is now all but won, Obama is changing his position on that. I could go on and on but I do not want to bore you like "Some" do. You get the picture, and it is one of a politician that will go what ever way the wind blows. Politics as usual, no change just empty talk .

Who ever it is will just be a puppet again anyway. The democratic system is flawed. That's not implying that I'm a socialist or communist, just that consumerism is fu**ing this planet, and the democratic right to have as much as the next person has made us greedy. The US is the biggest offender. It started with " The Great Land Grab". Grab/steal. None of the colonial nations have a clean slate. Australia is just as bad. Little John Howard followed Bush into the sh**. War on terror, what a fu**ing joke. How's about putting the money for the missile defence shield planned for europe into renewable energies or even rebuilding New Orleans.

VOTE 1 John Stewart and the daily show.

[Trouble-Free Transmission]

So that wasn't you rooting for Hillary throughout the primaries, eh "srplane"?

Ok dude, if you say so. [i'll play along. *wink, wink*]. My mistake, I guess.

If you will though,.. please clarify for me:

Do you think Barack Obama is a Muslim.. or a Christian?

Do you think he's "anti-America".. or a patriotic American?

Do you think he and Michelle Obama are racists?

And while you're at it, perhaps you might clarify for me your seemingly contradictory beliefs about Barack Obama. You rail against him as being a "party-line liberal" (or some version thereof), and yet at the very same time you rail against him for "not standing for anything at all". Which is it? Does he stand for the left wing agenda, or for nothing at all?

And if you think Obama being a "party-line liberal" is a shortcoming of his, why is it that you don't see it as a good thing when he shows a willingness to "move toward the middle" (ie, compromise; ie, reach across the aisle) on some issues? It seems to me that no matter Obama does,.. and no matter what position he takes on any issue.. you're always gonna find fault with him. And not based any rational, logical argument, but merely because you hate don't like him very much.. at all.

And btw,.. if you think McCain's age is his only shortcoming that's been pointed

out about him, then you obviously haven't been paying very close attention.

Fwiw, I don't begrudge anyone their preference for John McCain. People who approve of the job George Bush has done, who like the direction he has taken our country, and who want four more years of the same.. those people should vote for McCain because that's exactly what he'll bring, and Barack Obama will not. If you disagree with this assertion,.. if you think John McCain will not represent a continuation of Bush policies, then please do point out how it is that you think McCain will differ from Bush with regard to domestic (economic and social) and foreign policy.

Anyway,.. I don't expect that you're gonna respond to the specific questions

I've asked of you, "srplane",.. that hasn't really ever been your style, has it?

[marolyn]

check out the heiress carrying her latte and purple cell...oooooh that's hot!!!!

[Del Zeppnile]

And btw,.. if you think McCain's age is his only shortcoming that's been pointed

out about him, then you obviously haven't been paying very close attention.

Hey dude!

All I know is that McCain pretty much hit the ball straight out of the park the other day at the Rick Warren's Saddleback Church in California where he and Obama had an "apples to apples" forum.

Obama came off looking weak and indecisive with his answers... a lot more "weasle-speak" if you ask me. While McCain was direct and knew exactly where he stood on all of the issues. Something that will resonate well with not only the Republican base but many Independents and "Traditional valued" Democrats in the America's Heartland.

Looking more like Obama has no chance in hell of winning anything.

Read more:

August 18, 2008

McCain Shines at Saddleback Forum

By Michael Gerson

WASHINGTON -- It is now clear why Barack Obama has refused John McCain's offer of joint town hall appearances during the fall campaign. McCain is obviously better at them.

Pastor Rick Warren's Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency -- two hours on Saturday night evenly divided between the relaxed, tieless candidates -- was expected to be a sideshow. McCain and Obama would make their specialized appeals to evangelicals as if they were an interest group such as organized labor or the National Rifle Association. Evangelicals would demonstrate, in turn, that they are not rubes and know-nothings. And Americans would turn en masse to watch the Olympics.

What took place instead under Warren's precise and revealing questioning was the most important event so far of the 2008 campaign -- a performance every voter should seek out on the Internet and watch.

First, the forum previewed the stylistic battle lines of the contest ahead, and it should give Democrats pause. Obama was fluent, cool and cerebral -- the qualities that made Adlai Stevenson interesting but did not make him president. Obama took care to point out that he had once been a professor at the University of Chicago, but that bit of biography was unnecessary. His whole manner smacks of chalkboards and campus ivy. Issues from stem cell research to the nature of evil are weighed, analyzed and explained instead of confronted.

This approach has a genuine appeal to some voters, especially of a more liberal bent, who believe there is a nuance shortage in American life. But on Saturday night it did not compare well with McCain, who was decisive, passionate and surprisingly personal. The candidate who once seemed incapable of the confessional style of politics talked at length of Vietnam experiences and his adopted daughter from Bangladesh. Asked by Warren about his greatest moral failure, McCain's response -- "the failure of my first marriage" -- had an abrupt and disarming authenticity. The account of his hardest decision -- refusing release from captivity ahead of others who had been imprisoned longer -- remains shocking in its valor. And McCain's habit of understatement -- he described the excruciating rope torture he experienced in Vietnam as "very uncomfortable" -- makes his stories even more effective.

Second, the Warren forum demonstrated how difficult it will be for Obama to appeal to religious and conservative voters as the campaign proceeds. His outreach to evangelical voters is obviously sincere, but he doesn't actually agree with them on much. In the course of the forum, he endorsed federal funding for embryonic stem cell research in spite of the existence of humane and promising alternatives. He proposed controversial government regulations on faith-based charities that accept federal funds. He attacked Justice Clarence Thomas as unqualified and defended his vote against the confirmation of the widely admired Chief Justice John Roberts. Obama deserves points for honesty on all these issues, but it is possible to be honestly off-putting.

Obama's response on abortion -- the issue that remains his largest obstacle to evangelical support -- bordered on a gaffe. Asked by Warren at what point in its development a baby gains "human rights," Obama said that such determinations were "above my pay grade" -- a silly answer to a sophisticated question. If Obama is genuinely unsure about this matter, he (and the law) should err in favor of protecting innocent life. If Obama believes that a baby in the womb lacks human rights, he should say so -- pro-choice men and women must affirm (as many sincerely do) that developing life has a lesser status. Here the professor failed the test of logic.

For many evangelicals, the theoretical Obama -- the Obama of hope and unity -- is intriguing, even appealing. But this opinion is not likely to improve upon closer inspection of his policy views. Obama is one of those rare political figures who seems to grow smaller the closer we approach him. "I want people to know me well," said Obama at the forum. Among religious conservatives, that may not be an advantage.

Finally, McCain's performance at the Warren forum helps change the political psychology going into the conventions. Republicans have spent the last few weeks pleasantly surprised at the closeness of the presidential race. But they have generally chalked this up to Obama's weakness, not McCain's strength. After Saturday night, even Republicans most skeptical of McCain must conclude: "Perhaps we aren't doomed after all."

Of such small hopes are large upsets made.

michaelgerson@cfr.org

[SteveAJones]

Asked by Warren at what point in its development a baby gains "human rights," Obama said that such determinations were "above my pay grade"

"Change You Can Believe In"

[Trouble-Free Transmission]

Hey dude!

All I know is that McCain pretty much hit the ball straight out of the park the other day at the Rick Warren's Saddleback Church in California where he and Obama had an "apples to apples" forum.

Obama came off looking weak and indecisive with his answers... a lot more "weasle-speak" if you ask me. While McCain was direct and knew exactly where he stood on all of the issues. Something that will resonate well with not only the Republican base but many Independents and "Traditional valued" Democrats in the America's Heartland.

Hiya dude!

Welcome back. How was your fishing trip?

How many trout did you catch.. and release?

Yes Del, we know you righties favor "simple, decisive and unrealistic" over "complex, thoughtful and realistic". I bet you got erect (you know, stood up) and cheered when John "Can I tell you a POW story" McCain promised to "chase Osama to the gates of hell!", huh? And I bet John "I've got 10-homes and I'm worth $100 million" McCain even managed to convince you that you're "rich", huh? You know, cuz you have "a home, a good job and an education". Haha! You righties are so gullible.

Obama went into the viper's den on Saturday and he did pretty well I thought. He stayed true to his beliefs, and he gave thoughtful replies to difficult questions regarding complex issues. I was impressed with how Pastor Rick conducted the forum. Kudos to them both. And yes, McCain did seem to have a more black-and-white view of things (what you call "decisive").. and he seemed more simplistic.. and unrealistic.

So far in this campaign John McCain has made "jokes" about bombing Iran, about domestic violence, and about bestiality (the latter during a forum in a church amongst evangelicals). In the past he's made jokes about rape. And about Corsi's smear book, McCain says "you gotta keep your sense of humor". Apparently a vote for McCain is not just a vote for four more years of failed Bush foreign and domestic policies, it's also a vote for four more years of inappropriate jokes and a president with a sub-sophomoric sense of humor.

[cryingbluerain]

All I know is that McCain pretty much hit the ball straight out of the park the other day at the Rick Warren's Saddleback Church in California where he and Obama had an "apples to apples" forum.

Obama came off looking weak and indecisive with his answers... a lot more "weasle-speak" if you ask me. While McCain was direct and knew exactly where he stood on all of the issues. Something that will resonate well with not only the Republican base but many Independents and "Traditional valued" Democrats in the America's Heartland.

Looking more like Obama has no chance in hell of winning anything.

Yeah, gotta love BO's "doubting Thomas" remarks about Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas:

“I don’t think he was an exp . . . ” — he then caught himself — “a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation. Setting aside the fact that I profoundly disagree with his interpretation of a lot of the Constitution.”

Comments from the WSJ editiorial board:

So let's see. By the time he was nominated, Clarence Thomas had worked in the Missouri Attorney General's office, served as an Assistant Secretary of Education, run the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and sat for a year on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the nation's second most prominent court. Since his "elevation" to the High Court in 1991, he has also shown himself to be a principled and scholarly jurist.

Meanwhile, as he bids to be America's Commander in Chief, Mr. Obama isn't yet four years out of the Illinois state Senate, has never held a hearing of note of his U.S. Senate subcommittee, and had an unremarkable record as both a "community organizer" and law school lecturer. Justice Thomas's judicial credentials compare favorably to Mr. Obama's Presidential résumé by any measure. And when it comes to rising from difficult circumstances, Justice Thomas's rural Georgian upbringing makes Mr. Obama's story look like easy street.

Even more troubling is what the Illinois Democrat's answer betrays about his political habits of mind. Asked a question he didn't expect at a rare unscripted event, the rookie candidate didn't merely say he disagreed with Justice Thomas. Instead, he instinctively reverted to the leftwing cliché that the Court's black conservative isn't up to the job while his white conservative colleagues are.

So much for civility in politics and bringing people together. And no wonder Mr. Obama's advisers have refused invitations for more such open forums, preferring to keep him in front of a teleprompter, where he won't let slip what he really believes.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1219018171...days_us_opinion

Comments from Wendy E. Long, currently counsel to the The Judicial Confirmation Network:

“Obama wants justices who will do his bidding, who will implement the preferred policies of the liberal establishment – not Justices like Thomas, Scalia, Roberts and Alito, who understand that the role of a judge is not to legislate from the bench,”.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/08/18/co...addleback-forum

[Pb Derigable]

I suppose that just depends on whether you think the candidate will do the right thing (i.e. what you believe is correct) or not. In essence I think we've had eight years of almost constant criminal activity in the Executive branch now. The Constitution is systematically being trashed. If you think that moving in a new direction is a good thing then you would want a president who is empowered. If you think that change is a bad thing then you would want a president who is hamstrung by the Congress.

Personally I am just sick of the same old politics. I'm seriously ready for a change. IMHO we need to restore the Constitution, pay down the national debt, promote education, fix the infrastructure, get us out of Iraq and spend the money on something useful, do something about greenhouse gasses and the energy crisis. I don't know that Obama is going to do all that but I damn well know that McCain won't.

Why don't you think mccain won't do that. He is one of the only G.O.P. to even considered global warming has a shot to be truthfull. B. Hussein Obama already said he will listen to ground info before a pullout and has said he will leave some if needed. McCain has a plan to get rid of foriegn oil and obama just wants to get rid of oil so his pals like gore can make money.

I just don't see age as much of a factor, one person is not going to change the whole planet alone.

Example 91yo and still going strong Amazing career.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000308/bio

He went on fox and friends and they ask him want was his secret to get to 91. He said he masturbates alot.

August 18, 2008

McCain, Shine, at Saddleback Forum

By Michael Gerson

Thats what i thought that headline said