By JUSTIN KENDALL
Planned Parenthood thinks nothing is scarier than John McCain and Sarah Palin haunting the White House. This afternoon at 4, Planned Parenthood advocates will let everyone on Plaza know just how frightening a McCain-Palin presidency would be for the pro-choice movement by throwing an anti-Palin themed party at the J.C. Nichols Fountain.
"While Sarah Palin was mayor of Wasilla, rape victims were forced to pay up to $1,200 for the emergency exams used to prosecute attackers," the release says. "Her positions are clear — and extreme. The last thing women — or the country — need is a president and vice president who are prepared to turn back the clock on women's rights and repeal the protections of Roe v. Wade."
Ralliers are encouraged to dress up as their favorite politician, but maybe you should leave the Phill Kline costume at home.
Showing 1-12 of 12
No problem�I wanted to believe Obama was the antichrist and a terrorist, but couldn�t find conclusive evidence. So, I know your pain.
Imagine if the media had the same agenda as us. You know, figuring out the truth and trying to better the situation and knowledge of all people. What a world it would be.
By the way, I am still very interested in your opinion of the Blue Dogs. Do you think the Wall Street welfare was a one-off for them, or do you think they see the potential swing to liberal-ville and are abandoning their system?
Trevor, I'll stand corrected. Thanks for destroying my reality LOL I appreciate a discussion where we can disagree with out name calling and screaming.
At times I, like many people, am all to ready to accept things which support our personal feelings without delving into them deeply.
I am exceptionally skeptical of the media. Sometimes I let my guard down and get bitten.
Ok, Orphan, I will take the Pepsi Challenge. Let�s see here:
Trevor, McCain has voted against every bill to secure benefits or expand treatment for veterans. You can look it up. I had read an heard all of this before The Pitch's sister paper in Phoenix published their story (good read if you haven't done so yet). No earmarks for McCain true but I meant the Republican Congress as a whole.
Dennis Moore is not a Blue Dog Democrat. I do know the majority of Kansas citizens would gladly secede Johnson County to Kansas City.
Look at the Democrats who voted against the bailout initially. They are the Blue Dogs and add 20 more to them and they will be a very load voice in Congress. They have gone toe-toe-toe with the "leadership" in Congress but it gets little press.
First, Glen M, d00d, debunking your bullshit would require more megabytes worth of text than you used just to initially spread your nonsensical talking points in the first place. Please, try to do surgery with a scalpel instead of a shotgun. Then again, with the approach you take, where most of your points are applicable to any election in the past 30 years or so, maybe you should skip the surgery and stick to needlepoint.
Orphan of the Road, you have some sweet points, and almost come from a location that I can understand, but somehow come to messed up conclusions.
How do you see Blue Dogs as being anything but neutered puppies at this point? Dennis Moore, as well as many of his Blue Dog colleagues provided welfare for Wall Street in what reeks of the death of the Blue Dogs. This is a pain that I think coincides with the Demos, should they win, preparing to continue down the path of trying to eliminate the opposition rather than establishing any semblance of a unified country.
You also seem to have got Obama�s name confused with McCain�s when you try and speak of vets benefits and pork projects. But, your Blue Dog justification is an interesting approach.
Well Glen M, George W Bush is an admitted cocaine user. He seems to have gotten clearances.
I don't have to imagine what happens if one party controls it all. I've just seen six-years of it.
The 20 Democrats expected to be voted into Congress on Tuesday are Blue Dogs. Look for a change in leadership in Congress. Goodbye and good riddance to Polosi and Reid.
I base my vote on John McCain voting against every bill to strengthen or continue benefits for veterans. On the Republican Party claiming to be conservative but spending money on pork and perks. Voting for George W Bush and getting a frickin' LBJ.
McCain sold his soul for this opportunity and the chickens are coming home to roost.
Bob Barr and Ralph Nader would have been better standard bearers for the two parties.
If Senator Obama wins this election, the following is what it has taken to get a very questionable, extremely inexperienced, very junior first time Senator past the mark:
1. Senator Obama�s campaign is outspending Senator McCain�s campaign 4 to 1 or more in some locations. This is due to Senator Obama backing out of an agreement he made with Senator McCain.
2. Senator Obama�s campaign has opened up about 700 offices nation-wide versus less than 100 than Senator McCain�s campaign has opened up.
3. The mainstream media has been completely biased against Senator McCain.
4. Biased organizations, such as ACORN, have received contributions from Senator Obama, have been openly supporting Senator Obama, and are under investigation for committing voter registration fraud in multiple states favoring Senator Obama.
5 An enormous number of biased celebrities have been supporting Senator Obama and speaking out against Senator McCain.
6. Even though Congress is very unpopular, both sides are controlled by the democrats and have been making biased statements against Senator McCain.
7. Senator McCain is disadvantaged because of the unpopularity of the incumbent President.
8. All four of the debate moderators lean to the left and were not 100% fair.
Even with all of the biased and unfair things mentioned above that are running against Senator McCain, Senator Obama only has a narrow lead. Should he not be way out in front? I have heard people state that on the news from both campaigns. That should tell you something. Also, Senator Obama pulled a cheap shot on Senator McCain and the American public in regards to campaign financing. Both campaigns agreed to use public financing during the presidential campaign. At the last moment, Senator Obama backed out of his agreement and took private financing, giving Senator Obama a significant advantage over Senator McCain in financing his campaign. In addition, Senator Obama is not being totally open as to where all his contributions are coming from. But even though Senator Obama took a sucker punch and tricked Senator McCain and all Americans by backing out of his agreement, Senator McCain is keeping with his word and using public financing. This is severely disadvantaging Senator McCain�s campaign financing by putting much lower caps on the amount of money he will have available. This is the reason Senator Obama can outspend Senator McCain 4 to 1. This also shows that Senator Obama does not keep his campaign promises, just like his past campaign promises.
Just imagine what it will be like when you have both the House of Representatives and the Senate controlled by the democrats, and Senator Obama in the Whitehouse signing everything that comes across his desk from them. In other words, the person writing the check will also be the one cashing it. There will be no �checks and balances�, especially if the democrats pick up a few more seats in the Senate and it becomes filibuster-proof, which means they will have a monopoly. Again, there will be no checks and balances. We will have higher taxes, more government, and fewer rights. They have already promised all of those things. You will have a government that will tax the people that are creating the jobs so they can �spread the wealth around�. Who do you think creates the jobs in this country? Have you ever seen a business owned by a poor person? Are they the ones starting small businesses and creating jobs? Obviously not! So we have established the fact that the people that own the small businesses and create the jobs are NOT the poor. So lets talk about what is going to happen when they start taxing the people that do own the small businesses that create the jobs.
So what do you think will happen when they start taxing the small business owners? First, jobs will be lost. They will not be able to afford to keep the same amount of people they have now � they will have to let people go. In addition, they will not be able to expand their businesses and hire more people. The second thing that will happen is that prices will go up. Do you think businesses will not raise the cost of their products and services to offset the extra taxes they have to pay? This should be obvious. The prices will go up on everything and will affect everybody � to include the middle class and the poor. When you go to the grocery store, the food prices will be higher. When you go buy a car, the prices will be higher. When you go to the department store the prices are going to be higher. Put yourself in the shoes of a business owner; if your expenses go up, would you not raise the price of your products to pay for them? Of course you would! And taxes are an expense.
Now lets talk about presidential qualifications. When a federal employee or a member of the military has a need to have access to classified materials, they would need to get a security clearance. A security clearance attempts to certify that an individual is of high moral character and does not pose a security risk. If a federal employee or a member of the military admits to using a dangerous drug, such as cocaine, they will not be eligible for a security clearance. In addition, an admitted cocaine user would not be able to get in the military and if he or she is a federal employee, he or she would be moved to a position of lesser responsibility and not have access to classified materials. Senator Obama has admitted to using cocaine in his book that he wrote. As a candidate for president, should he not be held up to the same standards of a federal employee or a member of our military? As President, he is going to be exposed to an enormous amount of classified materials, have his finger on the nuke button, and be the commander in chief of the strongest military in the world. Would you not want someone in that position that can qualify for a security clearance?
Another point I would like to make is in regards to Senator Obama�s experience, which is a drop in the bucket compared to Senator McCain�s. With the world and the economy in such a delicate position, I cannot imagine why anyone would not want the most experienced person in the Whitehouse. Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, and even Senator Obama�s running mate, Senator Joe Biden, have made statements to the fact that Senator Obama is not experienced enough to be President and that the presidency is not the type of job for on-the-job training. They also said that Senator McCain brings a lifetime of experience to the table. Senator Obama�s running mate, Senator Biden, even said he would even be honored to run �with� his friend John McCain. These individuals are now claiming that they said that during the primaries when they were running against Senator Obama. Does that mean they were lying then, or now? Senator Obama claimed that he had more diverse foreign policy experience because he lived overseas as a kid. Living overseas does not give you foreign policy experience, unless you are an Ambassador, which he was not. If it did, then Senator John McCain would again best Senator Obama�s record since he has lived overseas being a member of the military.
What issue or issues are you going to base your voting decision on? Will it be the economy? National defense? Education? There are so many out there. Because of the current economic situation, a large number of you are going to base your decision on who is best for the economy. I would hope that I have answered this question for you earlier on in this article. Such as pointing out which candidate has promised to raise taxes and spend more reducing jobs and raising the cost to live. But just in case I have not, I have a couple additional items for you to think about. If you look at all of the campaign promises on Senator Obama�s web site, you will see hundreds of them. How is he going to pay for them? I think I answered that already. But, if you add of the costs of all of them, mathematically it is going to cost us a lot more than he will be able to raise in taxes. So many of these are going to be just like so many of his previous campaign promises � they won�t get done. Maybe the economy is not the best issue to use in making a decision for president. What about national defense? In my opinion, if you don�t have a secure nation, the rest of the issues are moot. With Russia and China outspending us two fold to build up their military; with Iran and North Korea toying around with nukes and making threats; with Russia making friends and conducting military exercises not too far from our back door in Venezuela; with Russia helping Iran build nuclear processing material plants; and with the terrorist threat growing in Pakistan (a nuclear country), Afghanistan, Africa, and several other countries throughout the world, I want the most experienced and tested person in that office. Not some junior Senator that has absolutely no experience in national security. The economy is important, but national defense is a must. Remember, if our country is not secure, then the economy means nothing, our freedom is in jeopardy, and our lives as we know them today could easily be drastically changed in a moments notice. Just ask the citizens of the country of Georgia. One last point: Have you see who is openly supporting Senator Obama in the news? Iran and the terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah have made public statements that they would prefer Sen. Obama to win. Go figure.
So after reading this, where do you stand? The differences in these two candidates are very apparent. On one hand, you have an individual with many years of applicable �real world� experience, has been a public servant and leader for about 50 years, has a proven record to reduce taxes and government spending, and is dedicated to growing the US economy and jobs. On the other hand, you have an individual with very little experience, questionable associations, has a proven record to increase taxes, government spending, and earmarks, and has promised to increase taxes and government spending. As I said at the beginning of this article, I cannot imagine why anyone in their right mind, after doing a real comparison of the two candidates, would vote for Senator Obama. I admit, he presents himself well and has a good appearance, as long as he has a teleprompter to read from. So the bottom line is what do you want in the next president, appearance or substance?
Chris, I agree you go after the perp, if one is identified and convicted. But what if the perp is never caught? How is it mean spirited to charge an insurance company if the victim is insured?
Reading the law doesn't show anything except the state trying to recoup money from legitimate source. It does seem to have been misconstrued as a way to inflame issues.
Gov Palin has enough real, true negatives to discuss and exploit without resorting to complete fabrications.
"It wasn't Palin who initiated those fees and the state of Alaska didn't go after the rape victims for payment. They went after the victims insurance companies."
The Alaska administration sounds terribly mean spirited to me - and I love the assumption that the victim has insurance! Why not pursue the perpetrator for the fee rather than the victim?
It wasn't Palin who initiated those fees and the state of Alaska didn't go after the rape victims for payment. They went after the victims insurance companies.
It boggles my mind why people have to make up things and spread lies when both parties' candidates have enough real baggage for us to contemplate.
like
dislike
