Palin booed at Flyers game.

Uhmm, this issue with Ayers has been covered before and the public wasn't interested. Remember the primaries?

Kieth didn't say "repent terrorist". He said "reformed" and all indications are he is correct. Ayers has stated that he is against terrorism: "I condemn all forms of terrorism -- individual, group and official". He also condemned the 9-11 attacks: "Today we are witnessing crimes against humanity on our own shores on an unthinkable scale, and I fear that we may soon see more innocent people in other parts of the world dying in response."

It's obvious that McCain and Plain have incited the crowds reactions. They weren't doing this before the campaign started these attacks against Obama. They are responsible and McCain finally realizing this the other day by saying Obama is a decent man and that people don't need to be "scared" of an Obama presidency.

Obama has not made a "career" of associating with "radical characters" any more than McCain has. Or Palin for that matter.

Voting present is an option in the Illinois state senate and the senators use it. It was a small precentage of his votes. It's really a non issue since he has been a US Senator for almost 4 years now.

The economy did very well under Clinton and Obama's plan to repeal Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy would still make them lower than what Clinton had.

I don't see much of a bias towards Obama. The press has long had a great relationship with McCain. At least the McCain of the past. This Ayers story has been headline news recently so I don't see how anyone can accuse them of ignoring this. Plus, remember all the fuss about Rev Wright? Thats as all we heard about for like a month earlier this year.

So McCain is trying to bring Wright up again and some Republicans wonder why more isn't said about it. It's clear why: because we are sick of hearing about it. It's a non issue. The economy is going in the tank! We are in two wars, one of which wasn't neccessary. We have a lot of problems largely because the press, the MSM didn't question the Admin the last eight years and you are saying they should ask Obama more about some non issue. Rididulous.

The slant has been interesting to watch for some time. How do you justify "reporters" who, when talking about the candidates use "McCain" and "Palin" to name one set and "Barack" and "Joe Biden" when referring to the others?

Nancy Pelosi and other power brokers chose Obama from the getgo over Clinton - perhaps because they knew they couldn't manipulate clinton. They may find they can't manipulate Obama either but the fix was in.

The uproar will come after the election - but it will be because of yet another election that will appear tainted thanks to the efforts of groups like Acorn who have registered imaginary voters, registered voters several times and have succeed in court in their quest NOT to require registrations to be checked for accuracy "because there's not enough time before the election".

Ohio will likely be the flashpoint for voter fraud this time.

This election clearly shows the stupidity of having long, drawn out campaigns. We can't seem to run an honest campaign, manage an accurate election, or save our economy. To me, these indicate a society in decline.

I used to think of myself as a liberal and in many ways I am. However, the far left has gone beyond protecting freedoms and now is focused on entitlements.

For middle class Americans of all races and religions, the concern is the economy and the out of control government spending - but we may not be the deciders of this election no matter which candidate we choose.

A close friend of mine (who is black) told me of a conversation she had with some minimum wage workers she is friends with. Their vote is based on "finally getting some of that government money" because they've been told by their ministers and "community groups" that the "reduced taxes" of their candidate includes regular tax rebates to poor people who have never paid taxes in the first place. My friend was disgusted by the talk she heard. She said without exception, the people talking are on food stamps, get health care through Medicaid and know the ins and outs of every "benefit" program.

I've always felt we have an obligation as a society to provide for those who cannot provide for themselves. That does not mean we should educate people on how to take the most for themselves at every turn.

I don't like the election choices I have but I guess we're seeing the truth of getting the government we deserve.

kay

Damn McCain, you can't have it both ways!

I have been attending the same church for over 40 years. They are lucky if they see me once a year.

I am not responsible for what the pastor has been saying. This nonsense about sitting for approximately 20 years in a church does not wash with me because I know how regularly I attend.

If my children need baptism, I will go. If I need to get married, I will go. The rest of the time I have zero idea what is happening at the church, but yet the church will tell you that I am a member in good standing for over 40 years.

Hey Kurt,

OK, let's go one point at a time.

"when is the media going to ask McCain about the Keating 5?"

What's to ask? McCain was found not guilty years ago. This issue was settled. If not, you can believe he would have been booted from congress long ago.

"Or the two very controversial religious connections? I forget the two guys' names, but McCain sought them both out, then denounced them later."

It is no crime to be endorsed by a religious leader. It floors me when so many people cry "Separation of Church & State" as though it had come down from on high.

When Thomas Jefferson wrote those words in a private letter (nothing to do with legislation or government) he was saying that the church should be protected from the intrusion of government on the rights of the church, not the other way around. This communication has been turned inside out and has now become some mantra for the church having no rights within the state. Now people who hold Judao/Christian beliefs are told they have no say, because their beliefs are an unlawful intrusion upon the state. People do not give up their rights because they happen to believe in God.

As for McCain backing off from the endorsements of John Hagee & Rod Parsley, Any campaign wants high profile endorsements, but when he saw the heat Obama was taking for his association with Rev. Wright, McCain wanted no parts of that. But, just because a "Minister" likes your stands on policies and endorses you, that shouldn't reflect on the person being endorsed. Not when those ministers are not your personal spiritual leaders.

McCain had no "personal" knowledge of these ministers. Barack came under fire because he sat in Wright's church for 20 years, and his only response to Wright's hate speech was "Amen".

As for the secessionist group, I really don't know anything about that. I'll have to look into it. But at this point I couldn't speak intellegently on that point. Sorry.

"Not to mention, when will Palin respond about the bipartisan commission concerning "troopergate" that found her guilty of abuse of power"

Haven't you been following the news? Palin was found NOT GUILTY. It was determined that she was perfectly within her rights to dismiss the guy that refused to carry out her orders. I think this ruling came down Friday. It's in the news. (buried for the most part by a biased media). Trust me, if she had been found guilty, it would be front page news in capital letters!

"And if the rep. congress was so great under Clinton, what happened later? We've had republican control of the house/senate for 12 of the past 14 years and a rep. president for the past 8, and you want to give credit to the rep. during the Clinton years and no part of the blame during the Bush years?"

If you will remember, the economy was on the decline as Clinton left office. Bush inherited that. And even after all that and 9/11, Bush still managed to bring the economy back from the brink, with record low unemployment and the stock market rebounding into never before reached highs.

As I said earlier, the Clinton admin prospered because the Republican run Congress held Clinton in check on his spending and put laws in place that caused prosperity to bloom.

I am a fiscal conservative and I said before there are many things I haven't agreed with Bush on. The first 4 years in office, Bush never vetoed a single spending bill to cross his desk from the Republican controlled congress. The Republicans betrayed their promise to the American people and spent like Democrats! They paid for that mistake. And there is plenty of blame that can fall at Bush's feet. (Surprised you that I said that?)

I will make a prediction, though. If Obama does win the White House, the next Congressional election will see the Republicans back in the majority. My reasoning for that statement is because historically, whichever party holds the White House, Americans have choosen the opposite party to control congress. It would seem the public's way of balancing the power. (my take on it, anyway)

"Republicans had their chance and they blew it. It's too bad the dems have been left such a big mess, they'll never be judged fairly. Bush had a $400 billion surplus...Look at what's left for the dems."

I agree, the Republicans did blow it, and hopefully have learned their lesson. As for the Dems being left with a big mess, they have only compounded the mess since they took control of congress. Congressional approval ratings are at an all time low. Lower ratings than even Georgie's!

Dems want/need the economy to fail. That will put Obama in the White House for sure. But, that's unforgivable! Nancy Pelosi dismissed congress and turned out the lights on the Republicans when they wanted to discuss taking control of our energy dependance by voting to drill offshore. Nancy wouldn't even allow the issue to come up on the house floor. She is letting partisanship get in the way of America's best interests. Dems won't even consider altenative energy measures. No to New drilling, No to new, much needed refinery's (no new ones since the Carter admin), No to nucular power, No to anything that will help the economy or the American people.

Well, I'm at the end of your post. I think I've covered everything. I'm a Real Estate Appraiser in my offline business and I have to finish typing one in. As slow as this market has been, I need to complete the few appraisals I do get in a timely fashion. (My income was 1/3 less last year than the year before. My reason for looking to online profits to suppliment my income.)

So you see, I don't care if it's Democrats or Republicans, we are all Americans that are hurting in this present economy. Some bi-partican cooperation would be refreshing, don't you think? I don't see it happening and that is what disgusts me. Sure we all have our differences, but we have our commonality, too. We should play to our strengths. Will we be able to ease off of the finger-pointing long enough to solve our problems, together? We do need that, and we need a plan of action that will pull our economy out of the tank.

Unfortunately, in my opinion, the Obama plan will tank the economy even further. He has grand plans, but where if the funding going to come from? THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO MONEY! It's funding comes from us, and ALL of our taxes are going to have to be raised to pay for his plan. Not just the rich. It will trickle down to us all.

You know, that's how the income tax was passed into law in the first place. The promise was, only the rich will have to pay. That sounded good to the average Joe. He said, "Hell, I'm not rich, so it won't effect me. Besides, those nasty rich people deserve to pay. Who do they think they are, with all that money and I have so little?" But, as you can plainly see, it's not just the rich who have to pay. The government has it's hands in all our pockets. The same will happen with the Obama plan. The line that classifies "Rich" will quickly drop lower and lower to pay for his vision.

Well, I've rambled on enough. I really have to go. I'm sure this will generate more comment. I'll check back tomorrow to see what I've missed.

You take care, Kurt. We're all in this together.

Adam

Down and dirty? What does that mean? The relationship between Obama and Ayers for example has been thoroughly looked into. You may not like the results and will no doubt claim media bias, but the truth is the media likes a good story if there's one there. The New York Times, The Washington Post, Time magazine, The Chicago Sun-Times, The New Yorker and The New Republic have said that their reporting doesn't support the idea that Obama and Ayers had a close relationship.

Exactly what are you looking for in this relationship? I mean, Obama has thoroughly denounced Ayers actions in the past, Ayers isn't a terrorist anymore and denounces terrorism and the public as "a whole" doesn't care.

Did you realise that McCain supported the Contras in the 80s? Or is that a terrorist organization you approve of? Oh yeh, Reagan said they were "freedom fighters" and I'm sure McCain thought the same, but lets take a closer look at this and see where McCain's past stands as far as terrorists is concerned because when it comes to terrorism the Contras were as brutal as anyone:

This is the organization that McCain contributed money to. If you want to look into "down and dirty" connections look into the Iran Contra scandal. Lets continue with some more eyewitness acounts of Contra terrorism:

A congressional committee confirmed at the time that the Contras "raped, tortured and killed unarmed civilians, including children" and that "groups of civilians, including pregnant women and children were burned, dismembered, blinded and beheaded."

I remember reading about all this back in the wonderful Reagan years. Maybe you are too young to remember.

Here's some of the testimony of Father John Metcalf:

Lets just recap what the Iran Contra scandal involved here for a minute: The Congress of the US passed a law forbidding the US government from supporting the Contras effort to overthrow the elected goverment of Nicaragua. The white house basically conspired to work around this problem by getting involved in drug running ( bringing drugs into the US ), selling arms to Iran ( whom the US classified as a terrorist country) and used the money from both these activities to fund the Contras. The Contras used this money to terrorize the people of Nicaragua.

THAT is what I call "DOWN and DIRTY" Adam.

Now, don't you feel a little embarrased about what the real terrorist supporting ( Contras and Iran ), drug running supporting, law breaking enthusiast McCain was actually, compared to these idiotic guilty by association charges being brought against Obama? Be honest.

I mean, if you can find evidence that Obama gave Ayers money to support his bombings like McCain did with the Contras, then I will listen. I think Obama would have had to save his allowance for a few months to support Ayers since he was eight at the time.

OK, here's some more down and dirty connections McCain has:

McCain supporter G. Gordon Liddy, convicted felon and mastermind of the Watergate breakins and coverup, once said on his radio show:

Last year Mccain went on his show and said:

What a maverick that John McCain is. Yes, to have a friend like G. Gordon Liddy is truely being a maverick.

Adam, I could go on but I think you see my point. McCain has way more "down and dirty" connections than Obama. The difference? Obama doesn't bring these up. Funny guy. He likes to talk about the economy, health care, the wars, education and other minor details of this country.

Well, there I have two fine examples of what I was saying, don't I?

And why don't they win? Because of the wonderful coverage they get from the media? The media loved to talk about Ron Paul until it was realized that he was getting a mass of followers and people were liking him real well. Then they blacked him out. Is that the way you like your elections decided for you?

How can a candidate win when people refuse to look at them just because they think they can't win - self fulfilling prophecy. They could win every bit as easily as the major two if everyone who does not WANT one of the major two would look them over and consider which of ALL candidates they like best - not just A. or B.

No. If you have looked at ALL candidates, and he is your favorite - then that is who you should vote for. If you have neglected other candidates are are voting for Obama just as the lesser of two evils, you are guilty. Only you can answer that one.

Gee - I guess you weren't in this forum when I along with many others were all very enthused about Ron Paul. Too bad, we could have used more enraged citizens hammering the media about cutting off his coverage. That should be an important issue even if you don't want a candidate - they should still have the right to equal air time. If we can't see that Obama/McCain are both choices that were made for us by the trend of media coverage alone, then we are blind and stupid and deserve anything we get.

And don't forget money - look where the campaign funds are coming from for the major two. You want your President elected because he had more corporate funds at his disposal? You are looking for a closet fascist.

Of course all of the rigging against Ron Paul (probably generally known rigging by this time - vote fraud, media blackout, the shut down of the Nevada convention, etc. - a few which he has already successfully sued for) finally put him out of the race, so now I think the best choice is Baldwin. I don't agree with everything he says, but 80% gets it for me. I don't approve in laws against abortion made by men at all - they have no empathetic reference point. I also don't agree with him having an attorney as a running mate. We need to get attorneys back out of our House, which is saying "restore constitutional law".
I also like Ralph Nader and wouldn't be upset to see him in the Oval office - which beats how I feel about either McCain or Obama.

The case that a third party can't win is just a circular argument and bears no basis in logic. People don't vote third party because it's a "wasted" vote - yet it is only a "wasted" vote because people won't vote third party. They have been very good at instilling this idea into us - just as you suggest by calling a third party "fantasy" voting. How the hell do you think we got the Republican party and Abraham Lincoln?

Kim...

Remember, these are Philly fans. They booed Santa at an Eagles football game a few years back. They're so sad, they are actually funny.

Obama is not a muslim. If he is, it is not a crime to be a muslim. Muslims pray at least five times a day. It is up to God to decide whom he wants in his kingdom. I wish I prayed at least even once a day.

I am so tired of all this hatred against innocent Americans that do not have the same religion as our selves.

We did this nonsense to Japanese and put them away during the second world war??

Geesh, so much BS within one paragraph. You are amazingly uninformed and gullible on Obama, Sal. Not surprising though. It would be nice if once in a while you got something right. I mean, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

You are right about both his parents not living in the US now. That's because they are BOTH DEAD! lol.

He isn't Muslim, most of his donations haven't come from questionable foreign sources, there is absolutely no question about his birth certificate being authentic ( which was never brought to court ), and Obama didn't come from an "elite" family.