Um, I would like to point out that the Newsmax story is false...

[loveangelc]

Newsmax says:
Presidential candidate Barack Obama preaches on the campaign trail that America needs a new consensus based on faith and bipartisanship, yet he continues to attend a controversial Chicago church whose pastor routinely refers to "white arrogance" and "the United States of White America."

In fact, Obama was in attendance at the church when these statements were made on July 22.

but are we really to believe he went to church this day and then immediately went to an invent in Miami to speak at 1:30?
http://www.nclr.org/section/events/conference/about_conference1/confhigh/speakertalent

your welcome.

as someone going into journalism, I would hope most people are smart enough to not believe whatever "news source" they encounter, but I see that is no the case.

Newsmax also spread the story of Bill raping his wife to impregnate Hillary, that Hillary was a lesbian, that Bill Clinton repeatedly says the N-word, etc etc. so I don't know why Hillary supporters would genuinely believe this source.

I mean, if we are now allowed to use Newsmax stories, we should be allowed to post these "scandals" too...?

[ingac70]

1. I will be kicking this all day...

Thanks!

[ingac70]

136. Kick.

[Catherina]

2. You're terrific. Another smear debunked! K&R n/t

[CreekDog]

3. his speech was in Miami was 12:30-2:30 Chicago time

you are righter than you imagined. :hi:

[Virginian]

107. That's backwards. 1:30EDT = 12:30CDT

The sun rises in the east. Miami is further east than Chicago.

I don't know what time the church service was, but it takes time to get to the airport and time to fly to Miami and time to drive to the location of the Miami event.
Even with a private jet, it doesn't seem easy.

[CreekDog]

116. no it's not backwards, i was in agreement with you

the speech in Miami was 130-330 EDT
which means it was 1230-230 CDT

and one source doesn't have him in Chicago at all on Sunday, has him going directly from Iowa to Miami then to South Carolina.

the other source has him in Chicago but with no details.

[Virginian]

120. Sorry, I misunderstood your post.

I thought you were saying that 2:30 in Chicago was 12:30 in Miami.
Down thread, they say the service was at 6:00 pm.

[MidwestTransplant]

126. Yes but it doesn't say that he DIDN'T stop in Chicago to go to Church

so how do we know he didn't? :)

[CreekDog]

129. we don't KNOW he didn't, but that's a lot different than KNOWING HE DID

i hate when we have to go over elementary logic. :eyes:

[MidwestTransplant]

135. I hate it when I have to go over elementary sarcasm

[papau]

200. Will Obama ask Secret Service to release 7/22 itinerary to show not in both Miami and Chicago?

It is not clear whether he might have been able to attend church in Chicago to hear Wrights hate speech before or after flying to Miami for his appearance at the National Council of La Raza.

A writer, Jim Davis, says he attended several services at Senator Obama's church during the month of July, including July 22. The church holds services three times every Sunday at 7:30 and 11 a.m. and 6 p.m. Central time. While both the early morning and evening service allowed Sen. Obama to attend the service and still give a speech in Miami, Mr. Davis stands by his story that during one of the services he attended during the month of July, Senator Obama was present and sat through the sermon given by Rev. Wright as described in the Davis story. Mr. Davis said Secret Service were also present in the church during Senator Obama's attendance. Mr. Davis' story was first published on Newsmax on August 9, 2007. Shortly before publication, Mr. Davis contacted the press office of Sen. Obama several times for comment about the Senator's attendance and Rev. Wright's comments during his sermon. The Senator's office declined to comment.

[JeffR]

4. A Newsmax story, false?

Surely the day of tribulation is at hand for those simpletons who insist on using such crap-on-a-stick as the ironclad source for the chicken-tripe they post here.

Oh, the humanity.

[CreekDog]

122. oh noes, they are not a reliable source???

but i always cross check them against Drudge and... :eyes:

[thewiseguy]

5. Trolls who get their news from Hannity and Freerepublic must be banned from this site

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

6. The NEWSMAX postings were a real embarassment.

[Tropics_Dude83]

7. Don't forget we've been infiltrated by Freepers more than likely

[rhett o rick]

206. Yes we have and we can smell them a mile away. nm

[drobert_bfm]

147. Actually...

The Newsmax postings weren't really an embarrassment. That would imply that they actually give a damn about factual accuracy. What IS an embarrassment is Kristol and the fact that the NYT hasn't yet seen fit to fire him. The NYT has, in the past, given a damn about factual accuracy; so it's really them that should feel embarrassed for actually printing a NEWSMAX story.

But then again, doesn't Drudge rule their world?

[donheld]

8. Obama's going to be an amazing President. I mean look

He can be in Chicago for what an 11 am(cst) service
then be in Miami at 1:30 pm (est). He's fucking magic.

[Cha]

196. As long we have to parse this shit..

It can't hurt to Indiana Bama leading the charge!

[anamandujano]

9. Never heard of private jets, huh?

You may not have read that during this primary season the candidates have even been in several states in a day.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[loveangelc]

11. give it up please.

[anamandujano]

13. Just a guess but they probably have him on tape at some time

doing what the guy said he was doing, i.e., nodding in approval.

We haven't seen the last of these tapes.

[DerekJ]

16. you are a sad person indeed

[dkf]

20. You wish! You have nothing but ill will for the man hmm?

[loveangelc]

23. again...give it up.

why don't you buy a bunch of tapes and look through them all if its such an important issue to you?

your obsession on bringing him down by any means is quite sad.

[anamandujano]

39. I wouldn't waste money on that crap. I didn't even watch them at

youtube for free.

Make no mistake, all the papers and all the TV stations have bought them and are looking to scoop the others with the newest gem.

They will be doing the work. I'll just stay tuned, as will you.

[loveangelc]

46. yes, I'm sure you'll be glued to Fox News for the next few weeks.

[anamandujano]

53. I pulled the plug on cable way over 5 years ago. I get nauseous

just hearing the names O'Reilly and Hannity.

Having said that, they have just dropped a bomb and Bama is bye bye, sooner rather than later.

[Name removed]

176. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tigervalentine]

184. A brief interruption here . . .

the correct word is "nauseated." That which nauseates you is nauseous. If that's too complicated for you, let me know and I'll try to simplify.

[Divine Discontent]

187. but people do say, more so, that they feel nauseous, not - I feel nauseated. eom

[tigervalentine]

204. Those who say it

are wrong.

That--misuse--is how our language changes for the worst.

[Catherina]

31. Hree's the tape they have of all that nodding

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEITOQfKVmo

[me b zola]

137. Thank you for the link to 'Feminists for Obama'

Could you help me remember how to put a link in my sig line? The only other time I had done it was when ABC was running that hidious smear against Bill Clinton and I (with the help of other DUers) put a link in my sig line to google bomb the truth.

[Catherina]

159. Here you go

[center][link:www.ipetitions.com/petition/NYfeministsforpeace/index.html|Feminists
for Obama][/center]

:hi:

[me b zola]

171. Thank you!

:hi:

[Catherina]

180. You're welcome. Thanks for spreading the word

:hi:

[misanthrope]

58. How can you be sure?...

...Don't "they all look alike?"

[mckeown1128]

132. I knew there was someone I forgot to ignore...

i have no time for Newsmax loving Clinton supporters.

[stillcool]

156. Wishing and hoping and pleading and begging...

won't make it so. Maybe there is another black person in Obama's past that spoke about slavery, Black History, or our government's culpability with oppressing people all over the globe.

[Drunken Irishman]

27. Let's look at this logically, please.

The service was at 11 a.m. Chicago time, which is CST. That would be noon Miami time (EST). Now we'll say Obama spent a half hour at his service and it ended at 11:30 a.m. -- or 12:30 Miami time. Obama leaves his church shortly after and then has to drive to O'Hare, which is about 30 minutes away from his church. So he'd arrive there, if he was lucky, at noon Chicago time, which is 1:00 Miami time. That would give him 30 minutes to fly from Chicago to Miami, arrive at Miami International Airport, drive to whever this place was and then speak to a crowd at 1:30.

He's good, but he ain't that good.

[Drachasor]

32. There's a 7:30 service, or do we know he supposedly attended the 11:30

Even so, he still doesn't have enough time. Services are 2 and a half hours long.

[DerekJ]

48. hehehe

"He's good, but he ain't that good." :rofl:

[krawhitham]

52. Wright gave his service at 6:00pm on the 22nd

http://www.tucc.org/store/index.cfm?action=moreinfo&pid=5945


One the 22nd
Anthony Burnette, Jr. gave the 7:30 am service
Otis B. Moss III gave the 11:00am service
Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. gave the 6:00pm service

[jackson_dem]

63. delete

[Garbo 2004]

119. And newsmax's "freelance correspondent" specifically stated it was a "Sabbath morning" service he

attended in which he claimed he saw both Wright preaching and Obama attending. According to what you posted, that was simply not possible.

[Drachasor]

29. Let's do the math on that! (Gives him half an hour to get to and from the airports)

The earliest service time begins at 7:30 am, and according to their website it is 2:30 hours. That brings us to 10:00am

http://www.convertunits.com/distance/from/Chicago/to/Miami,FL
The distance from Chicago to Miami is 1,187 miles. That's about a 2 hour flight.

So that brings us up to 12:00 am.

So you are saying that he managed to get through traffic in time to do this? (To say nothing of security measures and making NO plans for delays?)

[Drachasor]

34. Update: Saturday, 21st at 7pm he gave a Speech in Des Moines Iowa

http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/October-2007/Wheres-Obama/
And note, this website records him going from Iowa to Florida directly.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/tracker/dates/2007/jul/21/

[ekwhite]

80. You forgot that Chicago is on Central Time

10:00 AM Chicago time is 11:00 AM Miami time, which puts him in the airport at 1:00 PM, not even counting getting to and from the airport

[Drachasor]

179. I forgot to mention it, but I didn't forget it. 12pm Central is 1pm Eastern, 30 minutes travel time

[earthlover]

61. Uh...that's an hour and a half real time...to get to the airport, get parked, fly, get your ride,

go to the next speech through traffic.

Think. Things. Through.

[ekwhite]

77. LOL

You do realize that it is 1190 miles from Chicago to Miami, right? You realize that 11:00 AM in Chicago is Noon in Miami? Unless Obama has a Star-Trek style transporter stashed in the church basement, there is no way he could make it. Nothing short of an SR71 Blackbird could make it from Chicago to Miami in 30 minutes, and that doesn't even account for the time required to get to the airport.

[ExPatLeftist]

79. Do you believe in time travel?

Despite your willful ignorance and lame excuses about "several states" anyone can see that those times are simply impossible.

But then since you are making (or supporting) a positive assertion, then it is yours to prove.

Please go to a church service in Chicago that STARTS at 11:00 and be AT an event in Miami, Florida by 1 1/2 hours after the START of that service.

I dare ya.

BTW It may be difficult as the average flight time from Chicago to Miami is 3 hours. So, if the church service was 1 minute long, he did not have to travel to the airport from the church, his plane had zero wait for takeoff, he did not have to travel to the event from the airport in Miami, AND his plane was somehow twice as fast as the average jet, THEN and only then is your explanation possible. Which is another way of saying that it is not.

What a sad day when members of DU try to defend a NewsMax story.

[LSK]

134. you never heard of Chicago traffic huh???

:shrug:

[Nia Zuri]

143. Worm holes?

[stillcool]

153. Hard to let go isn't it?

Don't worry. You'll find some other Black man to persecute in order to garner a few votes.

[tammywammy]

167. So you choose to believe a Newsmax story

Over common sense that logically he couldn't have been there. :crazy:

[Name removed]

169. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Grinchie]

172. Tell us more Anam

Tell us more about Peter Paul and Hilary Clinton oh wise one.

That story at least smells a lot like corruption at the highest levels in comparison to some "Firebrand" cleric.

[jobycom]

12. Newsmax and Drudge also convinced a lot of Dems that Hillary is a conservative.

Some of us watched this happen, although even some who saw it didn't understand it. Newsmax and Drudge would blast headlines like "Clinton supports flag burning ban" or "Clinton wants to ban violent video games." These headlines and misleading stories would be blasted all over the net, including here on DU. By the time the more detailed stories came out with the truth, the Newsmax and Drudge headlines had already convinced people of their lies, and since these stories always hit sites like this one and started angry debates, most people think they learned about Clinton being a conservative on liberal web sites, not understanding the true source of the lie.

Same with the IWR. When it was voted on, many people saw it as a chance to stop Bush from invading Iraq. That was discussed a lot around here. But Drudge and Newsmax and others, after the war became less popular, just repeated over and over that Hillary had "voted for the war." The truth was too complicated to fit on a bumper sticker, so the lie stuck. Obama, even though he knows better, even makes that accusation.

So yeah, I don't believe any crap Newsmax or Drudge puts out to smear a Democrat. Even one I'm not voting for. And I won't encourage belief in a lie even if it helps my candidate. Unlike Obama, sadly.

[anamandujano]

15. Thank you. The people complaining about Newsmax now are often

spouting talking points against Bill and Hillary that were hatched there.

[guruoo]

56. You just beat me to it. n/t

Where they get their fav off the RW rack smear material, appairently.
:hi:

[Name removed]

170. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JAbuchan08]

66. So Hillary didn't vote for the IWR?

I wasn't aware of that.

[ekwhite]

82. Gee - the IWR vote was a Newsmax rumor?

Gee - there isn't a speech on C-Span about that or anything. :sarcasm:

[JAbuchan08]

89. I don't know if Hillary ever sought to ban a video game

but I thought that the flag-burning thing and the IWR vote were actual Clinton votes (I think she sponsored the flag-burning bill) and not "freeper rumors."

It's quite difficult for some of these people to differentiate legitimate criticism from rumors from the Drudge report.

[jobycom]

105. Well, you're wrong in exactly the ways they want you to be wrong.

Clinton was a leader of the opposition against the flag burning amendment, as Bill Clinton had been, but it was gaining steam. As you may remember, it ultimately missed going to the states for ratification by one vote, and since Clinton voted against it, she could have sent it to the states for ratification if she had wanted it passed.

The "flag burning bill" that Drudge smeared her with was a bill introduced by opponents of the amendment, who knew how close it was to passing. Some Republicans, some Democrats co-sponsored the bill, including Barbara Boxer and some other big liberal names no one accuses of being DINOs. That's probably one reason Boxer is supporting Clinton--she knows the truth, and has seen the smears. Robert Bennett, the chief Senate Republican opponent of the bill, was the sponsor.

Anyway, the bill was an attempt to remove an argument supporting the amendment. Republicans were claiming that without the amendment, no laws against flag burning could be made, including laws against burning private property, against burning publicly-owned flags displayed at public monuments (for instance, the flags around the Washington Monument), or from burning flags to intimidate people, as with cross burnings.

So several opponents of the flag-burning amendment co-sponsored this bill to undermine the Republican arguments, and the bill did exactly what the Republicans said couldn't be banned--it banned burning publicly owned flags, privately owned flags, or flag-burnings meant to intimidate a person or group, rather than as a political protest.

Again, if that bill was a sellout, then Barbara Boxer is a sellout.

Here's a link on how close it came to passing, and the mood of the Senate beforehand. The article mentions Robert Bennett's bill as an attempt to head of the amendment. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-06-12-senate-flag-amendment_x.htm

ANd another, from a progressive web site, with quotes from Bennett: http://thinkprogress.org/?tag=flag+burning

Did it work? Well, the amendment failed by one vote, so who knows? But Google Clinton and flag burning and most of what you will see are words like "pandering," or "triangulating," with a couple of articles that actually tell the real story. Those words were inspired by Newsmax and Drudge headlines and slanted stories, and that's exactly what my other post was talking about. A lot of liberals believe a lot of lies about Clinton, just as they believed them about Gore in 2000. And they are lies--part of a strong Republican campaign to undermine Clinton in the Democratic Party. As with the lies against Bill Clinton, and the lies about Al Gore, and the lies about Kerry, in another five years liberals will be livid that the Republicans did that. But as in past cases, too many Democrats are gullible enough to let it happen.

[JAbuchan08]

111. Then I would have to say Boxer sold out on that one too

so I'm not inconsistent.

BTW it also banned the burning of flags on "government property" presumably in order to limit the degree to which hat tactic was used to protest government actions.

[jobycom]

160. Wrong

It banned the burning of government flags owned by the government on government property. And every sponsor and co-sponsor of the bill was a vocal flag-burning amendment opponent. This is why liberals lose. They don't understand the issues, so they are easily fooled on the solutions. That's what I see in Obama, too, which is why I didn't vote for him. He's a neophyte trying to attain the most complex job in the world.

[JAbuchan08]

185. So you don't like liberals now?

the issue is that we have a problem standing up for what we believe, so we end up with "compromises" like the IWR. Centrists would do a lot of good to listen to liberals. Centrists voted for the IWR, according to you, on the theory that it was the only thing which could stop GWB. It didn't stop him, plus it gave the Bushies something to hammer centrists about the head with for 6 years.

Did they really think that it would be easier to stop him, by voting to give him the power to go to war in Iraq conditional upon his judgement? He may have believed he already had that power, but (in my view) it didn't help any to codify it.

Centrists lose anyways, yet they act as if they have a record of winning. Why is this? Maybe if liberals weren't always undercut by the centrists, and conservatives we could get somewhere.

It reminds me of Noam Chomsky's Objectivity in Liberal thought in which he details the "failure" of revolutionaries in pre-WWII Spain (according to "liberal" scholars), which referred to "failures" as if they were the fault of the revolutionaries and not the fascists who opposed them and the elites who undermined them.

So when you speak of liberal "failures" I feel what you are recognizing is not the failure of liberals, but the undermining of the liberal philosophy by the so-called "pragmatists" around them, but maybe I'm an idealist.

It seems however, that our concessions to "pragmatism" are only destroying us, unless you see success in fighting the right wing over the last eight years. I don't.

So again, when centrist start "winning" maybe then they can begin to lecture liberals on "losing"

[jobycom]

92. She voted to restrict Bush's authority to wage war

It failed, but without the IWR, we'd have gone to war sooner, so it's obvious it wasn't a "vote for war." In fact, when you run across someone, including a certain presidential candidate, who claims it was a vote for war, you can be sure they either don't understand what was happening, or they are lying for their own purposes.

A lot of people jumped on this issue late in the game, or didn't follow or understand it at the time. Bush was claiming he could invade at any time, without Congressional approval--or more accurately, based on resolutions Congress had already ratified against Iraq. The Republican-controlled Congress had no intentions of stopping him. Some Democrats, and other people who opposed the war, like Wesley Clark, thought that if they could make Bush go the UN, they might be able to derail him. They crafted a resolution that the Republicans would allow that put as many roadblocks up as possible. They were weak restrictions, and some Democrats opposed the IWR because they were unlikely to succeed, and would have the negative impact of giving Congressional backing if they failed to stop Bush. (I was against its passage, too, for that reason). But that was about symbolism, and Democrats like Clinton and Kerry (not Edwards, who was a gung-ho supporter of the invasion) were more into giving us a chance to stop the invasion than into symbolism. Even Obama later said he might have voted for the IWR if he'd been in Congress, understanding that it was a complicated issue.

Clinton's later actions bear out that she was against the invasion. While making some statements wishing the troops success, she never, that I've seen, praised Bush for Iraq or praised the war in Iraq, and she was a constant critic of Bush's handling of the war in Congress from the beginning. She led in the fight against no-bid Halliburton contracts, on giving the troops better supplies, on criticizing Bush's lack of a plan. That's why Newsmax and Drudge tried to paint her as a war supporter, and a flip-flopper. The blueprint had been laid in 2000 with Gore, they just used it on Clinton.

There's been a ton of revisionism, inspired by those who want to believe the swiftboating of Clinton, or by particular campaigns trying to make mileage. Clark supporters try to claim he wanted some resolution, but not the IWR. This overlooks the fact that Clark endorsed the IWR the evening before its vote in the House. Obama has since pretended he never made his comments, and acts like he believes Clinton voted for the war--something he understands to be false. Read his comments about having to play games and say things that aren't true on the Daily Show, and understand that Clinton's IWR vote is exactly what he was talking about.

Mostly there's just a lot of ignorance. People who weren't paying attention at the time, or didn't understand the issues, mistakenly believe Clinton voted for war. It wasn't that simple. Some people voted for the IWR because they thought it helped Bush, some because it restricted Bush. Like any compromise, it had the potential to do both. But it was the best, the only, chance to stop Bush. The Republicans wouldn't have passed anything stopping Bush's war, and Bush had sold the public on the link to 9-11. The public was behind him.

It was also a trap laid by the Republicans. If Congress passed nothing, Bush would invade and claim the Democrats never tried to stop him. If the Democrats passed something, Bush could claim they gave him authority. If the Dems tried to pass something stronger, the Republican leadership wouldn't even bring it up for a vote. Rove knew what he was doing, and the Democrats had no power to do anything about it.

And again, just to be plain. I opposed the IWR, even though I understood what was going on. I respect people like Kennedy and Boxer who voted against it more for doing so. But I'm not going to blast people who tried to do something different. It didn't cost us anything--Bush was going to invade with or without a resolution, and there was no doubt of that. Bill Clinton and Wesley Clark both saw the IWR as the last chance to stop Bush from invading. So did Hillary. They were right, too, even though it really wasn't much of a chance.

--------------

Here's the Obama comment I'm talking about. He was talking about debates and why politics is so insane: "So we're preparing and one of my staff said, 'The thing you've got to understand is, this isn't on the level.' And I think that really strikes to what people are frustrated with in politics, is that so much of what we talk about, so much of what we say, it's not true, people know it's not true, all the insiders understand that we're just game-playing and in the meantime you've got these hugely serious problems, which are true."

[JAbuchan08]

112. Well it didn't seem to have worked

I guess it wasn't a very good idea to authorize the original WOT either, but having already done that, why provide GW with his fig leaf. I would have liked to see George Bush go to war without the IWR. I don't think it would have happened.

[jobycom]

150. I agree with you on most of that, but the fact remains that she did NOT

vote to go to war.

And Bush would have invaded without the IWR, make no mistake. I was in Austin while he was running, and I saw who he chose as his advisors. Rather, I saw what group chose him. The people--Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc--who chose Bush to run as their candidate were all the ones trying to get Clinton to overthrow Hussein and the Taliban in 1998. Bush was elected to go to war, in other words, as the Clintons and Wesley Clark and other insiders knew well. That's why Clinton tried to undercut him. She thought a slim chance was better than none. I guess Kennedy figured the slim chance was no chance, and just didn't want his name on it.

[JAbuchan08]

186. Maybe they felt, like I did that the WOT vote (allowing Bush to persue terrorists wherever)

already gave him the power to make war in Iraq, so they didn't see the point in being signatories to a fig leaf for his next invasion.

I guess I occassionally fall into the trap of thinking that the Democrats have the strength (and/or the wisdom) to do anything worthwhile. So maybe it was wishfull thinking to believe that, despite the authorization for the WOT, another war could be prevented by voting against the IWR.

In either case I don't see Hillary Clinton as helping matters, maybe I am harsh, maybe I have the benefit of looking at it from the outside looking in, but I have a severe difficulty in believing that pragmatism which achieves nothing is better than the principles that it undercuts.

[pnwmom]

165. Like you, I also opposed the passage of the IWR, but not because

I was so much more brilliant than the Senators who voted for it. I knew they had logical reasons for hoping that it would work -- I was just more suspicious, basically, than they were. But I also wasn't being spoonfed the scariest CIA reports, and no one was setting me up for meetings with Colin Powell.

Your post is great, by the way. Sometimes, I've felt that I was the only DUer who remembered any of this. Glad to see you here!

[jobycom]

177. I know that feeling.

I remember long discussions on the subject, and wonder what happened to all of us discussing it. Glad two of us are left. I try to explain that most times around here, and people act like I just praised Reagan or something.

[pnwmom]

194. I've explained it so many times here to people who then acted like I was crazy,

that I was almost beginning to wonder if I'd imagined it -- except that I found articles on the web that backed up my memories.

Hang in there, and I'll try, too!

:hi:

[pnwmom]

144. That's not what the poster said. What WAS discussed on DU at the time,

but most people seem to have forgotten it now, are the various reasons put forth for a progressive to consider voting for the resolution.

In October 2002, Bush had already gotten a written opinion from his attorney general that said he could go into Iraq without any authorization from Congress. Biden and Chuck Hagel were among a number of Dems who were alarmed at the precedent that would set -- that a President could take us to war with no authorization. (And the only possible consequence being a toothless impeachment with no conviction, since the Rethugs in the Senate would have voted against it.) So Biden and Hagel went to the White House to craft a COMPROMISE IWR.

This compromise IWR gave Bush less than what he wanted, since his preferred version would have allowed him to enter any country in the Middle East (Hagel says, in the world) at any time, without any conditions. The compromise version that was hammered out restricted him to Iraq and attempted to set preconditions.

As it was, Bush violated the preconditions. On the other hand, he has not invaded any country other than Iraq, and it is likely that he would have done so but for the IWR. If he had invaded the IWR, it was at least possible that he would lose support of enough Rethugs to face not only impeachment but conviction, and he hasn't been willing to chance that. So far.

[jobycom]

161. Thanks. Much better than summary. nt

[proud2BlibKansan]

100. Well, Hillary is not very progressive

I wouldn't call her conservative but she is certainly more conservative than most of the Dems I know. Hence, the reason we don't support her.

As for the IWR, Hillary DID vote for it. I don't understand your point there.

[jobycom]

109. She is very progressive, and her voting record is more progressive than Obama's

But everyone "knows" that she's not because of Newsmax and Drudge.

The gullibility of Democrats is why we have Bush instead of Gore, and I'm worried it will be why we will have McCain rather than Obama or Clinton. Once the media stops pushing Obama--after the convention, of course--how many Dems are going to fall for their smears of him? Hell, they already are falling for it, over this whole pastor nonsense. What happens when Drudge points out that Obama voted for the Iraq war (by voting against troop withdrawal) the first chance he got to when he got to the Senate? Are the "progressives" going to turn on him?
Most want, but you watch--many will.

[proud2BlibKansan]

130. I don't read Newsmax or Drudge

Read up on the philosophy of the DLC, why it was founded. They wanted to silence the populist voice within the Democratic party. Populism is progressive. Hillary and Bill were early DLC members. That's NOT progressive.

Voting for war is NOT progressive.

Making people pay for health insurance is NOT progressive.

Alienating grassroots support is NOT progressive.

If you want to compare Hillary to McCain you can call her more progressive than he is. But you can also call Hillary conservative when you compare her to Kucinich or even Edwards. But she is NOT progressive. She wants to be, but she isn't.

Find one progressive group that has endorsed her. Good luck.

[jobycom]

158. You get there message from DU, where it is repeated.

And when Kucinich and Edwards do something for the progressive movement, let me know. I don't care about words, I want something done, and if it's only a little, it's better than the sum total of nothing.

[proud2BlibKansan]

163. And what has Hillary done?

Here's her record. Find me something significant.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?&Db=d109&querybd=@BANDNOT(@FIELD(FLD003+@1(01631))+@FIELD(FLD008+(m)))

[jobycom]

178. She did what she had the power to do.

She pushed Bush on Halliburton, on troop equipment, on Katrina, on SCOTUS appointments. Until last year we didn't have the power to wipe our noses. While Edwards ran around unemployed trying to pretend he was against the war (despite the fact that he was originally more gung-ho than Miller or Lieberman) and trying to get elected, Clinton did what she could to address the issues she could do something about.

I've got no beef with Kucinich. I was one of the first ones here to start "Kucinich for President" sigs, back in his early "Prayer for America" days. But he can't win if he only plays to 10% of the populace. You have to get 50% + 1 to win. Some of that you win by sticking to your guns, but a lot of it you win by giving voters what they are happy with, while compromising enough to steer legislation your way. Kucinich is actually pretty good at this in the House, but he doesn't campaign that way.

Being progressive to me means working for what you want, not angrily stating what you want and then feeling all smug and happy while you watch the world burn from your couch at home. Too many progressive candidates act like that. I want a candidate who can get their hands dirty.

[proud2BlibKansan]

195. Did you even bother to list the bills she has proposed?

Read that list then get back to me and tell me that she did what she could. If that is all she can do, then we need to reduce her salary.

[krispos42]

It's quite obvious what happened...

Obama misapproprated Defense Department funds to have an SR-71 Blackbird waiting for him in the church parking lot. Seconds after the damning words were said, he strapped himself underneath the wings of the SR-71 and was flown at Mach 3.3 from Chicago to Miami. At the appropriate time, he detached from the underside of the SR-71, opened his parachute (while still traveling at Mach 3), and landed squarely in the courtyard of the building where the event was to be held, just in time for a Obama suppoter on a dirtbike to scoop him up across his handlebars and roar through the convention center at high speed, climbing stairs and running over women and children, to deliver Barack HUSSEIN Obama to the podium just in time for his speech!

Duh!







:rofl:

[barack the house]

14. Yep, they are quite inventive aren't they now if they used it for good imagine the possiblities.

[bhikkhu]

17. K&R. Enough with Newsmax crap.

A certain poster who need not be named should find another source.

[anamandujano]

19. One of yours started this thread.

[thewiseguy]

21. shut up already

[blogslut]

22. And one of your's cited newsmax

:)

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[anamandujano]

35. All I did was point out that you started this thread. Is that provocative?

You need to calm yourself down. I suspect your nerves have a lot to do with your candidate's career presently circling the toilet.

[loveangelc]

42. LOL right. well if that's what you choose to believe, if it makes you feel better, about

YOUR candidate....that's your prerogative:)

[loveangelc]

40. delete

[bhikkhu]

26. A lack of clarity on my part

No objection to the OP. On the contrary it is welcome and informative.

Other posts (and certain posters), however, seem to rely entirely on information sourced at Newsmax. Crap in, crap out, as they say.

[anamandujano]

33. Well, we know that Wright is not a lie. We know that Obama and

Wright's 20 year relationship is not a lie.

I suspect that Obama nodded in approval many times, as well as Michelle. I read part of her paper--some quotes from an article. She may well have helped Wright craft some of his talking points. Not saying she did but they sure do sound like two peas in a pod.

As far as the date, eh, it may be right, it may be wrong. One thing we can all rely upon is that we have not seen or heard the last of this stuff.

[loveangelc]

37. you really should get over your hatred of obama. really.

you probably live a sad and pathetic life.

[anamandujano]

43. Actually, I don't hate him, I can't stand him.

He's an incompetent, arrogant @ss. He should sue whoever talked him into making this run.

My life is not so bad and I'm quite happy.

Your insult hurling style of debating leaves a lot to be desired. Too bad you can't win on logic.

[cali]

47. tough shit for the likes of you, dearie.

The odds are strongly in Obama's favor. He's likely going to be the nominee. What will you do then? Will you vote for him in November?

[Name removed]

49. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ekwhite]

85. Umm - like your logic about taking a private airplane after the service? NT

[progdonkey]

148. incompetent?

How in the hell is Obama incompetent, when he's managed to win 30 of 44 primaries (or whatever the total is now)?

It's Hillary who's the incompetent one: she voted for the IWR because she "trusted" Bush (though, there's incompetence and there's fucking stupidity); she says McCain is much more qualified to be president than Obama, providing the Republicans with wonderful footage regardless of who the candidate is; and she's so incompetent, she's lost 30 of 44 primaries to someone whom her supporters apparently believe is incompetent.

"He should sue whoever talked him into making this run."

Holy fuck, have you ever heard of "projection"? That screams it. Hillary is the only one who'll come out of this primary irreparably damaged. She's betrayed the Democratic Party and Democratic voters, her campaign resorts to racism at nearly every turn--Barack's win in SC is not a big deal, because hey Jesse Jackson (the last darky to seriously run for president) won that state too; he's SO lucky to be a black man, because everyone knows how easy black men have it in this country; yeah, what a lucky, arrogant ass. He's so unlike that humble former First Lady who's entire campaign was built on "inevitability."

Just stop with this shit. The majority of Democratic voters have chosen Obama to be their nominee (oh, but wait, only the states that vote for Hillary matter, right?), and all you and your candidate are doing is hobbling the Democratic Party and its candidate because he's not your candidate. Your just like a fucking Nader voter: four more years of Bush is A-Okay, just so long as you don't have to vote for a Dem candidate you don't really like. You and Hillary are a disgrace to the Democratic Party.

[anamandujano]

152. "Jesse Jackson (the last darky to seriously run for president)"

It's disgusting that Obama supporters constantly spout racist lingo in a sorry attempt to put words in other's mouths.

You used that slur. We did not.

[progdonkey]

162. there's MUCH more to racism than words

Such as your (collectively) pigeonholing of Barack as "the black candidate." No, you didn't use that slur--nor did Bill Cinton when he mentioned Jesse Jackson. But his statement was nonetheless racist. He mentioned Jackson solely to base Obama's win on the color of his skin, and defining someone (and lessening his achievements) by the color of his skin is the very definition of racism.

You're helping the racist dialogue/arguments that will be quietly (and not-so-quietly) whispered about Barack by Republicans in the general election. Barack will be nothing more than an affirmative action president, etc. But it of course won't be in the least bit racist, because no one will actually call him the n-word, right?

And that's all you can respond with? That I sarcastically used a (very outdated) slur that of course wasn't directed at the person described? Where's the rebuttal re: Obama's supposed incompetence?

[pollo poco]

181. let's pursue this definition of competence

If winning elections is the true measure of competence, then Bush is the most competent.

Hillary and Obama both have their plus and minus sides.

Hillary=DLC + happy to tap nascent racism

Obama=scary fundamentalism + happy to tap nascent sexism

I have chosen to vote Obama. If he doesn't win, I'll vote Hillary. That's how badly I hate the DLC.

But I think people are acting like absolute tools about it.

I hear a lot of "angry young Man" shit from the Obama side.

I have heard more Obama supporters saying they'll vote for McCain if Hillary wins than the opposite.

These people do sound like Nader supporters. Like spoiled children, who think they are alone in being treated unfairly in this country. But, so many voices are excluded it's tough to know where the line starts.

http://field-negro.blogspot.com/2008/03/me-again-folks.html#links

Third paragraph down. People would rather vote for WWIII than Hillary. To get even with bloggers. Seriously.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

45. Fuck your fear-mongering bullshit.

Your campaigning strategy is disgusting.

[anamandujano]

54. Wright is the one who is mongering the fear.

I don't have a campaign strategy, other than trying to keep you guys honest. I'm not doing a very good job; you're all as delusional as ever.

[woolldog]

60. too bad for you

You have nothing positive to say about your candidate, so you spend your time shitting on the other. How uninspiring your candidate must be to rely on that kind of support.

[anamandujano]

154. No need to mention where BO got his inspiration and from the looks

of this board, he has in turn inspired the lot of you to be anti-American and anti-white.

[elmerdem]

72. is this the best

you can come up with? Michelle working with Wright on talking points?

It must feel nice to act out your Freeper fantasies & come unhinged. I figured folks on DU had more to be concerned about.

About half the people on this sight have tasted the kool-aid, Obama & Clinton supporters alike. Amazing how easily most of you are duped into taking your 'eye off the ball'.

[ekwhite]

86. Yep. It would be nice if we spent more time attacking McCain, eh?

Welcome to the Democratic primaries, AKA the world's largest circular firing squad.

[anamandujano]

155. It wasn't much of a stretch to notice the same mind set.

[DerekJ]

18. K & R

Great post Thanks

[Breeze54]

24. Meet Newmax's Editor in Chief!

Meet Newmax's Editor in Chief!

[woolldog]

28. K&R

Good job!

:toast:

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

30. thanks for debunking the latest spin

great job.

[Tatiana]

36. Great job! K&R

We need to exercise a lot more critical examination of ALL these news sources.

:toast:

[SunsetDreams]

38. K&R

Thanks, lets work to debunk all this crap

[HCE SuiGeneris]

41. This is soooo disappointing.

I was geared up to vent my outrage and everything!

K & R

[ariesgem]

44. Thank you for posting this.

K & R

[Lucinda]

50. WAPO has him in Miami and Chicago on July 22

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/tracker/dates/2007/jul/22/

Posted service times for Sunday are:
Sunday Worship Services
7:30 a.m., 11:00 a.m., and 6:00 p.m.

[DerekJ]

57. Even 7:30 am service doesn’t work

Even 7:30 am service doesn’t work
2 and half hours service , time now is 10:00 Chicago time
45 minutes till the plane is in the Air, time now is 10:45 CST
Fly from Chicago to Miami is about 2 hours (in a private jet) , time now is 12:45 CST or 1:45 Miami time.
Driving to the place where he is going to speak to the crows, another 30 minutes, it’s now 2:15 P.M (over 45 minutes late)

[Lucinda]

103. They have an evening service.

[krawhitham]

113. and the article said he was at a morning service

Case closed, newsmax lied

[Lucinda]

123. newsmax has posted a clarification

http://newsmax.com/kessler/Obama_hat%20e_America_sermon/2008/03/16/80870.html?s=al&promo_code=9990-1

[Danzo]

59. Wow, It Sure Got Quiet It Here

Those Obama zealots refuse to even ACKNOWLEDGE your rebuttal, apparently. It shows their true colors.

[LulaMay]

51. The LA Times printed this story on it's political blog an hour ago. They cited Newsmax.

[angie_love]

55. K&R, way to go.

[Window]

62. K/R.

:kick:

[Scurrilous]

64. K & R

:thumbsup:

[Pavlovs DiOgie]

65. K&R!

[JPZenger]

67. Jonah Goldberg Quoted it on Morning Joe on MSNBC

Jonah Goldberg Quoted it on Morning Joe on MSNBC on Monday morning, so it must be true.

Of course, Newsmax is a moonie controlled organization. There is a great new book about how the Moonies are funding many ultra-conservative causes in the US, including losing over $2 billion on the Washington Star newspaper. I thought it was illegal for foreigners to try to influence US politics.

www.truefather.com

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

157. Actually...

A lot of the money NewsMax operates on came from Dickie Scaife.

[OwnedByFerrets]

68. K and R

[workinclasszero]

69. Anyone who uses Newsmax as a source is a de facto reich wing boot licker

IMHO.

[IsItJustMe]

70. Somehow we must fight the Munster and Hillary supporters with the truth.

[0007]

71. Thank you!

[ekwhite]

73. Thanks Angel!

I wouldn't believe that the sky was blue if Newsmax said it. I would have to go outside and check for myself.

[stlsaxman]

74. Good investigative journalism but please proof-read your work...

don't want to shit on your parade but the errors had me questioning the validity of your efforts.

my troll-dar goes into auto-pilot when i see errors. call me a "grammar nazi" but it's just so much easier to read when it is correct. quality work is a reflection of your integrity.

keep fighting the good fight!

[Tarc]

75. So you're basing this claim on your own biased guesswork

rather than anything resembling a concrete fact? And how is it again that you are any more or any less believable than the likes of newsmax?

Looks like two sides of the same coin playing the "No! Believe ME!" game.

[KittyWampus]

76. you have a serious problem.

[Tarc]

78. I have a problem with gullible partisand like you, yes

It is hilarious to watch all of the O-Bots fawn over the OPs guesswork as if he/she had just found Jimma Hoffa sitting on Noah's Ark holding the Holy Grail.

[justinsb]

83. Ok then since you're impartial

Explain how he went to church in Chicago and was at an event in Miami by 12:30.

[Harry Monroe]

90. A transporter of course!!!

Haven't you heard of them?? It works for James T. Kirk and crew, so why not for Obama??

[justinsb]

93. If that's the case

we definitely have to elect Obama - What do you do about the oil crunch? Replace cars with transporters. He's got my vote.

[Tarc]

101. Not impartial at all, just in possession of common sense

a quality lacking in Team Obama these days.

7:30am sermon, on the plane by 10, +1 hr for time zone change, and he is on-stage by 1:50

Many attendees walked from Hall B across the large Miami Beach Convention Center, to stand in line in Hall D where Obama was scheduled to speak at 1:30 pm. The audience waited impatiently until 1:50 when Janet Murguía, president and CEO, NCLR and Maria Pesqueira of Mujeres Latinas en Accion, an NCLR affiliate, welcomed Obama enthusiastically.

- http://www.hispanicmpr.com/2007/07/31/clinton-obama-appearances-highlight-of-2007-nclr-conference/

Quite doable.


But really, even if it doesn't wash in the end, all this does is impugn newmax. Which isn't hard to do. Obama was still a member of this hate-filled church for years.

[justinsb]

106. Well I consider

Hillary's neo-con evangelical 'operation rescue' bible study group to be pretty hate filled - so I guess we better round up another candidate.

[Tarc]

110. Suddenly changing the subject via baseless non sequiturs

usually means that one has lost the argument and is looking to save face.

Good luck with that, kiddo. :rofl:

[justinsb]

114. So it's ok for Hillary

to be part of a far right hate group, but if Obama's Rev. is critical of the US it's a disqualifier??

That's why Clinton and her supporters lack credibility, or even the potential to take them seriously. It's why she'll never be elected to another office (I don't think she'll even keep her senate seat.)

[Tarc]

125. Why don't you start another thread about it, and we can proceed from there

Dodging the issues of Obama's church by making unsupported accusations against Clinton kinda makes you look like a bitter loser, IMO.

Let's see what you got about the "far right hate group".

[pollo poco]

183. I wish we could too

Maybe we could ask the networks for a new one (since they seem to decide who deserves our full attention anyway.)

[SoxFan]

131. Except Wright didn't give the early AM sermon

Try again

[haymakeragain]

188. Save it, coultergeist.

You shall know them by their actions, which is why I think at least one of you hilltites are coultergeist, because you act like her.

[krawhitham]

115. NO guesswork Newsmax LIED

They claim Obama went to a morning service with Wright on the 22nd

a) Obama was in Flordia
b) Wright did not have a morning service on the 22nd

One the 22nd
Anthony Burnette, Jr. gave the 7:30 am service
Otis B. Moss III gave the 11:00am service
Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. gave the 6:00pm service

http://www.tucc.org/store/index.cfm?action=moreinfo&pid=5945

[DerekJ]

149. this is good , but..

When I go to your link, I can't see this schedule. Where do you click form that link to reach that schedule?

[loveangelc]

118. lol...desperate

[TheDoorbellRang]

81. Good catch ! n/t

[justinsb]

84. I feel badly for you

I understand the desire to be a journalist, but from my POV there are no credible news organizations left in the US

[DarienComp]

87. K&R

[Harry Monroe]

88. You may as well be getting your news from the National Enquirer

Or the now defunct "Weekly World News" if you're going to get your facts from "Newsmax"

[Peanut Butter]

91. WHO INVITED THESE FREEPERS TO D.U ?

This is getting nauseating for Gods sake.

[Texas Hill Country]

94. Good to know. I am glad to hear it. That made my heart really sink.

[madrchsod]

95. dam i miss all the fun when i ignore people

[high density]

96. kick for the freepers/trolls

[thevoiceofreason]

97. Excellent job! That darn logic just gets in their way, doesn't it?

[Enrique]

98. but when it's anti-Hillary, Newsmax goes to the top of the Greatest Page

DU's selective critical thinking.

[Not the Only One]

99. Even FreeRepublic is going with the debunking.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1986989/posts

Obama has put this to bed. A victory for America.

[thewiseguy]

124. And some Hillary supporters insist that the story is true!

[Not the Only One]

173. Denial has been the whole MO for Hillary and her supporters all campaign season long.

They have trouble dealing with reality. It's sad.

[haymakeragain]

189. Tarc holds on longer than freeperville, stunning,

but true.

[redqueen]

102. Well done, you.

:thumbsup:

[madrchsod]

104. i have solved the time line problem ...it`s so obvious

why did`t you think of it?

:hi:

[SoxFan]

133. Maybe he flew on Oceanic Airlines?

[NJSecularist]

108. Another lie debunked. It's sad that Newsmax has become a legitimate news source for the Hillbots.

[helderheid]

117. !

:yourock:

[uponit7771]

121. kicked

[anonymous171]

127. Shows that, like most RW slimes, this is totally untrue.

A reminder to the Clinton-folk :kick:

[Pawel K]

128. Remember, Hillary supporters also tend to believe Bill O'Reilly

so this the fact they believed this is no shock to me.

But you have to give them credit. They spread right wing bullshit and then accuse you of actually doing it. Brilliant.

[ClassWarrior]

140. Here's the proof on video...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjvNSpsPu1k

NGU.

[Catherine Vincent]

138. DUers don't rely or read NewsMax.

But thanks anyways.

[whatchamacallit]

139. kick

[jason_13]

141. I'm white and...

if I read any more of these posts I'm going to the next "F@#$ the whites" sermon I can find. Personally, I'd rather our next president hung out with William Ayers and Bernardine Dohr and Dr. Wright than just about anyone already firmly planted in DC.

[beezlebum]

142. kick

and rec

[Scurrilous]

145. Kick

:kick:

[Cheap_Trick]

146. Just goes to show how desperate the hillary supporters have become

sourcing their "news" from the reich-wing is a new low, even for them.

I think the phrase "grasping at straws" is fitting.

[proud2BlibKansan]

164. Well when their candidate endorses the Republican,

what the hell can we expect from them?

[LanternWaste]

151. The Obama campaign has provided information showing that Sen. Obama did not attend Trinity that day

Finally, at least half a day later, Kristol has appended the following to his column:

"In this column, I cite a report that Sen. Obama had attended services at Trinity Church on July 22, 2007. The Obama campaign has provided information showing that Sen. Obama did not attend Trinity that day. I regret the error."

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/bill_kristol_corrects_false_as.php

[nvme]

166. what is sad

Is that church attendance or non attendance is actually gaining any footing in the national debate. The seperation of church and state is there for a reason.

[Gman]

168. Newsmax has never been about journalism

Half the time when someone cites Newsmax over at FR it gets slapped down by a lot of people who also think Newsmax has no credibility.

[Forkboy]

174. Kick

[sudopod]

175. Newsmax? Wrong?

*SHOCKED*

[Stand and Fight]

182. Not an Obama supporter, but I'm kicking this...

Because the truth still matters.

[humbled_opinion]

190. Seems Pretty easy to either prove or disprove

The Secret Service entourage that Obama has is a government supplied entity and therefore is subject to FOIA. Simple investigative reporting and asking the SS to provide itinerary for the escort on July 22nd 2007 will end the discussion once and for all.

[laconicsax]

191. Who the fuck thinks that NewsMax is at all reliable?!?

:wtf:

[The Doctor.]

207. WorldNutDaily said so!

That and anyone who's willing to believe anything about Obama, apparently.

[and-justice-for-all]

192. Newsmax is obscene...rubbish. nt

[rpannier]

193. You mean Newsmax is full of sh*t???

Again???!!!

They're wrong as often as DUH-bya

[GrantDem]

197. Where was the manufactured outrage from the right-wingers...

When Falwell and Robertson blamed American for 9/11? Hypocrisy at its finest.

http://www.commondreams.org/news2001/0917-03.htm

[Medusa]

198. Bump one more time for the Clintonistas to read it and weep

another lie debunked.

[Scurrilous]

199. Kick

:kick:

[jmowreader]

201. Um, I would like to point out that the Newsmax story was on NEWSMAX...

WHY IN HELL WOULD ANYONE HERE BELIEVE ANYTHING FUCKING NEWSMAX SAYS?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Dude, there are more wing nuts at Newsmax than there are at a bolt store.

[Tatiana]

202. OFFICIALLY DEBUNKED (loveangelc... you GO girl!)

Via DKos:

The Newsmax story has been picked up and repeated -- without fact checking -- by a number of other outlets, including another Newsmax hack, Ronald Kessler,
and even Bill Kristol at the New York Times.

Big problem: Davis's story is flat-out wrong.

Obama wasn't in Chicago on July 22, he was in Miami, http://www.nclr.org/content/news/detail/47386/">speaking to the National Council of La Raza. There's even http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEITOQfKVmo">video of the speech on YouTube, which has been posted since posted since August 7, 2007.

Sunday is a light day for flying. Currently, only United and USAir run Sunday nonstops (one for each airline) from Chicago to Miami, and neither one is at the early-morning time needed to get Obama from the 7:30 service to the 1:30 speech in time.

Now the rats are leaving the sinking ship of the Newsmax story in droves. Bill Kristol appended a note to the top of his column saying "I regret the error."

And even Newsmax itself has backed off the critical facts. First, Kessler now claims that incident described by Davis's may not have been July 22 after all, but only "one of the services he attended during the month of July".

(more...)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/17/161724/906/381/478644

[Major Hogwash]

203. There's still time to comment on this thread! And recommend it.

Still time to kick Newsmax in the nuts!

[Scurrilous]

205. Kick

:kick: