Curious Stranger said...

Frankly, Schaffer could probably use the break. Maybe spend the time familiarizing himself with the initiatives on the ballot so he doesn't look so lost and confused next time around.

October 8, 2008 11:29 PM

Ben DeGrow said...

Yes, as though Mark Udall didn't have problems, too.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/oct/08/number-ballot-measures-trip-udall-schaffer/

Thanks, Matt, for reminding our readers just how thin is your phony veil of impartiality and non-partisanship.

October 9, 2008 8:27 AM

# Curious Stranger on 10/08/08 at 22:35

"Obama did not deny McCain's assertion that Obama has voted 94 times to support tax hikes or oppose tax cuts. That's something that should weigh heavily on peoples' opinions as they consider whether to believe Obama's claims that he'll cut taxes and not increase spending"

Should it also weigh heavily on peoples' opinions that - using the same methodology used to come up with 94 - McCain himself has raised taxes nearly 500 times in his career, 105 times since Obama entered the Senate (http://www.johnmccainrecord.com/taxes/taxmyth.pdf)? Or do you only tolerate misrepresentations by the Republican candidates? Should it weigh heavily on peoples' opinions that John McCain wants a $3.6 trillion dollar tax increase on working folks health care benefits (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/01/us/politics/01mccain.html)? Or is it only Democratic plans that need to be funded by new taxes?

# Rossputin [Member] on 10/09/08 at 06:21

Stranger,

I don't know how many times I have to say it, but I'm no fan of John McCain. His record on taxes isn't great, but (from the point of view of someone who doesn't like high taxes) it's much better than Obama's...especially with his relatively recent conversion to understanding the importance of making the Bush tax cuts permanent.

Second, as I understand the McCain health plan, it would be roughly a wash as far as those taxes because while health benefits from an employer would be taxed, employees would also be getting a tax credit which should offset the tax for all but the most expensive health insurance plans.

For people who don't have health coverage, the tax credit could be used to get it. My fear is that the credit won't be tied to getting health insurance which wouldn't be so bad if the credit weren't refundable. (Refundable means people who don't pay tax get paid by the government with other people's money.)

# Curious Stranger on 10/09/08 at 08:35

"I don't know how many times I have to say it, but I'm no fan of John McCain. His record on taxes isn't great, but (from the point of view of someone who doesn't like high taxes) it's much better than Obama's...especially with his relatively recent conversion to understanding the importance of making the Bush tax cuts permanent."

Well then, perhaps you should cite some facts, rather than repeating things you hear from the McCain campaign - which you're supposedly not a fan of - because either the 94 number is bogus, or McCain has a worse record than Obama on taxes.

From the NY Times article:

"To end the disadvantage to those who do not buy insurance through employers, Mr. McCain proposes to eliminate the exclusion of health benefits from taxable income. In exchange, he would provide refundable tax credits of $2,500 to single people and of $5,000 to families, with the goal of stoking competition in the individual insurance market. The elimination of the exclusion would generate $3.6 trillion over 10 years, according to the McCain campaign, and that money would pay for the tax credits."

By "generate" of course, they mean a tax on health care benefits for the first time ever. The tax credit is paid for by the tax on folks with more expensive health plans. Talk about redistribution of wealth!

# roger o. on 10/11/08 at 05:46

Hey Ross i see that you say your wife is a new American citizen. My wife is not a American citizen. As she is a citizen of Malaysia and i at this time don,t want her to be a American citizen as i want her to be able to move back home if it gets real bad over here, I mean if Obama becomes President and it looks like he is. Then He will want to jack up tax rates so high and crash the economy.

There is a new law with expat that says if you leave the country and take your money they you will be subject to a 50% tax rate. I think it applies to anybody who is worth about one million. So that is one reason i will not let her be a American citizen.

# Rossputin [Member] on 10/11/08 at 07:21

Hey Roger,

Believe me, I thought of that.

A few reasons I was OK with the decision:

1) My wife really wanted it, particularly so she knew she could stay in America with our kids if she wanted to if I got killed

2) Also, if I got killed, the free transfer of estate assets to the spouse only applies if the spouse is a citizen

3) If she did leave, the US would have a very hard time proving her income

Curious Stranger said...

"I had another thought this morning. My enlistment in the Reserves is up next year, if Blabama gets elected, I am not sure I will re-enlist...but I won't count my hatches before they chicken."

Country second, eh?

9:20 PM

Mr Bob said...

nope, country first. World second. if Clinton is any hint of what we would get in socialist, big world thinking Blabama, then our military would be wearing blue helments first, olive drab second.

7:25 AM

russotto

NormanS

NormanS

NormanS

ReneM

davidl

NormanS

NormanS

fiberguy

fiberguy

Curious Stranger said...

And they're the "dominant wing of the Democrat [sic] party" because?

September 25, 2008 11:07 PM

Ben DeGrow said...

Please notice that's in quotes. If you have a difference of opinion, take it up with Mr. Bensing. I can imagine what he might say. In any case, Mark Udall isn't helping to refute the opinion with his fundraiser this weekend.

September 26, 2008 7:30 AM

Curious Stranger said...

So you also don't agree with that statement? Or the falsified picture? Is there anything in that article that you do agree with?

Mark Udall isn't helping to refute the opinion that Code Pink is the "dominant wing of the Democrat [sic] party" by attending a fundraiser where one of the attendees is a member? Can we assume that because McCain attended a fundraiser with Lynn Forrester de Rothschild that elitist multi-millionaire wives of international bankers are the "dominant wing of the Publican [sic] party"?

September 26, 2008 8:24 AM

Mitchell said...

I'm glad that they asked Udall about his energy plan in the debate. He obviously has no plan. He thinks that domestic production is a crime. He has done nothing but block legislation that could lead the U.S. to energy independence. . . look at his record. .

http://www.friendsoftheuschamber.com/issues/index.cfm?ID=190

Are you kidding me?

September 28, 2008 12:23 PM

Curious Stranger said...

Are *you* kidding me? You're apparently not a regular visitor here. If you were, you'd know that the Bush Administration's own numbers, not to mention the facts (since those two are seldom the same), show that domestic drilling would have no meaningful impact on prices at the pump for 30 years, and even then, would be easily offset by supply manipulation by OPEC. Oil is not a solution to an oil problem. Alternatives to oil are the solution to an oil problem.

Get your facts straight, then feel free to return.

September 28, 2008 5:34 PM

Colorado Jones

Those Colorado Future people keep sinking lower and lower, don't they?

Curious Stranger

A few weeks back, I promised to follow up with who is funding Amendment 49, after they filed their paperwork. At the time, I speculated.

"I think it's safe to assume we're going to find more anonymous Independence Institute laundered money behind this one."

Unsurprisingly, I was completely right! (don't mind the expired session messages, just click the link a second time and it will work, it's an error on the SoS's side). All of "Ethical Standards Now"'s money comes from the Independence Institute. Who gave the Independence Institute the money? Who knows? Jon Caldera doesn't want us to know whose paying the bills!

Curious Stranger said...

And they're the "dominant wing of the Democrat [sic] party" because?

September 25, 2008 11:07 PM

Ben DeGrow said...

Please notice that's in quotes. If you have a difference of opinion, take it up with Mr. Bensing. I can imagine what he might say. In any case, Mark Udall isn't helping to refute the opinion with his fundraiser this weekend.

September 26, 2008 7:30 AM

Curious Stranger said...

So you also don't agree with that statement? Or the falsified picture? Is there anything in that article that you do agree with?

Mark Udall isn't helping to refute the opinion that Code Pink is the "dominant wing of the Democrat [sic] party" by attending a fundraiser where one of the attendees is a member? Can we assume that because McCain attended a fundraiser with Lynn Forrester de Rothschild that elitist multi-millionaire wives of international bankers are the "dominant wing of the Publican [sic] party"?

September 26, 2008 8:24 AM

Mitchell said...

I'm glad that they asked Udall about his energy plan in the debate. He obviously has no plan. He thinks that domestic production is a crime. He has done nothing but block legislation that could lead the U.S. to energy independence. . . look at his record. .

http://www.friendsoftheuschamber.com/issues/index.cfm?ID=190

Are you kidding me?

September 28, 2008 12:23 PM

Curious Stranger said...

Are *you* kidding me? You're apparently not a regular visitor here. If you were, you'd know that the Bush Administration's own numbers, not to mention the facts (since those two are seldom the same), show that domestic drilling would have no meaningful impact on prices at the pump for 30 years, and even then, would be easily offset by supply manipulation by OPEC. Oil is not a solution to an oil problem. Alternatives to oil are the solution to an oil problem.

Get your facts straight, then feel free to return.

September 28, 2008 5:34 PM

Curious Stranger

Besides being an "economics analyst", Kevin Hasset is also an advisor to John McCain, which might explain why he didn't bother to mention Phil Gramm's role in legalizing the very financial instruments at the heart of the mess or Rick Davis's role in spreading cash around Washington for Fannie and Freddie. This is a bi-partisan mess.

Curious Stranger

Oh, and lets not forget Fannie and Freddie were just one of the many interconnected firms at the center of this mess.

Curious Stranger

Erm, make that two of the many.

Ben

To your 1st comment: No disagreement that it's a bipartisan mess. There are Democrats and Republicans that have their fingerprints on this one. Yes, while Hasset doesn't tell the whole story here, there is no denying the accuracy of the facts he does present.

More importantly, where is the press coverage of the fact that Barack Obama in his 3+ short years in the U.S. Senate has been on the take from Fannie & Freddie more than all but two other Senators? Is this hope and change?

Perhaps even more significant is the contrast in leadership between the two candidates that this situation has fostered.

To your 2nd comment: You are downplaying the significant leading role of Fannie & Freddie in this crisis.

Curious Stranger

I'm not downplaying anything. Without Countrywide, Ameriquest and their sub-prime friends issuing the bad debt and structuring them into CDO's to hide the risk, the ratings agencies rating them safe without knowing if they truly were, and Lehman, Bear Stearns and everyone else on Wall Street buying just as much of this bad debt as Fannie and Freddie did, this would not be a crisis. Fannie and Freddie aren't the center of this crisis - I'd say the ratings agencies who either lied about or didn't understand the risk they were claiming deserved A+ ratings, and the regulations around the ratings process, are the real problem here - they are just the largest victim (after the taxpayers of course)

The Power of Political Misinformation

"As the presidential campaign heats up, intense efforts are underway to debunk rumors and misinformation. Nearly all these efforts rest on the assumption that good information is the antidote to misinformation.

But a series of new experiments show that misinformation can exercise a ghostly influence on people's minds after it has been debunked -- even among people who recognize it as misinformation. In some cases, correcting misinformation serves to increase the power of bad information."

Interestingly, the experiments show the "backfire effect" only affects conservatives. Sounds vaguely cult-like to me.

Posted by: Curious Stranger | September 16, 2008 at 12:10 AM

Well consider McCain's current senior advisor is Steve Schmidt, a protege of Karl Rove during the 2004 election and a master of spin in the "new media" i.e. the blogosphere. Guess who floated the fabricated story about the greek temple backdrop at the DNC to conservative bloggers? So does truth matter? Not if you believe the only source of truth is people with the right party affiliation. Us vs them will tear this nation apart.

Posted by: Zen | September 16, 2008 at 02:06 PM

Alan said...

Mark Udall was charged with simple misdemeanor marijuana possession in 1972. There is absolutely nothing to indicate he was suspected of distributing anything, that's not what he was either initially charged with or convicted of. Your speculation is completely baseless and irresponsible, even by this pathetic blog's nonexistent "standards."

But that's okay, go over the top as far as you like on this, it's broadcasting to your dwindling readership everything they need to know. And not about Mark Udall.

September 13, 2008 6:45 AM

absurdicus said...

awww, welcome back Grandpa McGrumpy. So glad you're back:

http://udallvschaffer.blogspot.com/2008/09/hey-grandpa-mcgrumpy-welcome-back.html

September 13, 2008 3:22 PM

Curious Stranger said...

"will they forgive a candidate who was involved in the sale of drugs? That is a different ballgame."

Will they forgive an anonymous Internet troll with no accountability who speculates with no evidence?

Did Bob Schaffer provide cocaine to the Interior Department during his role as a lobbyist for local energy companies? We don't know, but he might have!

September 15, 2008 11:15 PM

Curious Stranger said...

"Mark Udall's energy policy is "comprehensive" - if by "comprehensive" you mean "any energy source that won't soon be profitable nor help quickly lead to energy independence for the American people, plus a little bit from Cuba, plus whatever else absolutely has to be done to win a few extra votes.""

So what energy source that will "soon be profitable" and "help quickly lead to energy independence" is he opposing? Because its definitely not any of the items you mentioned. They are all 20-30 years off and won't significantly impact price or energy independence. If you claiming differently, perhaps you can provide some numbers to rebut the Department of Energy numbers I've provided in earlier posts.

Similarly, perhaps you can expand on Schaffer's alternative energy plans - beyond carrying a shard of solar panel in his pocket and installing windows in his house that is. I'm still waiting to hear what those "comprehensive" plans would be.

September 8, 2008 8:38 PM

Ben DeGrow said...

You are saying that the U.S. Department of Energy says we're stuck with high gas prices & dependence on foreign oil? Or that wind & solar will lead us to energy independence? Or that increased domestic fossil fuel production isn't part of a short-term solution? Or that it's hopeless even to try drilling for more oil? Or that environmentally clean (aka "responsible") drilling isn't possible except off the coasts of 4 states and Cuba?

Provide a link to the report. I'd be glad to read the summary & conclusions.

September 8, 2008 8:51 PM

Curious Stranger said...

You mention in your post: ANWR, oil shale and offshore drilling. Which one of those three meets the criteria you mention above - "soon be profitable" and "quickly lead to energy independence"?

Offshore oil drilling - nope, not enough to be more than drop in the bucket resulting in no significant price difference.

ANWR - nope. See above.

Oil shale - nope. There's a lot of potential oil here, but it's only economical to extract when oil prices are high, not a recipe for lowering gas prices. It also uses enormous amounts of water in arid regions which could cause serious problems for agriculture (and I'll note that concerns about water don't make me a big fan of most of today's biofuels either)

There are no good short term answers to high fuel prices - the Republican Party is lying about this fact by omitting any sort of timetable on their claims. The long term answer is to get away from oil, as it is not renewable and no matter what resources we find, we will use them up. A finite and diminishing supply and increasing demand cannot result in lower prices. Time and money are better spent moving us away from oil and onto renewable sources initially as a supplemental source to stretch the diminishing oils upplies and eventually as the primary source.

The Democratic plans floating around are giving Republicans their oil company land-handout in return for actual progress towards getting us off of oil by incentivizing real renewable development and discouraging dead-end oil development.

September 8, 2008 11:16 PM

That's a good question

Your point is valid

Liars, liars, stars n' stripes pants on fire!

But the polsters have spoken

Well, yeah...

Give the cigar to Mad Irish Man

Submitted by Ironman on Fri, 09/05/2008 - 19:13.

He made this call on June 6.

http://www.thenextright.com/the-mad-irish-man/mccain-picks-sarah-palin-for-vp

Beldar, an attorney blogger out of Houston, made the pick on June 8 http://beldar.blogs.com/beldarblog/2008/06/alaskas-gov-sar.html

She finished second in a poll held by Instapundit in June http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/archives2/020625.php

If you were paying attention, she'd be on your radar screen

Maybe if the MSM read conservative blogs once in awhile they wouldn't be running around so often acting dumbfounded.

Login or register to post comments

How 'bout this one. . .

Submitted by Walt Gilbert on Sat, 09/06/2008 - 01:33.

. . .from February 26?

Login or register to post comments

We do have some idea

Submitted by ShrikeDeCil on Sat, 09/06/2008 - 16:19.

Selling (or trying to sell, whatever) the Governor's plane on eBay sort of sums it up for her fiscal thoughts. You can argue about her trying to get more handouts from the State/Feds while she was Mayor/Governor, but that is part of the job. Not all bridges are 'Bridges to Nowhere'.

I think we can be pretty certain of the general locale of her positions on conservation, energy, guns, marriage, and babies. The complaint is - perhaps she's too conservative.

I don't know her thoughts on fixing Social Security. Or fixing immigration. Or health care. Though we do know that Special Needs kids are a personal issue. Which is actually fine with me.

The only foreign policy piece we know is - Drill Here, Drill Now. There was a little bit of isolationist to that part - "for American use." But if it makes us actually build lots more refineries, excellent.

But I can't piece together anything that has any potential to be worse than any of Obama's policies. Essentially every 'unknown' area for Sarah seems to link up with an area in which Barack is taking a very extreme view. Alaska is larger than Iran, but I doubt she'll call it a "tiny country."

Login or register to post comments

Here's a nice selection of

Submitted by curiousstranger on Sat, 09/06/2008 - 20:02.

Here's a nice selection of articles which makes you wonder what it is that makes Republicans so excited about Sarah Palin, the Jimmy Carter Republican.

* An accounting of the $27 million in federal earmarks Mayor Palin got during her tenure in Wasilla, a town of under 10,000.

* These earmarks, earned Wasilla a place on McCain's "pork list" of wasteful federal earmark spending at least 3 times while Palin was mayor.

* Palin hired Steven W. Silver, a former chief of staff to indicted Senator Ted Stevens, to procure these earmarks.

* From 2002 to 2004, Silver was a lobbyist for Greenberg Traurig, the lobbying firm of convicted super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

* John McCain bragged in his acceptance speech Thursday about the work he did investigating Greenberg Traurig during this same period Silver worked for them, for stealing money from Indian tribes, an investigation which led to Abramoff's conviction.

* Stevens name is mentioned in emails released by McCain's investigation.

On second thought maybe she's not some new sort of Jimmy Carter Republican, just the same old Jack Abramoff Republican.

Let's also not forget to wonder how the enthusiastic crowd which cheered her speech overlooks her ties to a radical Alaskan seperatist movement - the Alaskan Independence Party - which her husband was a member of for almost 10 years. In each of the last two election cycles, she's even addressed the parties convention telling them to "keep up the good work".

After 8 years of Big Government with Big Tax Cuts I shouldn't be surprised by the cognitive dissonence required to be a Republican these days, but this VP pick would seem to reach new heights, the kind of heights that house the many glaciers in Alaska that Joe Vogler, the founder of the Alaskan Independence Party must have been referring to when he said:

"The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government"

God Bless America!

Login or register to post comments

Actually, we know another foreign policy position of Palin's

Submitted by lagomorph on Sun, 09/07/2008 - 17:05.

Sarah Palin supported the Surge, and prior to the Surge, she supported the War in Iraq. That was well documented in Greta Van Susteren's 1 hour docmentary last night "Sarah Palin: An American Woman". You can watch the entire show on YouTube here.

Login or register to post comments

bg said...

++

Curious Stranger @

i don't know why, but something tells me YOU DELETED A FEW OF YOUR OWN POSTS in order to make it appear as if YOU'RE BEING CENSORED, then you come back in and ACCUSE GP..

as it's the ONLY move you could make that would even come close to giving YOURSELF any sort of CREDIBILITY, nice try though..

been there seen that trick way too many times, nice try though..

oh btw: all you have to do is repost the ones that are missing.. i have a copy, so i'm sure you & everyone else in here does as well..

==

6:32 PM

bg said...

++

Curious Stranger @ 5:00; 5:01 PM

btw.. if it wasn't you then it has to be some kind of glitch, but then again, you keep posting the same stuff in different threads, so maybe you got them confused.. but whatever, keep up those fake donations you also claim to be making DUDE!! (thumbsup)

==

6:52 PM

Curious Stranger said...

bg, if you've discovered a magical way for me to delete my own comments, perhaps you could use it to delete some of your less useful ones.

Secondly, $10 more for your thinking I'm not making donations - the look of surprise on your face in November when you realize you've underestimated the movement Obama's built will be priceless. So far, you personally, have contributed to $20 in contributions to Obama! Congratulations, and keep up the good work!

8:33 PM

Curious Stranger said...

Oh, I just noticed there is a delete button, it only appears if you log in with a blogger account, which I don't do all the time. In any case, keep thinking I'm making stuff up, like I said - the look of surprise will be priceless!

8:34 PM

Anonymous said...

awful comments.. almost as teeth-grindingly sentimental as the speech itself.

3:07 PM

Anonymous said...

All of you need to get a life. Everyone need to focus on the real problem that America is going threw right now! I have heard many things in my days, I can't not believe what I am hearing about palin she is a no body to this election Barack & McCain is, this is not a beauty contest.when we have our young solder's getting kill over a war that does not make any sense tell this to the mother's, father's, sister's, brother's etc did anyone forget about them. I am a nurse in the v.a I treat our vets everyday listen to there pain suffering day in day out, tell it to the mother's we we nurse have to tell them that their son or daughter did not make it out of surgery, when those plans bomb the WTC I felt American had came togather as one, but I guess I was wrong. When McCain make his speach did anyone hear him say he would bring the solder's home answer NO he is trying to get more solder's over there if he is put into office. these young man and woman have put their live on the line for this country and all you peoples is concern about is Palin and her family the woman is a lyer, look at the news CNN, FOX, MSN, the truth came out about her tonight. she want to take away woman right's the right that we have fought for many years,I am hear to say not on her life, we the america people have gave the goverment to much power as is. we have families with NO money, jobs heathcare, homeless, no salary take a look closly at how the goverment treat our vets when they come home without legs, arms with no heathcare, homeless, no jobs, we all want what best for the country. John McCain not it! he is 72 years of age, we need someone that is young full of new ideals and to put the USA back on the map.McCain make have been a Maverick his his early days but not now. Please take a good look at this the whole picture not just the four coners, the new media have gotton everyone so wind up that it taking the peoples off focus, If you wear a demoratic before Hillary lose what change your mind, because Obama is a black man how stupid is that. we can fight in war with you help protect this country! but not good enought to lead it. McCain talked about his days in the war he was a pow, what about the young man and woman today that are POW, what about them, he is not the only man that serve his country.Do you really think McCain have this country at heart really, do you really think he is for the mis class families that is barely getting by, he have 8 house and he live in 4 of them the other 4 is for investment, how many d the avg american person have or had going into forclose,McCain wife had on a dress that is mor than my salary $ 300.000 do you really think he thinking about the childerns that go to bed at night with food. take a look at he T.V ads feed the childerns when we are the land of the free and the home of the brave. How many mouths do you think McCain wife dress could have feed. Wke up American before we become a 3 thrid world country.

9:50 PM

Anonymous said...

I Love to Support Sarah and her family. I found the coolest flag pin like Sarah wears on MCCAINBLING.COM. Go get one and wear your support for her especially when she is under heat!!!!

8:10 AM

Anonymous said...

I like Tina Fey's Sarah Palin best of all. Check it out.

5:13 PM

Rev. George Brooks said...

John McCain and Sarah Palin need to find a job for that unemployed husband of Sarah, who keeps hanging around in the way. And while I'm a Democrat and supporter of Barack Obama, several die-hard Republicans here in Tennessee said the same thing a few days ago, and we all laughed. God forbid McCain wins and something happens to him in office, because America will be stuck with Sarah and Todd serving as "co-presidents" of the USA. Just as he has been serving as the "co-governor" of Alaska. --- Rev. George Brooks of Tennessee.

2:32 PM

bg said...

++

Rev. George Brooks @ 2:32 PM

well the lower 49 should be doing half as well as Alaska.. try checkin' out the Obama's territory and get back to us why don't you..

==

2:53 PM

Curious Stranger said...

"Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, who has joined the Republican national ticket as a tax-cutter, was a driving force in raising a tax on oil companies last year that will help swell the state's budget surplus.

The increase backed by the Republican vice presidential nominee will, at current prices, raise oil revenue to $11 billion this year -- almost twice what the state needs to fund its government -- state documents show. Alaska also has gotten more money from the federal government than its residents pay in taxes -- $1.75 per tax dollar in 2006, the most recent year available, according to the Tax Foundation, a Washington research group"

4:01 PM

Dave said...

Curious Stranger (undoubtedly should be Mysterious Stranger), lying by omission is sin, too.

However, keeping you busy here is undoubtedly preventing you from "walking up and down in the world" so I guess it's a good thing.

And you are ginning up some extra interest in Palin.

Come back in late November and we'll taunt you some more.

7:38 PM

Anonymous said...

S. Palin wants Alaska to be self sufficient.

http://www.charleston.net/news/2008/aug/16/alaska_gov_wants_tap_oil_resources51051/?print

M. Wilcox

3:09 AM

Anonymous said...

The Federal Government through the BLM locks up vast areas of the Amrican west and Alaska preventing the states from developing the resources that rightfuly belong to them.

Federal Government has stolen hundreds of millions of acres of states sovereign territory by proclaiming it National Forest, National Wildlife refuge, National Parks, Endangered wildlife Habitat, National Waterways ... so consider the "pork" as very meager compensation.

M. Wilcox

3:32 AM

Bruce said...

Dave in NYC said...

"Here is a new [FALSE DEM) Stat for the right graphic person to parlay into a message of truth about Obama and Chitown politics and the art of denial against the Iraq Surge.

"An estimated 123 people were shot and killed over the summer(in Chicago). That's nearly double the number of soldiers killed in Iraq over the same time period."

Well, Chicago has about 3 million inhabitants, while there are about 160,000 troops in Iraq. So a U.S. soldier in Iraq is 10 times more likely to be killed than a person living in Chicago. This is during one of the more violent periods in Chicago compared to the least violent period in Iraq."

No, Dave. You've changed the denominator from +30 Million (Iraqi and American) lives at risk (not just 160,000 US troops). This of course, FALSELY skews the probability number in your partisan favor. Another clear reason why Democrats are bad for our nation!

10:52 AM

Curious Stranger said...

Well then, Mission Accomplished, as they say.

When will all the troops flights home be leaving?

3:55 PM

Curious Stranger said...

Any further news on when the troops will be arriving home? Since we've won and all...

9:07 PM

Ben DeGrow said...

I should add that FactCheck.org found many more problems in Obama's speech than in Palin's.

September 5, 2008 8:00 AM

Curious Stranger said...

Obama may have stretched some of the numbers and omitted some details, as Factcheck points out, but he didn't just make things up out of whole cloth like Palin and the entire rest of the GNC Wednesday lineup. Did Palin actually turn down the money for the Bridge? Hasn't Obama in fact authored several laws?

We all know plenty about Obama. He's been in the national public eye for 4 years now. We know nothing about Sarah Palin but what we've found out in the last week. You'd think she'd want to spend that time giving us some of that "Straight Talk". More importantly, you'd think McCain would realize that he's named her 3 times on his own pork list, that she *wasn't* against the bridge and that her lobbyist was tied up in the very same Jack Abramoff mess that McCain was bragging about investigating last night.

September 5, 2008 8:31 AM

Ben DeGrow said...

An interesting characterization and justification. Readers can judge for themselves.

Still waiting for links/sources/footnotes.

Keep tying yourself in knots.

September 5, 2008 9:57 AM

Curious Stranger said...

I've given up on posting this on your personal blog - it doesn't like something in the URL's, so I'm posting it here.

Wasilla's earmarks: http://www.taxpayer.net/resources.php?category=&type=Project&proj_id=1284&action=Headlines%20By%20TCS

Palin's Wasilla on McCain's "pork list" 3 times: http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-earmarks3-2008sep03,0,6145252.story

Palin hires Steven W. Silver, former chief of staff to indicted Senator Ted Stevens, to get $27m in earmarks for a town of 6700: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/01/AR2008090103148_pf.html

From 2002 to 2004, Silver was a lobbyist for Abramoff's firm, Greenberg Traurig http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/lobbyist.php?year=2003&lname=Silver%2C+Steven+W

The events McCain investigated Greenberg Traurig for, took place from 2002-2004. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Abramoff_timeline

Palin and The Bridge: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/01/us/politics/01bridge.html

Palin addressing the Alaska Independence Party's convention. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwvPNXYrIyI

The Party's goal is to get a vote on secession from the US. Palin's husband was a member. http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/members-of-frin.html

September 5, 2008 3:07 PM

Curious Stranger said...

Another example of the cognitive dissonence required to be both a McCain and Palin supporter. During her speech to the convention, around the 18 or 19 minute mark, Palin said:

"When oil and gas prices went up dramatically, and filled up the state treasury, I sent a large share of that revenue back where it belonged - directly to the people of Alaska."

That line got bigger applause than the one where she said "Thanks but no thanks" to the Bridge to Nowhere (which we know from above didn't mean she was giving the money back!)

In case you aren't aware of what she's referring to in this crowd pleasing passage, it's the windfall profits tax she levied on oil companies when their profits soared. The exact sort of tax that Obama has proposed, and McCain ridiculed:

"If the plan sounds familiar, it's because that was President Jimmy Carter's big idea too - and a lot of good it did us. Now as then, all a windfall profits tax will accomplish is to increase our dependence on foreign oil, and hinder exactly the kind of domestic exploration and production we need. I'm all for recycling - but it's better applied to paper and plastic than to the failed policies of the 1970's."

Is Palin a Jimmy Carter Republican?

September 5, 2008 11:12 PM

Curious Stranger

Incidentally, I have no doubt that you'd take McCain/Palin over Obama/Biden. I just think it says a lot about today's Republican Party that they can choose a Vice President who is indicative of the very problems the Presidential candidate claims to have solved, and everyone thinks its the greatest choice ever! Not only that, but she runs on her "record" as a reformer! To paraphrase Bill Clinton, It's the hypocrisy stupid!

Curious Stranger

"But when did he ever say that a candidate's stance on the issue of earmarks for commuter rail was of predominant importance?"

Caldera isn't against commuter rail? Does he routinely vote for candidates who appear to be serial wasters of taxpayers money? I'm sort of under the impression that he doesn't. I could be wrong though.

Curious Stranger

I'm not sure any of my posts with links to the evidence made it through, its not saying they're awaiting moderation. I have to run to work, so if they don't make it I'll try and reconstitute them in a way that satisfies wordpress this afternoon.

Curious Stranger

Ben, there is something wrong with your comment system. This is the fourth time I've tried to enter a post with URL's in it and they don't show up as awaiting moderation. I'm going to try one last time pasting each URL individually in the hopes that works, but otherwise I'm afraid I've done enough research for the RNC today.

Snaggle-Tooth Jones

"Thanks for your concern, Brer Rabbit. You read the partisan Democrat talking points well."

That secesh thang, tho - ain't that a GOP tawkin' point too? I wud thank it is, ye bein' the "Party of Lincoln" n' all.

But see, ol' Todd Palin's probably closer t' a Confederaratarian - or at leas' a classical conservative - thin y'all are, which is why it's necessary to downplay it.

Curious Stranger said...

"Nancy Pelosi said it best when she let the House adjourn without a vote on drilling"

Don't you mean House Minority Whip Roy Blunt let the House adjourn without a vote on drilling, when he chose to have lunch at the Heritage Foundation rather than show up for the vote he's in charge of making sure Republicans show up for?

Do we really need to go over all this again?

And I still haven't gotten an answer from anyone here on what Bob Schaffer's alternative energy plans are - do they stop at carrying a piece of solar panel around in his pocket?

September 3, 2008 11:20 PM

A Watcher said...

The last I heard, the minority party in the House has no power at all. Maybe there are new rules, though.

Nice try.

September 4, 2008 6:36 AM

Curious Stranger said...

I guess you did miss that whole conversation. Had Roy Blunt *not* gone to that lobbyist lunch, and instead had shown up for the vote, the House would not have adjourned. The minority party has the power to vote, a vote which in this case would have made a difference, and Roy Blunt chose not to.

September 4, 2008 8:21 AM

Ben DeGrow said...

CS -

In the interest of fairness and balance, I can assure you none of the SvU contributors will be casting a vote this year either for Boulder liberal Democrat Mark Udall or for Republican Roy Blunt. Thanks.

September 4, 2008 10:37 AM

Curious Stranger said...

I'll post this comment again, since it hasn't seem to have made its way through moderation.

If Nancy Pelosi's actions are relevent to this discussion, than Roy Blunt's actions are as well.

September 5, 2008 8:32 AM

shockcorridor said...

CS - how DID you manage to part with your hourly wage twice in such a short period of time?

9:20 PM

Curious Stranger said...

"CS - how DID you manage to part with your hourly wage twice in such a short period of time?"

Make that 3 times! Another $10 to honor your disrespect for working folks making an hourly wage. Congratulations on your elitism! It has brought Obama $10 closer to victory!

"Thank you for your generous donation of $10.00.

Your gift will be immediately put to work building a campaign to change our country and our politics for the better. "

11:30 PM

El Rider said...

Curious Stranger,

You wrote:

"Are you implying that Code Pink and Daily Kos are the ones throwing concrete and spraying bleach in people's faces. If you are, you are so out of touch it's pretty hard to believe. You seem to think that "protester" == 'anarchist'."

That is a straw man large enough to use at Burning Man.

As to your $10 donations (and no this is no diss on the working man or anybody but my hometown political crowd), having lived my life in Chicago I can tell you right now what the electronic response that they actually wanted to send you looks like, it would go about as follows:

Hey bud, youse cheap s.o.b., whatya wid da ten bucks? Da minimum button here is twendy-five, the "udder" button is for big-shots. Got dat? Like dat Gaza Strip boy who gave twenty-four Gs. Got dat? Twenty-four big ones I can use, ten bucks, ten bucks. Ten freakin bucks?

Welcome to Chicago Stranger, and you best take care around these parts.

10:34 AM

Curious Stranger said...

In tribute to you el Rider, I've just contributed $25, so we keep everyone happy. That's $35 today, and I think a grand total of $70 this week, just from Gateway Pundit. Congratulations all!

5:08 PM

Anonymous said...

who pays this Benjamin to run 'round the country spewing, well, mental sputum? Is she another cashed out internet billionaire or what?

10:39 AM

Curious Stranger said...

"well it's certainly not a secret.. as i have stated so in previous postings.."

Hah! Being a new guy here, I totally guessed that. "Righty profiling" in action. The loudest and least coherent posters on these sorts of sites are nearly always on the dole - how else do they have so much time to post their nonsense?

10:09 AM

Curious Stranger said...

"I told you to look the rest up for yourself, lazybones. Are you afraid to do so because you might find out the inconvenient truth?"

Not big on logic are we? I can't "look the rest up" when it doesn't exist. I can't prove a negative. You are the one asserting that the RNC Welcoming Committee is funded by Soros and friends, and thus the burden of proof is on you. The inconvenient truth here is that the evidence doesn't exist, except in your fevered imaginings.

10:12 AM

bg said...

++

Curious Stranger

nuff said..

==

10:13 AM

Curious Stranger said...

In tribute to your ability get played by the Republican Party into voting against your own interests (what will you be living on when Social Security is gone?), I just donated $10 to Obama's campaign in your honor bg.

In fact, I may make this a regular thing. I'd say I'd contribute $10 every time a lie is published here, but I don't have the financial backing Gateway Pundit does, and can't afford the thousands that would cost me. So, instead, I'll pick out special moments such as this and memorialize them with a donation in their honor.

Congratulations!

"Thank you for your generous donation of $10.00.

Your gift will be immediately put to work building a campaign to change our country and our politics for the better."

10:40 AM

Anonymous said...

Interesting reading ... what I don't get is don't we have laws that deal with people who "actively engage in undermining or plotting to overthrow our government"? I believe there's something about this in the Constitution, isn't there?

If so, WHY is George poopy Soros and his ilk still here? Why hasn't he been returned home to his Hungarian hut in a pine box?

Seems like a no brainer to me. Why are we putting up with this crap?

11:06 PM

Curious Stranger said...

Hey look, the Wikipedia article doesn't say anything about the anarchists being Obama supporters!

10:58 PM

bg said...

++

Curious Stranger @ 10:58 PM

oh by golly you're right!!

lets see now..

attacks @ RNC.. yes

attacks @ DNC.. no

but of course they aren't Obamattackers..

i mean, we just know they're going to vote for McCain when they go to the polls right??

oh wait a sec, anarchists supposedly "don't vote" (terrorists don't chop heads off, and donkey's fly)!!

oh well, whether they literally do or not is not the question anyways..

besides, i believe they've already voted by default via attacking one group vs the other, go figure..

at any rate, ObaONE doesn't need any more left-wing radicals associated with him, he has enough he either works for or work for him as it is, not to mention his anarchist friends & neighbors, ex-boss & co-worker & fundraisers aka: B & B Ayers..

boy times sure have CHANGED, so much HOPE, so little REALITY.. *sigh*

==

11:50 PM

Orion said...

See oh, Strange one, we don't see it as 'lying' - We agree with the logic of his conclusions based upon the observed facts and history. We, unlike you, do not require a level of evidence that would make a Defense Attorney salivate uncontrollably.

Let's see...radical leftist ideology...attacking right-wingers. Current Dem candidate is a radical leftist and associates with radical leftists...Hmmm...Probably a good bet that THESE radical leftists are supporters of THAT radical leftist even if he isn't QUITE as insanely left-wing as they are.

Boy, that's a REAL leap in logic there.

I bet you're fun to play poker with. You'd constantly fold because there's not enough evidence for you to figure out your opponents' hands...And I'm also betting that you're NOT in any sort of field that works with less than perfect data sets.

Either that or you're just a complete hypocrite and require totally different levels of evidence from one side of the aisle than from the other. Quick question - how many of the smears on Sarah Palin do you buy? You a big 9/11 Truther, perhaps?

Orion

2:56 AM

Curious Stranger said...

"We agree with the logic of his conclusions based upon the observed facts and history. We, unlike you, do not require a level of evidence that would make a Defense Attorney salivate uncontrollably."

You don't seem to require ANY level of evidence or fact. That's fine, as I said elsewhere, it's a Republican dead-ender's right to be misinformed - if they were interested in facts, they woulnd't be a part of today's "faith-based" Republican party - I'm just here to make sure any passer-by's don't misunderstand all this "analysis" as anything but empty blathering with no basis in reality.

7:27 AM

Dave in NYC said...

No more than any other media outlet, which WIDELY engage in speculation - and usually on much slimmer facts than we have here.

Actually, they don't. But I'm glad to see you admit that Jim is no better than any other media outlet.

From this, I conclude you spend a LOT of time on the LA Times, NY Times, and all the other MSM blogs taking them to task for their sins in this area. Right, Dave? Surely you're not just out trying to protect Obama with hypocritical demands for Jim to maintain some idealized standard that no regular journalist currently maintains - at least when it comes to sliming right-wing candidates and their families.

Can I conclude that you regularly post on mainstream media sites and left-wing blogs *defending* then when they make stuff up or pretend that speculation is fact?

Either you can defend Jim's claim on the merits or you can't. All this other stuff is just b.s.

And for what it's worth, I don't think the traditional media is nearly as bad as Gateway Pundit when it comes to the publication of blatant lies and speculation. But yes, I do sometimes take mainstream publications and left-wing blogs to task. I also defended Sarah Palin from a sexist attack on THIS VERY blog.

I bet you're fun to play poker with. You'd constantly fold because there's not enough evidence for you to figure out your opponents' hands...And I'm also betting that you're NOT in any sort of field that works with less than perfect data sets.

You don't seem to get it. It's not *just* that I think Jim needs more back-up before he can publish his conclusion. It's that I actually *disagree* with him on his conclusion. I think that most hard-core anarchists are not going to vote for either major party candidate in November. In fact, I think they probably won't vote at all.

do you know if these "fair & balanced" loons have attacked any 80 year old Dems?? or perhaps the Dems Bush Legacy bus?? how about tossing poison or spit at people as they arrived at the DNC??

They live in Minnesota. I'd be pretty impressed if they could hock a loogy all the way to Denver from there.

7:46 AM

Carole Sluis on September 1, 2008 9:14 pm

Sarah Palin will add a new dimension to the RNC. Sit back and watch it unfold. She is just what the Republicans needed. Kudos to McCain for such a strategical move. Yes SHE can!! Carole

Rhoda on September 1, 2008 9:43 pm

every day, it just gets better!.

Curious Stranger on September 2, 2008 1:11 am

Maybe not, but you'll see it on his lapel.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/06052008/news/nationalnews/oybama__pinup_dem_woos_jews_114050.htm

So on September 2, 2008 10:02 am

Nothing shows real support like displaying a symbol.

Curious Stranger on September 2, 2008 2:31 pm

Right. I thought that was the point of this post - did I miss something?

McCain can't credibly argue against Obama's lack of foreign policy experience with this pick. Every time he does, the public sees a 72 year old man with a history of cancer and an extreme reluctance to share his medical records choosing a VP with absolutely no foreign policy experience.

Moreover, as a gambit to get women or "the west" its a failure. Liberal and centrist women aren't going to be interested in her extreme conservatism and Westerners aren't going to be interested in her ties to the oil industry and her desire to drill in ANWR. Even conservative women are going to have questions - wondering about her willingness to take on the job of VP while trying to raise a 4 month old with Downs Syndrome.

Not to mention, anyone who achieves high office in Alaska has shoveled plenty of dirt in their past, and hers is an especially un-mined one.

Lastly, it's no great feat to cut state budgets in Alaska, a low population state with litle infrastructure, and awash in federal earmarks.

Posted by: Curious Stranger | August 29, 2008 at 02:16 PM

Incidentally, the McCain campaign is so hard-pressed on her foreign policy experience that I heard one representative attempt to argue that Alaska's proximity to Russia gives her plenty.

Posted by: Curious Stranger | August 29, 2008 at 02:17 PM

so she's literally Russia's "girl next door".

i love it more and more with every passing moment.

Posted by: meg | August 29, 2008 at 02:20 PM

I'm with Friar on this. It's American politics after all. Just another diversion for the masses, not unlike Jerry Springer or the Super Bowl. McCain took a risk on an otherwise losing campaign. It was a good move, because he was going to lose anyway. Now at least he has a fighting chance if our Northern Exposure VPILF somehow ignites a fire. I, for one, am WAY more interested in this bullshit all of a sudden....

Posted by: Klayton | August 29, 2008 at 02:33 PM

Man Biden will eat her alive on foreign policy in a VP debate. So much so that I would wonder if the GOP will even let her participate in one. There is a lot of backroom strategy at play here though. It is said that if you can't win the South, you have to win everything else to pull it off, and from a strategist's perspective, there is big big question as to whether or not an African American can win the South. So Obama needs the West. And Palin might just be the ticket to take it from him. Plus as Friar Tuck said she brings the Evangelicals back into the election in a big way.

But McCain just turned 72 and has had 4 bouts with cancer. And it seems to me even a whole lot of Republicans are asking whether putting her 2nd in line behind a guy this fragile is a smart move for the nation.

But I gotta admit. In a curious and twisted way I sort of want to see what might happen if she ended up in the presidential role. It would be interesting for sure.

Posted by: Zen | September 01, 2008 at 12:28 AM

Curious Stranger said...

Ya know, for someone who hasn't yet been able to produce any documentation indicating how drilling for oil in the US will actually impact prices, you're awfully obsessed with it. All the facts show that it will have little to no impact on prices - so why should Mark Udall jump through some straw hoop to keep you and your taskmasters happy? Show us why he should do so and then maybe its worth talking about - until then, it continues to be nothing but a stunt.

This is why the Democratic Party has been running all over the Republican Party the last several election cycles - they believe in facts, and the electorate appreciates that. Republicans see facts as something flexible - unless they're written about in the Bible, presumably - that can be used to whip up stunts to try and keep the base from collapsing under the weight of all that big government they've taken on.

August 25, 2008 9:13 PM

Ben DeGrow said...

"All the facts show that it will have little to no impact on prices..."

You really need to get out more. It's called economics, and I know Democrats have a very hard time with this important subject. But here's a sample:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121486800837317581.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

Also:

Why did the price of oil begin to drop when Pres Bush announced an end to the exec order ban on offshore drilling?

Why does Mark Udall even think it's necessary to feign support for domestic drilling?

"...for someone who hasn't yet been able to produce any documentation indicating how drilling for oil in the US will actually impact prices"

Well, with that sort of strawman argument, yes. Can economics exactly predict how a policy change will have an impact on prices at any point in the future? Not when there are millions of individual decisions interacting in a free market. But all things being equal, more supply means lower price. And the anticipation of more supply will lead to a shift in market investments that can and often does have a real impact on prices (see above).

"This is why the Democratic Party has been running all over the Republican Party the last several election cycles - they believe in facts, and the electorate appreciates that."

Look up the word "naif", and then look in the mirror. The Democratic Party believes in facts? Off the top of my weary head I can think of numerous examples countervailing that case - whether it's John Murtha jumping to false conclusions about the U.S. Marines in Haditha, Nancy Pelosi waxing ineloquent on the Catholic Church's history on abortion, Joe Biden caught in plagiarism, every time a Democrat spouted off that Pres. Bush "lied" to get us into Iraq, or dozens more.

You really, really, really ... I mean REALLY need to get out more.

Be careful what sort of threshold you set for policy-making that those you so blindly support cannot possible meet.

August 25, 2008 9:53 PM

Matt said...

Ben, how about you read ALL of what you post. From the WSJ, "increases in government subsidies to develop technology that will make future cars more efficient, or tighter standards that gradually improve the gas mileage of the stock of cars, would lower the future demand for oil and therefore the price of oil today." Yet your favorite politician (after Reagan and Cheney) voted against and increase in standards. As for ANWR, McCain doesn't support drilling there either, showing just how far right you are. The WSJ article notes that oil can be stored in the ground, so how about keeping some for MY generation and your kids. Conservativism is supposed to be about the good of America, past, present and future. Seems like it has lost its way.

August 26, 2008 12:08 PM

Curious Stranger said...

"You really need to get out more. It's called economics, and I know Democrats have a very hard time with this important subject. "

Ben, the folks that apparently need an introduction to the sort of economics you are practicing here are at the Department of Energy, where they determined drilling would have no significant impact on prices and then not for almost 30 years. Perhaps you didn't read the extensive comments I posted earlier on this? Don't make me do them all again.

"Why does Mark Udall even think it's necessary to feign support for domestic drilling?"

Because it takes it off the table. You should be savvy enough to understand that. Mark Udall can't make domestic drilling lower prices because domestic drilling can't lower prices, but in order to get to an *actual* solution, he'll give the Republicans their land giveaway to the oil companies in return for actual energy solutions that will actually accomplish something.

You still haven't let us know what Bob plans to do about alternative energy. As Matt points out, the only legislative record I can find for Bob on alternative energy shows him voting against it. We know what Mark Udall wants to do to solve our problems, What About Bob?

August 26, 2008 5:40 PM

Peoples Press Collective » Recreate '68 Mint Levitation-"Shake Your Money Maker" says:

August 27th, 2008 at 12:05 pm

[...] Before Alex Jones' verbal tirade against Michelle Malkin-who was covering the Recreate '68 moonbats and their farcical mint levitation shtick-the group was actually beginning to encircle the Mint, chanting "love-peace-justice" and other slogans that they hoped might raise the roof and shake out a little change: [...]

David H says:

August 27th, 2008 at 1:21 pm

You people are out of your mind. First of all Alex Jones didnt say ANYTHING about killing Malkin. As for the rest of you that call Jones a fascist and America hater, I think you need to buy a dictionary, that is if you can read, and look up the definition of fascist. To be honest with you, you people are the problem with America today, ignorant, brainwashed little brats that follow the lead that the government gives you. Wake up and realize the fact that this government doesnt give a tinkers damn about you, your family or their future. 9/11 WAS an inside job, the government HAS been taken over by fascists and all of you WILL regret that you refused to open your eyes and see whats really happening. As Samuel Adams once said…."If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranwuility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."

shane m says:

August 27th, 2008 at 2:05 pm

Yeah….. but he didnt put a hand on her. Plus that shout to kill her was from some protester in a screwball outfil…. not from Alex. I say Fair Play to him for sticking it to someone who is in favour of internment camps in America.

Politics in the Zeros. Anti-war, global warming, peak oil, progressive politics » Leftists protesters at DNC chant "Kill Michelle Malkin" at her says:

August 27th, 2008 at 3:21 pm

[...] People's Press Collective (who have lots of videos) Michelle Malkin was attacked by protesters and conspiracy nut Alex Jones [...]

tljames says:

August 27th, 2008 at 5:27 pm

I know this is just going to reinforce your paranoid Troofer fantasies about our being a tentacle of some

nefarious CIA/COINTELPRO conspiracy, but this comment thread has grown tedious and non-informative. I'm closing down comments so I don't have to waste any more time on it.

Thanks for playing, kids.

Curious Stranger says:

August 23rd, 2008 at 4:25 pm

Any sign of those anti-abortion vandals that defaced private property downtown yesterday? Someone should put out an APB.

justin says:

August 23rd, 2008 at 5:05 pm

"…take your bible…back …to…church…"

we r going to have fun this week.

see you all in the streets.

Curious Stranger says:

August 23rd, 2008 at 7:24 pm

Oh hey look, the anti-abortion vandals defaced a veterans memorial with paint: http://www.denverpost.com/politicswestnews/ci_10285986

Curious Stranger

Link to the arrests at the RNC 2004? Ok. Additionally, I hereby dub the coalition of DNC anti-abortion protestors "Recreate 1868".

Danielle

As one of the so-called "vandals", both here in Denver and in Boston '04, I can assure you court challenges to our freedom of speech in this medium rarely, if ever, stick. I was charged in Laguna Beach for this very "crime", and the judge agreed with every other rational American that I have the same right to chalk the sidewalk as a child of four who draws flowers and hopscotch. Are you in favor of arresting millions of American kids for vandalism?

Curious Stranger

As far as I'm aware, they (you) haven't been arrested in Denver. I'm just saying that if the DNC were to treat free speech issues like the RNC does, they (you) would have been. Will you be in Minneapolis to deface private property there as well? Do you pay for the cleanup crews?

Curious Stranger

While I have you here, Danielle, are you one of the ones that defaced the veterans memorial at City Park with a pretty-clear anti-abortion message? http://www.denverpost.com/politicswestnews/ci_10285986?source=bb

Curious Stranger

Civic Center park I mean.