Nice job submitter, the article has nothing to do with the headline.

Worse than just being irrelevant to the headline, the article goes as far as to assume Obama is going to win the Presidency and then discusses the difficulties he may face in Afghanistan due to campaign promises.

The only way an Obama victory this year won't end up hurting the Dems is if some neocon terrorist takes him out in his first 6 months in office. This country is a bus that already drove off a cliff at this point, and the best plans and intentions in the world can't stop gravity.

Flash forward to 2012 and imagine how many threads will be blaming Iraq on the Dems and insisting that they are solely responsible for the debt and everything else the last 8 years has given us.

Mordant: The only way an Obama victory this year won't end up hurting the Dems is if some neocon terrorist takes him out in his first 6 months in office. This country is a bus that already drove off a cliff at this point, and the best plans and intentions in the world can't stop gravity.

Flash forward to 2012 and imagine how many threads will be blaming Iraq on the Dems and insisting that they are solely responsible for the debt and everything else the last 8 years has given us.

Since McCain will be dead by then and Palin will not survive the 2012 GOP primaries, who will the GOP be banking on to run? Huckabee again, or Romney? Will the GOP finally trade in their fundie ideal for a social moderate/fiscal conservative?

Shrew2u: Will the GOP finally trade in their fundie ideal for a social moderate/fiscal conservative?

Are there any of those left in the GOP?

Shrew2u: Mordant: The only way an Obama victory this year won't end up hurting the Dems is if some neocon terrorist takes him out in his first 6 months in office. This country is a bus that already drove off a cliff at this point, and the best plans and intentions in the world can't stop gravity.

Flash forward to 2012 and imagine how many threads will be blaming Iraq on the Dems and insisting that they are solely responsible for the debt and everything else the last 8 years has given us.

Since McCain will be dead by then and Palin will not survive the 2012 GOP primaries, who will the GOP be banking on to run? Huckabee again, or Romney? Will the GOP finally trade in their fundie ideal for a social moderate/fiscal conservative?

Easy. Bobby Jindal.

Jindal/Palin 2012

/cool Madsen flick

SangamonTaylor: Easy. Bobby Jindal.

Jindal/Palin 2012

Exorcism/Witch Hunt 2012

Atillathepun: SangamonTaylor: Easy. Bobby Jindal.

Jindal/Palin 2012

Exorcism/Witch Hunt 2012

ha. Then I guess Obama/Biden = Terrorist sympathizer/gun grabber 2008

Jindal showed the nation how a state should effectively handle a natural disaster with Gustov. Speaking of healthcare, Jindal actually did incredible things to fix Louisiana's broken healthcare system (by making some tough choices and cutting spending like a good conservative).

Would a good conservative even be accepted by today's Republicans ? The Fox crew would be confused by that and when they get confused they go into auto attack mode.

The only way Obama can lose is if they catch him in bed with a white girl.

Shrew2u: Will the GOP finally trade in their fundie ideal for a social moderate/fiscal conservative?

If the DNC would ease or drop its stance on abortion, same-sex marriage and boot the anti-religious extremists to the curb(or at least tell them to put a sock in it), they might attract more people from Middle America and, as a consequence, start winning more elections. Hopefully, someday, the DNC realizes it's not in their best interests to alienate the majority of Americans.

People have a tendency to vote for their moral and personal beliefs. Whether you agree with them or not, the majority of people in the US are not pro-same sex marriage, pro-abortion or anti-religious.

Obama has promised to send in about 10,000 more troops and to strike next-door Pakistan, if top terrorists are spotted there.

There is the thesis.

Nobody, and mean Nobody who has ever become president has disavowed use of military force abroad if it was in the national interest.

Any farking tool who'd say otherwise would never be elected.

Even Jimmy farking Carter wouldn't disavow first nuclear strike if our interests were at stake.

Clear? It's called Real-Politik. Not neo-con twitery about spreading Freedom and Democracy -- a foreign policy that no so iconicly diminished the real quantitative realities of American exceptionalism that is the basis of Freedom and Democracy.

PacManDreaming: Shrew2u: Will the GOP finally trade in their fundie ideal for a social moderate/fiscal conservative?

If the DNC would ease or drop its stance on abortion, same-sex marriage and boot the anti-religious extremists to the curb(or at least tell them to put a sock in it), they might attract more people from Middle America and, as a consequence, start winning more elections. Hopefully, someday, the DNC realizes it's not in their best interests to alienate the majority of Americans.

People have a tendency to vote for their moral and personal beliefs. Whether you agree with them or not, the majority of people in the US are not pro-same sex marriage, pro-abortion or anti-religious.fark your "anti-religious" bullshiat. The majority of people are on our side, which is the side of religious freedom. Not codifying Christianity, not praying in schools, not teaching the Bible or using it to change how we teach, and no plunking down giant farking stone obelisks showing just how much you love Jesus.

Gay marriage? More voters are against the farking anti-gay marriage AMENDMENT your "side" has been trying to push than are against gay marriage, and the majority of voters support civil unions and extending legal protections to homosexual couples. And since "marriage" is just as much of a religious and social issue as it is a legal issue, there would be nothing stopping these couples from still marrying in the church of their choice. The marriage itself would not be legally recognized, but the civil union would be. De facto gay marriage without stepping on your homophobic church's toes.

I'm not anti-religion. You can believe whatever the fark you want. But when that belief and acting upon that belief farks with my rights, farks with my friends' rights, and farks with my kids' farking education, that's where I have a problem.

It's less religion than traditionalism and knee-jerk moralism with little to no support in scripture or traditional theology. More often than not, the only thing the overzealous farkwits you want the DNC to appeal to understand less than the Constitution and the scientific method is their own farking religious texts.

Ahem, sh ould have closed that italic tag. My rant is the one that starts with "Gay marriage?"

As far as I know he's threatened to strike (terrorists) IN Pakistan, rather than to strike Pakistan, as TFA says.

beve: As far as I know he's threatened to strike (terrorists) IN Pakistan, rather than to strike Pakistan, as TFA says.

Yep. The hilarious thing is that they're trying to paint Obama as someone who will fark up exactly like Bush, saying that he'll "invade" Pakistan. They wouldn't be happy with us, but sending in strike forces into the rural, lawless hills of western Pakistan if we know that there is a high-level terrorist threat there is a far cry from running in, taking over the place, then staying there with no plan for years.

SangamonTaylor: Easy. Bobby Jindal.

He's earning big props as governor, but Bobby is as socially moderate as Pope Benedict. Try again.

Bloody William: Gay marriage? More voters are against the farking anti-gay marriage AMENDMENT your "side" has been trying to push than are against gay marriage, and the majority of voters support civil unions and extending legal protections to homosexual couples. And since "marriage" is just as much of a religious and social issue as it is a legal issue, there would be nothing stopping these couples from still marrying in the church of their choice. The marriage itself would not be legally recognized, but the civil union would be. De facto gay marriage without stepping on your homophobic church's toes.

I'm not anti-religion. You can believe whatever the fark you want. But when that belief and acting upon that belief farks with my rights, farks with my friends' rights, and farks with my kids' farking education, that's where I have a problem.

It's less religion than traditionalism and knee-jerk moralism with little to no support in scripture or traditional theology. More often than not, the only thing the overzealous farkwits you want the DNC to appeal to understand less than the Constitution and the scientific method is their own farking religious texts.

Yeah, that's why people shot down gay marriage in the last election. And it's also obvious you don't know biblical scripture.

It's also obvious that you don't realize that people on the other side are smarter than you give them credit for. Just because you think they're dumb for their beliefs doesn't make it so. Don't forget, a lot of them think you're just as stupid for your beliefs.

You also call them homophobic and degrade them in other ways...perhaps you're showing your bigotry more than you realize. Or is it OK for you to do so because of your perceived moral superiority?

Whether you agree with them or not, calling them stupid or whatever isn't going to "make them see the light" and bring them to your side(ask Obama how that "cling to guns and religion" gaff worked out for him). You're just going to have to realize that the majority of people in the US don't subscribe to ultra-leftists views.

PacManDreaming: Shrew2u: Will the GOP finally trade in their fundie ideal for a social moderate/fiscal conservative?

If the DNC would ease or drop its stance on abortion, same-sex marriage and boot the anti-religious extremists to the curb(or at least tell them to put a sock in it), they might attract more people from Middle America and, as a consequence, start winning more elections. Hopefully, someday, the DNC realizes it's not in their best interests to alienate the majority of Americans.

People have a tendency to vote for their moral and personal beliefs. Whether you agree with them or not, the majority of people in the US are not pro-same sex marriage, pro-abortion or anti-religious.

As far as I know, the DNC's stand on abortion is "it is not any of the government's business to be prohibiting people's medical decisions."

As far as I understand, the DNC are officially opposed to gay marriage. That's what all of the candidates claim. That pisses me off, I admit. In my opinion, a marriage is a legal contract, and any two people who are of legal age and of sound mind should be allowed to sign any legal contract that they like, as long as doing so does not infringe the rights of others.

(Weddings are religious ceremonies, and it should be up to individual churches to decide what types of ceremonies they wish to perform. Marriages are inherently legal contracts, and not religious ones, so religious communities should have no real say in determining which contracts are and aren't enforceable.)

And I am not aware of any "anti-religious" stance on the part of the DNC. Certainly, they do not want any particular denomination to be considered mandatory. But that is just basic patriotism that any real American who understood the Constitution would agree with.

Hope that helps.

PacManDreaming: People have a tendency to vote for their moral and personal beliefs. Whether you agree with them or not, the majority of people in the US are not pro-same sex marriage, pro-abortion or anti-religious.

So why is the McCain/Palin ticket tanking?

I love when people use the term "this century" to disingenuously refer to less than one decade. No, really, that's just freakin' genius. God damnit, why couldn't I have been born so clever?

PacManDreaming: You're just going to have to realize that the majority of people in the US don't subscribe to ultra-leftists views.

Again, if that is true, why is the McCain/Palin ticket tanking?

SangamonTaylor: ...like a good conservative.

Oxymoron.

/oops. Fark. Oxymoran.

Shrew2u: PacManDreaming: You're just going to have to realize that the majority of people in the US don't subscribe to ultra-leftists views.

Again, if that is true, why is the McCain/Palin ticket tanking?

Because Obama isn't an ultra-leftist.

Remember "bu-bu-but Clinton"? The Dems will be able to blame the next 4 years on Bush and make it stick, no problem. If the GOP had kept congress in 2006 they probably would have been able to delay the mess until 2009 and blame the dems, but everything is clearly already FUBAR and Bush is going to take the hit.

Kasira: The only way Obama can lose is if they catch him in bed with a white girl.

that's a good thing, isn't it? especially if she's rich.....

FloydA: As far as I know, the DNC's stand on abortion is "it is not any of the government's business to be prohibiting people's medical decisions."

As far as I understand, the DNC are officially opposed to gay marriage. That's what all of the candidates claim. That pisses me off, I admit. In my opinion, a marriage is a legal contract, and any two people who are of legal age and of sound mind should be allowed to sign any legal contract that they like, as long as doing so does not infringe the rights of others.

(Weddings are religious ceremonies, and it should be up to individual churches to decide what types of ceremonies they wish to perform. Marriages are inherently legal contracts, and not religious ones, so religious communities should have no real say in determining which contracts are and aren't enforceable.)

And I am not aware of any "anti-religious" stance on the part of the DNC. Certainly, they do not want any particular denomination to be considered mandatory. But that is just basic patriotism that any real American who understood the Constitution would agree with.

Hope that helps.

I know exactly what you're saying. I'm just pointing out that the more the ultra-left keeps rubbing those hot-button topics in people's faces, the more people on the Right are going to resist them.

Shrew2u: So why is the McCain/Palin ticket tanking?

Polls don't mean shiat. If you remember, there was supposed to be no way in hell Bush was gonna win again. The Democrats have a very bad history of underestimating their opponents.

PacManDreaming: I know exactly what you're saying. I'm just pointing out that the more the ultra-left keeps rubbing those hot-button topics in people's faces, the more people on the Right are going to resist them.

i dont think the left is the side trying to use these wedge issues as dividers

SangamonTaylor: Easy. Bobby Jindal.

Jindal/Palin 2012

Wow, that's an anti-abortion ticket if ever there was one. Good luck getting that to fly.

Wait? He hasn't yet!?

/There are a hell of a lot more women than blacks
//And which demographic did he piss off?

Shrew2u: Mordant: The only way an Obama victory this year won't end up hurting the Dems is if some neocon terrorist takes him out in his first 6 months in office. This country is a bus that already drove off a cliff at this point, and the best plans and intentions in the world can't stop gravity.

Flash forward to 2012 and imagine how many threads will be blaming Iraq on the Dems and insisting that they are solely responsible for the debt and everything else the last 8 years has given us.

Since McCain will be dead by then and Palin will not survive the 2012 GOP primaries, who will the GOP be banking on to run? Huckabee again, or Romney? Will the GOP finally trade in their fundie ideal for a social moderate/fiscal conservative?

Bloomberg vs Hillary 2012

PacManDreaming: Yeah, that's why people shot down gay marriage in the last election. And it's also obvious you don't know biblical scripture.

Funny, I thought in 2006 the Republicans suffered a pretty significant loss and the Democrats a significant win in Congress, causing a notable Democratic majority in the House and a weighed tie in the Senate.

Actually, homosexuality is one of the few things I can admit is readily condemned in the Bible with little qualification.

However, abortion? No.

Putting religion in government? No.

Being self-important douchebags who scream their faith from the top of a mountain? Jesus was pretty clear about that (one of the reasons Matthew is among my favorite books in the Bible).

THAT is what I referred to. Not the gay thing, strictly speaking.

It's also obvious that you don't realize that people on the other side are smarter than you give them credit for. Just because you think they're dumb for their beliefs doesn't make it so. Don't forget, a lot of them think you're just as stupid for your beliefs.

Yes, but unlike them my beliefs are supported by farking science. I wouldn't have so much disdain for the "faithful" (the narrow, obnoxiously loud segment of the population who wants to "teach the controversy) if they wouldn't try to teach intelligent design alongside evolution, or otherwise ban or undermine evolution. It shows an utter lack of understanding of the scientific method to the point of willful ignorance to try to put "intelligent design," a philosophical approach to creation at best and a thinly veiled way to wedge Christian theology into schools at worst, on the same level as evolution, an observed biological process that formed a major pillar of modern biology.

You also call them homophobic and degrade them in other ways...perhaps you're showing your bigotry more than you realize. Or is it OK for you to do so because of your perceived moral superiority?

They are homophobic. Don't give me that "they only want to keep tradition" bullshiat, they are homophobes. Underneath the thin excuse of holding up a tradition (that itself has only been a tradition for about a century in terms of independence for women, between two and four centuries in terms of consentual between both parties, and is shown in parts of the Bible itself as not being between a man and a woman, but between a man and several women, including slaves and mistresses) is a religious tenet that says that homosexuality is an abomination and an attitude that says that gay people are defective and should be converted or shunned, and that contributes to the fact that homosexuals have far higher rates of suicide than heterosexuals.

Yeah. I think calling it homophobic is justified.

Whether you agree with them or not, calling them stupid or whatever isn't going to "make them see the light" and bring them to your side(ask Obama how that "cling to guns and religion" gaff worked out for him). You're just going to have to realize that the majority of people in the US don't subscribe to ultra-leftists views.

The majority of people in the US don't subscribe to ultra-right-wing views either. They're not religious zealots. I don't expect the majority of Americans to agree with me on everything, but I know for damned sure that they don't agree with you on everything, either. And I'd like to think that, in that middle ground, they'd rather err on the side of personal freedom than moralizing bullshiat.

Kasira: The only way Obama can lose is if they catch him in bed with a white dead girl or a live boy.

/Edwin Edwards ftw

PacManDreaming: You also call them homophobic and degrade them in other ways...perhaps you're showing your bigotry more than you realize. Or is it OK for you to do so because of your perceived moral superiority?

If you don't like gay marriage here, move to Iran. I'm sure you'll find their fusion of religion and state to be more to your liking.

Yeah, that's why people shot down gay marriage in the last election. And it's also obvious you don't know biblical scripture.

Gay marriage will be legal nationwide in less than 25 years. Just like with interracial marriage 50 years ago, the people who oppose it are getting older and dying and being replaced by people who don't see what the problem is.

PacManDreaming: Shrew2u: So why is the McCain/Palin ticket tanking?

Polls don't mean shiat. If you remember, there was supposed to be no way in hell Bush was gonna win again. The Democrats have a very bad history of underestimating their opponents.

Bzzt! Wrong. It's October. The polls matter again.

Obama has already lost. Most people just aren't aware of it yet.

The real wedge issues between Democrats and Republicans in general tend to be things that neither side can change.

Gay marriage is legal in California, not because of lawmakers or the Governator forgetting to veto a bill, but because of judges.

Abortion is legal in the US, not because of congress or the president, but because of judges.

I don't see why so much crap gets flung back and forth about political candidates' views on these decisions. They aren't going to be able to change them, not even if they promised to do so to earn votes.

Their is a proposition being voted on in California that says that if we don't make gay marriages illegal, then "it will be taught in our schools!!!" What the flying fark is that even supposed to mean? How the crap do you teach "gay marriage"? What curriculum would that be under and would their be an AP course for REALLY gay people?

Just wedge fearmongering. Gay people getting married isn't hurting anyone in this entire state, but it's more important than funding our prisons, investing in renewable energy, making the major cities wi-fi or updating the power grid for the nation's biggest exporter, transportation and tourism hub? Fark this moralistic crap and elect people who talk about their stances on real issues.

the article and the headline have NOTHING to do with each other.

100% FAIL for subby.

PacManDreaming: Whether you agree with them or not, calling them stupid or whatever isn't going to "make them see the light" and bring them to your side(ask Obama how that "cling to guns and religion" gaff worked out for him). You're just going to have to realize that the majority of people in the US don't subscribe to ultra-leftists views.

I must have a higher opinion of Americans than you do, because I don't think the majority is that idiotic.

PacManDreaming: Shrew2u: So why is the McCain/Palin ticket tanking?

Polls don't mean shiat. If you remember, there was supposed to be no way in hell Bush was gonna win again. The Democrats have a very bad history of underestimating their opponents.

Kerry only lead Bush twice and it was for about a week or so. Just after the DNC and then a slight bump around mid-October.

Semi-Sane: Obama has already lost. Most people just aren't aware of it yet.

o rly?

PacManDreaming: Shrew2u: So why is the McCain/Palin ticket tanking?

Polls don't mean shiat. If you remember, there was supposed to be no way in hell Bush was gonna win again. The Democrats have a very bad history of underestimating their opponents.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Bush was leading in the electoral map polling for the entire fall.

Check out this:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2004/Pres/Maps/Oct04.html

On october 4th, Bush was projected to win 296 electoral votes, easily claiming the presidency.

Now compare that to this:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

Obama is CRUSHING McCain in the electoral map polling.

"This century?" Seriously, it's like the Admins are going out of their way to greenlight the most retarded headlines imaginable.

PacManDreaming:

the majority of people in the US are not pro-same sex marriage, pro-abortion or anti-religious.

Just checking to see if I'm reading you right - the majority of the country isn't pro-abortion. By that same token the majority of the country isn't pro-life.

PacManDreaming: FloydA: As far as I know, the DNC's stand on abortion is "it is not any of the government's business to be prohibiting people's medical decisions."

As far as I understand, the DNC are officially opposed to gay marriage. That's what all of the candidates claim. That pisses me off, I admit. In my opinion, a marriage is a legal contract, and any two people who are of legal age and of sound mind should be allowed to sign any legal contract that they like, as long as doing so does not infringe the rights of others.

(Weddings are religious ceremonies, and it should be up to individual churches to decide what types of ceremonies they wish to perform. Marriages are inherently legal contracts, and not religious ones, so religious communities should have no real say in determining which contracts are and aren't enforceable.)

And I am not aware of any "anti-religious" stance on the part of the DNC. Certainly, they do not want any particular denomination to be considered mandatory. But that is just basic patriotism that any real American who understood the Constitution would agree with.

Hope that helps.

I know exactly what you're saying. I'm just pointing out that the more the ultra-left keeps rubbing those hot-button topics in people's faces, the more people on the Right are going to resist them.

So, what, we should just let bigotted laws be passed and let the government control women's bodies and limit our personal freedoms because it might OFFEND people to call them on their bigoted ideas?!

FARK THEM! Fark bigots.

Yeah, damn those judges and their constitution.

Wadded Beef: PacManDreaming:

the majority of people in the US are not pro-same sex marriage, pro-abortion or anti-religious.

Just checking to see if I'm reading you right - the majority of the country isn't pro-abortion. By that same token the majority of the country isn't pro-life.

I'm not pro-abortion but I support anyone who is, simply because abortion shouldn't be left to amateurs.

Evil Twin Skippy: Wait? He hasn't yet!?

/There are a hell of a lot more women than blacks
//And which demographic did he piss off?

Apparently male whites, because that's the only demographic he isn't winning in most places.