Predictions from Dave

I just hope this doesn't start again in 2010 for the 2012 presidential election. This has been a real pain in the butt, plus millions of dollars that could have been used for other purposes. I really think we are on the road of being a third world country or are we there already? Frankly, Joseph Goebbles of Nazi Germany was just a piker compared to our media propaganda.

Please go back to class and concentrate on getting laid again, Dave. You are useless

I predict that blacks will riot is Hobama loses.

Dave5:12PMNov 3rd 2008

I predict that blacks will riot is Hobama loses.>>>>>>>>>>>>.I predict you are 100% correct...it is the way they usually get their "free" big-screen TV's!

I sure hope the polls are wrong, seems like mccain is already defeated, sure would be somthing if he won and surprised everyone, I wish everyone would wake up, last chance!

I sure hope the polls are wrong! it looks like mccain is already defeated, sure would be somthing if mccain won, wake up everyone before it is too late!

Obama Plan Jeopardizes Thousands of Coal Jobs


Fred Jackson - OneNewsNow.com - 11/3/2008 7:35:00 AM

The nation's coal industry is in shock today with word that Barack Obama plans to put such severe penalties on coal-fired power plants that it will bankrupt them. A coalition of business leaders says such a move would jeopardize the jobs of hundreds of thousands of people who work in the coal industry.

Senator Obama's plan for putting severe financial penalties on coal-fired power plants has been made public on a YouTube video which contains audio of comments he made in San Francisco in January 2008.

"What I've said is that we would put a cap-and-trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else's out there," the Democratic presidential candidate said. "I was the first to call for a hundred-percent auction on the cap-and-trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases that was emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted-down caps that are imposed every year.

"So if somebody wants to build a coal power plant, they can," Obama concluded. "It's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greeenhouse gas that's being emitted."

A press release from the Western Business Roundtable is calling on politicians of all stripes to denounce such a plan, and encouraging voters to hold those politicans accountable for whether they support the coal industry

I sure hope Mccain wins but doesn't look like he will. i hope the polls are wrong, wake up everyone before it too late!

hope mccain wins! please everyone show the polls wrong vote maccain before too late! save America!

Intelligence Official: Obama Would Endanger Us

Thursday, October 16, 2008 11:44 AM

By: Ronald Kessler Article Font Size




If Barack Obama wins the presidency, he will endanger the country by
making us more vulnerable to terrorist attacks, the vice chairman of
the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence tells Newsmax.

Obama “would so weaken our security forces that I personally
believe that we would be in much greater danger of terrorist attacks
in the United States and abroad,” says Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo.
“I’m very much concerned, because he’s shown weak judgment
throughout his career. Throughout his campaign he has taken one
position after another that just doesn’t make sense in fighting the
war on terror.”

Obama voted twice in favor of requiring warrants to intercept
communications of foreign terrorists situated overseas, including
Osama bin Laden, Bond says.

“He voted for all of the amendments to weaken the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act bill and fought to strip it of its
power,” Bond says. “Only at the 11th hour when he saw the tide
was turning, did he vote for” the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act.

Obama’s comment that the way to fight the war on terror is with
prosecutions, the way the first World Trade Center bombing was
addressed, shows how out of touch Obama is, Bond says.

“That’s really great,” Bond says. “Prosecuting somebody
who’s blown themselves to pieces. You’re lucky to find enough of
them to identify them by DNA. They’re really going to fear
prosecution.”

Because of President Bush’s policies, “We are much safer than
before 9/11 and have avoided another terrorist attack,” Bond says.
“That strategy has carried the war to the terrorists where they
are. We’ve rolled back al-Qaida a long way. But Obama’s initial
position a couple of years ago that the war is lost, let’s get out,
would have turned the country over to al-Qaida.”

Obama’s recent claims that, if he knew where bin Laden was, he
would strike him in Pakistan without permission of that country shows
how little understanding he has of the war on terror, Bond says.

“That’s the policy now,” Bond says. “We do continually kill
terrorists in Pakistan with the Predator, and we advise Pakistan. We
don’t seek their permission. At one point, he said we’ll just go
bomb Pakistan. Apparently he doesn’t realize that Pakistan, while
certainly a mixed bag, is a nuclear-equipped Muslim territory which
could, with any precipitous action, turn into an enemy. They control
our most important supply routes into Afghanistan, and he would
ignore that. He doesn’t realize how dangerous it would be to
destabilize Pakistan and allow their radical fringes to take over.”


Obama showed the same lack of understanding about Russia’s invasion
of Georgia, Bond says.

“He called on Georgia to show restraint, and it took him about
three times to get around to John McCain’s general position
condemning Russia,” Bond says. “Then his solution was to call on
the U.N. Security Council. Do we want the commander in chief to pass
the mantle of U.S. leadership to the U.N.? And do we want one who
apparently does not know that Russia has a veto power in the Security
Council?”

Obama’s statement that he would sit down with Iranian President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to negotiate without preconditions demonstrates
naiveté, Bond says.

In sum, “He dismisses the threat, rewards enemies with summit
meetings, abandons allies, and then refuses to support trade
agreements with vital allies like Colombia, who are fighting off the
narco-terrorists,” Bond says.

Ronald Kessler is chief Washington correspondent of Newsmax.com. View
his previous reports and get his dispatches sent to you free via
e-mail. Go here now.




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

Blogsmith Customer Service
service@blogsmith.com

Intelligence Official: Obama Would Endanger Us

Thursday, October 16, 2008 11:44 AM

By: Ronald Kessler Article Font Size




If Barack Obama wins the presidency, he will endanger the country by
making us more vulnerable to terrorist attacks, the vice chairman of
the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence tells Newsmax.

Obama “would so weaken our security forces that I personally
believe that we would be in much greater danger of terrorist attacks
in the United States and abroad,” says Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo.
“I’m very much concerned, because he’s shown weak judgment
throughout his career. Throughout his campaign he has taken one
position after another that just doesn’t make sense in fighting the
war on terror.”

Obama voted twice in favor of requiring warrants to intercept
communications of foreign terrorists situated overseas, including
Osama bin Laden, Bond says.

“He voted for all of the amendments to weaken the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act bill and fought to strip it of its
power,” Bond says. “Only at the 11th hour when he saw the tide
was turning, did he vote for” the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act.

Obama’s comment that the way to fight the war on terror is with
prosecutions, the way the first World Trade Center bombing was
addressed, shows how out of touch Obama is, Bond says.

“That’s really great,” Bond says. “Prosecuting somebody
who’s blown themselves to pieces. You’re lucky to find enough of
them to identify them by DNA. They’re really going to fear
prosecution.”

Because of President Bush’s policies, “We are much safer than
before 9/11 and have avoided another terrorist attack,” Bond says.
“That strategy has carried the war to the terrorists where they
are. We’ve rolled back al-Qaida a long way. But Obama’s initial
position a couple of years ago that the war is lost, let’s get out,
would have turned the country over to al-Qaida.”

Obama’s recent claims that, if he knew where bin Laden was, he
would strike him in Pakistan without permission of that country shows
how little understanding he has of the war on terror, Bond says.

“That’s the policy now,” Bond says. “We do continually kill
terrorists in Pakistan with the Predator, and we advise Pakistan. We
don’t seek their permission. At one point, he said we’ll just go
bomb Pakistan. Apparently he doesn’t realize that Pakistan, while
certainly a mixed bag, is a nuclear-equipped Muslim territory which
could, with any precipitous action, turn into an enemy. They control
our most important supply routes into Afghanistan, and he would
ignore that. He doesn’t realize how dangerous it would be to
destabilize Pakistan and allow their radical fringes to take over.”


Obama showed the same lack of understanding about Russia’s invasion
of Georgia, Bond says.

“He called on Georgia to show restraint, and it took him about
three times to get around to John McCain’s general position
condemning Russia,” Bond says. “Then his solution was to call on
the U.N. Security Council. Do we want the commander in chief to pass
the mantle of U.S. leadership to the U.N.? And do we want one who
apparently does not know that Russia has a veto power in the Security
Council?”

Obama’s statement that he would sit down with Iranian President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to negotiate without preconditions demonstrates
naiveté, Bond says.

In sum, “He dismisses the threat, rewards enemies with summit
meetings, abandons allies, and then refuses to support trade
agreements with vital allies like Colombia, who are fighting off the
narco-terrorists,” Bond says.

Ronald Kessler is chief Washington correspondent of Newsmax.com. View
his previous reports and get his dispatches sent to you free via
e-mail. Go here now.




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

Blogsmith Customer Service
service@blogsmith.com

PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING:

The following is a narrative taken from Sunday Morning's televised 'Meet The Press' and the author is employed by none other than the Washington Post!!

From Sunday's Televised 'Meet the Press' Senator Obama was asked about his stance on the American Flag. Obama Explains National Anthem Stance Sun, 07 Sept. 2008 11:48:04 EST, General Bill Ginn' USAF (ret.) asked Obama to explain why he doesn't follow protocol when the National Anthem is played. The General also stated to the Senator that according to the United States Code, Title 36, Chapter 10, Sec. 171... During rendition of the national anthem when the flag is displayed, all present except those in uniform are expected to stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart. At the very least, 'Stand and Face It'

Senator Obama Live on Sunday stated:

'As I've said about the flag pin, I don't want to be perceived as taking sides, Obama said. 'There are a lot of people in the world to whom the American flag is a symbol of oppression. And the anthem itself conveys a war-like message. You know, the bombs bursting in air and all. It should be swapped for something less parochial and less bellicose. I like the song 'I'd Like To Teach the World To Sing.' If that were our anthem, then I might salute it.'We should consider to reinvent our National Anthem as well as to redesign our Flag to better offer our enemies hope and love. It's my intention, if elected, to disarm America to the level of acceptance to our Middle East Brethren. If we as a Nation of warring people, should conduct ourselves as the nations of Islam, whereas peace prevails. Perhaps a state or period of mutual concord between our governments. When I become President, I will seek a pact or agreement to end hostilities between those who have been at war or in a state of enmity, and a freedom from disquieting oppressive thoughts. We as a Nation have placed upon the nations of Islam an unfair injustice. My wife disrespects the Flag for many personal reasons. Together she and I have attended several flag burning ceremonies in the past, many years ago. She has her views and I have mine'. Of course now, I have found myself about to become the President of the United States and I have put aside my hatred. I will use my power to bring CHANGE to this Nation, and offer the people a new path of hope. My wife and I look forward to becoming our Country's First Family. Indeed, CHANGE is about to overwhelm the United States of America .'


Yes, ladies and gentlemen, you heard it right. This could possibly be our next President.
I, for one, am speechless.

Dale Lindsborg ,

Washington Post

If you are white stay out of black areas during the elections.

tick, tick, tick, tick....

On the eve of tomorrow's election, here's my little soliloquy from what I've observed from these blogs over the past month or so (I'm sure my critics will have a ball):

Tomorrow represents either Armageddon or the Second coming, depending on which side you stand on. Relax and hold on--because tomorrow represents neither. Tomorrow represents one thing and one thing only: change. Change is a powerful word, and some of us know just how powerful and raw words can be. But the word change is for many, a scary word as well. With some people, you can actually raise their blood pressure by the word change. There are all sorts of reasons for fearing change--fear of the unknown being the biggest. Many people would rather just accept the status quo--let someone else figure it out, it always works out right? A person who hates change usually accepts the status quo, and the person who doesn't fear change usually tries to figure out a better way of doing things. My husband and oldest daughter have that mentality--the idea that there is always a better and easier way of doing things--and they usually compete to see who can get there first. My twins, a boy and girl, are lovers of the status quo--leaving home was harder on them than it was on their mother. Their fear was justified--it meant being totally responsible for themselves without parental guidance, unaware that the parental safety net was only cloaked and not gone, their situation changed. Mon petit, well she is my little independent one who couldn't wait to turn 18 and fly the coop, change meant freedom for her. And me? Well, the word change means a whole different thing as many of you gals will either realize or already have realized when you pass 50. But, I absolutely love it! Change is good, change is as mon petit says--freedom. Which brings me to tomorrow. Both these candidates represent change. Neither will be like W. Neither is like anything or anyone we have seen before. One is a Maverick, and yet gave into the dark side of the Republican Smear Campaign machine. One is a newcomer with a steely resolve usually only seen in professional sports--the likes of Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods, Joe Montana, and Eli Manning all possess this resolve. It is intoxicating to watch in Obama as it was in those athletes. Many on these blogs, and in the public at large, have put labels on us Obama supporters: O-bots, Obamaites, Obamamaniacs. The labels are there to infer that those of us who support Barack Obama have given no thought process into choosing him and if we did, well then we must be stupid and/or we would follow the devil himself to hell if he spoke well. How could we support a man who is a socialist? A Marxist? A Jimmy Carter Clone? I can't speak for everyone else who has supported Obama, I can only speak for moi. What made me support someone whose tax plan would surely impact me and my family? What made me support someone who doesn't really have that much foreign experience at a time when the world is a very dangerous place for me and my family? What literally kicked me off the fence that I sat so cautiously on? Well, as many of you who have read my posts know, I absolutely abhor organized religion; however, it was the written words of a Catholic Friar who solidified my choice: "Men and women whose faith and love were greater than their fear have been the ones who have changed history." My own opinion is that Obama represents that oh so powerful and sometimes frightening word--change. It's that simple, for me at least--I want the change that I feel Obama offers. Now, I'm not going to urge any of you to vote for either candidate--both are good men at heart and want the best for their country. I'm only going to urge you to exercise the very right that so many have fought and died for, the right to vote. Voting equals freedom, and vice versa. So tomorrow, if you haven't already done so, excercise your freedom--GO VOTE!

I'm not so convinced of an Obama victory... I think many of the poll results shown by the media which, of course, is heavily liberally slanted, have been skewed to demotivate conservatives from even voting. Let's not forget just how inaccurate these same polls have been in the past.

And yes, as others have mentioned, if Obama does lose, rioting is inevitable.

I predict Dave will find a deceased prostitute, take her home to his cave and make her his boon companion. He will ignore the aroma and save a lot of money.

Later, or perhaps earlier this brave act will be immortalized in poetry: There once was a hermit named Dave, etc. etc.

Or he could do what rush does in years that aren't so good for nazism - wring his hands and moan and whistle ruschland, ruschland über alles until the next assault they mount against reasonable and prudent government.

I think many of the poll results shown by the media which, of course, is heavily liberally slanted,


xxx


this hasn't been true since about 1965, but if you can't think your way out of a paper bag, it's as good an excuse as any, I guess.

It's a great conspiracy theory, but the involvement of Diebold in the '04 election rigging, and the testimony of the Attorney General's office under oath regarding their active implementation of massive election fraud are both matters of record, not foxnews.

That kind of rhetoric has cost republicans dozens of elections this year as tomorrow will tell, but they still stay with it.

Nobody cares about the trivial crap. The issues are pretty simple, more reaganomics that caused the depression, more 10 billion dollar a month Iraqi occupation so private corporations can profit, more trillions borrowed from saudi arabia and communists to give to billionaires or Obama.

What part of the Clinton administration didn't you like, the peace or the prosperity?

Clif Kuplen wrote - "What part of the Clinton administration didn't you like, the peace or the prosperity?"
I DIDN'T LIKE THE CONSTANT SCANDALS & LYING, THE HIGHER TAXES & THE INCREASE IN WELFARE. BUT MOST OF ALL I DIDN'T APPRECIATE A US PRESIDENT LYING TO A GRAND JURY. KIND OF MADE A MOCKERY OF OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM.

Clif Kuplen:
Too much Clif, just too much.

"What part of the Clinton administration didn't you like, the peace or the prosperity?"

I’ll take bombing an aspirin factory when Bin Laden was available, Alex. Oh, and you can add attacks on Americans in 1993, 1995, 1996, 1998 and 2000 with no response.