Comments on: Bipartisanship? Who Needs it?

By: larry d.

larry d. — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 22:16:32 +0000

Of course you have, Reverend. You're as lefty as they come!

By: The Reverend

The Reverend — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 21:04:11 +0000

Oh, please.

Perhaps, larry, your own record is pristine…..but I don't think it's all that surprising for someone, anyone, to have had trouble or diputes with the IRS. I know I've had a couple.

By: larry d.

larry d. — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 18:37:53 +0000

He's been in office 4+ weeks and already set records for the number of corrupt nominees.

By: The Reverend

The Reverend — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 17:20:31 +0000

1420…your information about the top 100 al-Qaeda being killed comes from what source? Corroborated? And Bin Laden, and Zawahiri, I'm certain, are not in that number.

I have railed against corporate media for a number of years. I assume you are assuming that the media is hopelessly in love with President Obama. If that were the case….why did the corporate media interpret the stimulus win by Obama as a loss….and a win for the GOP? Why would a corporate media in love with Obama continue to run Rush Limbaugh criticisms, nightly, on their networks? Why the hand wringing and the moaning that Obama failed at bipartisanship?

I mean, if the media were actually biased towards, you know, Obama?

larry….Obama radically changed ethics rules. You can choose to acept that reality or your own. He's been in office 4+ weeks and he's confronting the Afghanistan-Pakistan situation head on. Let's review it after a few more months.

I disagree with Obama over sending anymore troops into Afghanistan. I want us to kill as many of the nuts in the northwest region as possible….and then get out. We don't need 17,000 new troops to do that. My opinion.

By: larry d.

larry d. — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 12:59:40 +0000

Obama's two areas of accomplishment as a senator were supposed to be his work in ethics reform and nuclear proliferation.

Boy oh boy we are in trouble!

By: pdt1420

pdt1420 — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 23:39:27 +0000

Way to take a hard, freedom-lovin stand against Al-Qaeda, Reverend!

I think it's a good idea to go after the top 200 also, seeing as how Bush already killed most of the top 100.

Oh, and what's with railing against mainstream media? Didn't seem to bother you too much when they were openly weeping over Obama.

By: The Reverend

The Reverend — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 13:08:43 +0000

Haven't seen the projects for Akron yet, King….but I bet they'll require workers.

Of course nuclear proliferation can be dangerous, larry. I mean, look what we did with the knowledge right out of the gate. And just think, we're the ONLY ones who ever used nuclear weapons.

But that was some 60 years ago. Knowledge travels at the speed of light now. It's simply a matter of time. Making a huge deal out of Khan being let off house arrest, I think, is hyperventilation. Many opportunities present themselves to nuclear disaster….not just one guy who knows how all the parts fit together.

By: larry d.

larry d. — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 02:36:48 +0000

Unless they built that airfield in the last three weeks I'd have to say Bush was the one leading a coordinated effort with the Pakis. The dems big contribution was blowing it all by revealing the airbase.

Of course I feel silly noting how you say its okay the Great Proliferator is out because everyone's going to be able to build nuclear weapons at some point, because the rationale is so ludicrous.

By: Da King

Da King — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 22:03:05 +0000

Rev, did you see the list of "stimulus" projects for Akron ? One unnecessary thing after another. Mostly just throwing money down a hole. It's very sad.

By: Da King

Da King — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 22:00:04 +0000

I'm glad to see your on board with the Afghan surge strategy, Rev.

Tell me, is the left going to call for Obama's head for bombing Pakistan like they called for Bush's for doing it ?

And I don't think the terrorists are interested in diplomatic agreements. I vote for killing them.