August 21, 2008
McCain: $500 Shoes, $100 Million Assets, Can’t Remember How Many Homes He Owns! (Brent Budowsky)
This is hilarious: The guy who makes the phony-baloney charge that Barack Obama is elitist can't remember how many houses he owns! He tells reporters: "I'll have my staff get the number and get back to you"!!!
It is four? Is it six? Is it 11? Do we count only those houses McCain lives in, properties he and his wife own and can hang out in, or all of them? Do you know how many houses you own? If not, ask your staff!
What a guy, this McCain. He puts on his $500 shoes, with over $100 million of assets (speaking of first wives, and second wives, I might add — for those interested in double standards after the John Edwards case — that this $100 million was not earned income by McCain, you understand).
The guy with so many houses he can’t count them, the $500 dollar shoes and the $100 million of assets that are not earned income — this guy calls Obama an elitist?! Obama, who grew up in a single-parent home, worked his way through law school, earned his success the old-fashioned way, and worked with churches to help jobless workers find jobs?
What a class act, this guy who launches cheap-shot personal attacks against Obama; who is so out of touch he can’t remember how many homes he owns.
Anybody check his shoe closet recently?
Permalink TrackBack
Email This Post
Share this post
What's This 91 Comments
»
The Hill welcomes comment from anyone and will almost always post it whether it is favorable or critical, as long as it is substantive and advances debate.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Brent,
Embarrassing mistake by McCain. but let me play your game…
The mistakes McCain did not make…
Ah I'll just give one..
Lying about his vote and the contents of the Born Alive Protection Act in the Illinois Sentate in 2002.
Obama, supporter of Infanticide
Hmmm not able to say how many houses you own, or lying let me spell that for you L-Y-I-N-G about your vote, the bill ,and the people that point all this out that show your (Obama) support for INFANTICIDE.
I'll let the other posters choose (although the choice is easy).
Brent it is so easy to see your coordination with the DNC it is no longer funny.
Comment by Jon Pemberton — August 21, 2008 @ 3:40 pm
This is the kind of message that the Obama campaign needs to get out there and really drive home. There is no way that a man like McCain can possibly understand (or remember) the needs and concerns of ordinary Americans.
Comment by Melissa — August 21, 2008 @ 3:57 pm
Spot on Brent,
Finally the Obama camp and the Dems are on the attack. This is how they need to react every time.
Did you hear their rebuttal? They used the POW card AGAIN,..someone like Wes Clark needs to put an end to this crap.
Basically if you challenge/criticize McBush on anything, out comes the POW card..
Did you cheat at Saddleback? Well you know he was a POW..
McCain cant remember all of his Mansions? Well you know he did live in one house, prison..as a POW?
Folks are suffering and the economy is in the tank..well, you whiners should be ashamed!!, don't you know that McCain suffered and bled for our sins, as a POW?
Comment by Theard — August 21, 2008 @ 3:58 pm
Theard,
The only person at Saddleback that got a question in advance was Obama, he admitted it when the question was asked.
I own two homes so I must be out of touch and an elitist.lol
Keep supporting Barack "Baby Killer" Obama
Now thats "in touch"…
Comment by Jon Pemberton — August 21, 2008 @ 4:20 pm
The man's senile - I bet he has days when he can't remember the names of his close family.
Comment by uk visa — August 21, 2008 @ 4:29 pm
Theard,I might add—he lied and cheated on his 1st wife cause POW
He mistook the Iran/Afghani border cause POW
He loves Dancin Queen by Abba cause POW
He don't know much bout that pesky weak dollar cause POW
He hasn't cast a single vote onthe Senate floor since April cause POW
He didn't even bother to show up for the GI Bill vote cause
POW
Comment by sherri wong — August 21, 2008 @ 4:32 pm
McCain doesn't immediately remember which houses legally belong to him and which ones to his wife, and which ones are held as community property. His wife keeps her assets separate due to her inheritance, and he can't make a mistake in answering the question otherwise he'll be eaten alive by the Obama-crazed mainstream media.
Yes we need paupers as Presidents, because only they can appreciate how the common man lives. In fact, let's quickly produce a Hawaiian birth certificate for the newly discovered half-brother of Obama named George Hussein Onyango Obama living in a hut in a ramshackle town of Huruma on the outskirts of Nairobi on one dollar a month. He is at least as American as Barack, and he certainly knows what poverty is like, unlike his Rezko housing partner brother Barack who can't spare a couple of buck for dirt-poor relatives, but wants to tax America a trillion dollars to relieve world poverty.
Comment by Igor R. — August 21, 2008 @ 4:34 pm
Excellent Sheri..I am just hoping a TV pundit starts hitting McCain on his use of the POW card.
Jon..I could pull the transcript of Saddleback but why bother? He was a POW and we should all beleive him!!
He suffered for our freedom and we should absolve him for every gaffe, senior moment, bad policies and flip flops…why? He was a POW!!
Comment by Theard — August 21, 2008 @ 4:41 pm
By the way, for all people who wish America well, this little tidbit:
Challenges to Barack Obama’s eligibility to run for the presidency was filed in New York state last week, and today in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
The Democrat Party has not vetted him and for twenty years he may have been using an illegal name. His name in Indonesia was Barry Soetoro. Circumstantial evidence indicates that is the name on his birth certificate in Hawaii, as he was adopted by his stepfather Lolo Soetoro before the family emigrated to Indonesia, and the original BC was sealed. To open the original requires a court order. He could change his name legally after reaching majority at 18-years of age. But to change one’s name is public record and so far there has been no discovery that the Senator sought a legal name change in any of the 50 states.
It is illegal to use an alias to run for public office and is considered fraud if one does so. Votes for a candidate using other than a legal name or a name that is mispelled are automatically void and not counted.
Comment by Igor R. — August 21, 2008 @ 5:22 pm
Meanwhile, a little excitement at the Clinton/Obama household:
http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f92/RetSignman/hillaryandobama.jpg
Comment by Igor R. — August 21, 2008 @ 5:26 pm
Perhaps we should mount a challenge to Panamanian born McCain's citizenship, his real name is Jesus Rodrigo McLoco. LOL..We need to check whether he is a US citizen and demand to see the records.
All his well, Since he was a POW!!
R u serious Igor, is this what the lunatic right has in store? LOL!!!
The low info voters that will beleive this nonsense will not vote for him and they dont browse The Internets!
Comment by Theard — August 21, 2008 @ 6:00 pm
Spot on, big time Brent. Thanks.
I expect no less from the Obama camp. They need to hit the neo-neocon McCain below the belt, repetatively. Who in their right mind can't remeber how many houses they own? Jesus Christ man. McCain is standing on third base ($100 Million) and really thinks he hit the triple.
I haven't ever lost track of my homes. Nor do I have any $500 loafers, nor does Obama, as has been widely reported.
I really don't need to remind everyone, but I will anyway;
Fundie Pemberton is obviously lying, or has been brainwashed, again, with all this abortion crap. Fundie Pemberton wants to be able to 'choose' for the women, an authoritarian viewpoint. The Pemberton wants to throw stones while living in a glass house.
Do you wonder how many times this fundie Pemberton voted for BunnyPants Bush? TWICE. Now he wants to offer up solutions and "opiniopns". Yeah right, Enough said.
Jesse T
Comment by Jesse Templeton — August 21, 2008 @ 6:10 pm
The terrorist-loving Presidential candidate unmasked (remove the dot in "co.m":
http://www.youtube.co.m/v/m89m0pC_bpY&
Comment by Igor R. — August 21, 2008 @ 6:50 pm
Theard, the intent is not to swing the low info voters, it's to catch the terrorist-enabler in his own web of lies.
Comment by Igor R. — August 21, 2008 @ 6:52 pm
Theard,
Pull the transcript. Read Barack "Baby Killer" Obama's admission to getting a question in advance.
Funny no reponses from the left on Barack "Baby Killer" Obama's lies about the Born Alive Protection Act. Where he was the only one to speak against the bill that would protect babies boran alive in botched abortions. Morally reprehensible position, but Theard, Brent , and the other "blinded" lefties give Barack "Baby Killer" Obama a free pass, in other words they support the same position.
Comment by Jon Pemberton — August 21, 2008 @ 6:53 pm
Saw your link Igor – I still think the picture where we see George Bush sitting and reading My Pet Goat while our country was under attack is more alarming. Oh and, the one with GW wasn’t photo shopped.
Kudos to the photo shop artist in your lil’ cartoon though. My 6 year old could’ve done a better job, but that’s excellent work for a Neocon.
Still, I’m not sure why but the comedy thing just doesn’t work for Neocon’s does it? Remember the Half Hour News Hour? (Neither do I). When Neocons try to be funny it’s kind of like watching Adolf Hitler on stage telling anti-Semitic jokes – it just isn’t funny. In fact you just come off kinda’ sleazy… Even creepy.
Stick with the hate rants dude, it suits your party better.
Comment by Jeff — August 21, 2008 @ 7:03 pm
Theard,
LOL! Don't you get it? Barry Soetoro sounded too "foreign", so he is now using Barack Hussein Obama to fool people and "blend in." Wait until Igor and the Conspiracy Clowns expose that Soetoro never lived in Indonesia, but instead lived in an atheist alien colony on Jupiter!
Comment by Melissa — August 21, 2008 @ 7:20 pm
McCain is not only confused as to how many houses he owns, he is also Confused on Foreign Affairs! For example, The Below link exposes and reveals John McCain's really bad lack of knowledge regarding foreign affairs — supposedly his strong point!
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentato...
It is unfoturnate that we have to get the truth from other countries rather than our Republican-owned main stream media — which is a derelict of duty to the American public. They failed us after 911 and they are still failing us now. Thank God we have the Internet and Blogs wherein we can find the truth.
Comment by angellight — August 21, 2008 @ 7:34 pm
Melissa, I'm sure he lived in Indonesia and he does have an American citizen parent. All I wanted for him to do is to release his original birth certificate. It's most likely OK, he'd be insane to run otherwise, but what's the hold up?
His problems are not where he lived but what he believes in.
Comment by Igor R. — August 21, 2008 @ 10:13 pm
Jesse T,
Go research Obama and the 2002 Born Alive Protection Act for Illinois. He voted and argued against a bill that would have protected infants that were BORN, Breathing and functioning on their own after a botched abortion. The child is already out of the Mother. He would rather not protect the innocent. If you are too ignorant to face the facts in this one thats fine, typical lib. Tell me I'm wrong on this.. You can't and I mentioned this in post one and Brent won't touch it either, becauyse it is true.
IT WASN'T ABOUT ABORTIONS IT WAS ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF A LIVING INFANT SEPERATE FROM THE MOTHER..
Comment by Jon Pemberton — August 22, 2008 @ 12:49 am
Obama is an elitist. It isn't how much you own, it's a state of mind. Obama has a tendency to put down America, while claiming to be patriotic, and has a tendency to dismiss others as bitter bigots. It's an elitist point of view. It doesn't matter how much money you have. I know some people who buy and sell cars who can't tell you how many cars they own. I have other friends who honestly don't know how much money they have because it changes day to day. Even the U.S. Government doesn't have an accurate record of land, vehicles or employees. Are you saying the U.S. Government is elitist Brent?
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — August 22, 2008 @ 6:39 am
For all you blowhards, as it turns out McCain himself doesn't own any houses. No go hang your elitist heads in shame. What a bunch of scum.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12700.html
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — August 22, 2008 @ 7:41 am
Keep supporting Barack "Baby Killer" Obama
Now thats "in touch"…
Comment by Jon Pemberton — August 21, 2008 @ 4:20 pm
The occupation of Iraq has resulted in the death of several hundred thousand innocent women and children. Senator McCain wants this barbarism to continue, unabated, for the next 100 years. Obama, unfortunately, is only slightly better.
With all the Depleted Uranium released in Iraq we can be assured that the cancer death will continue killing newborns for the next several thousand years.
http://www.truthout.org/article/the-depleted-uranium-threat
Comment by wewillnotbeneoconned — August 22, 2008 @ 8:21 am
George HW Bush didn't even know what a scanner in a supermarket was!
George W Bush apparently isn't too familiar with "the internets" and "the google".
McCain can't keep track of his houses.
Out of touch just like their supporters!
Comment by wewillnotbeneoconned — August 22, 2008 @ 8:24 am
McCain's housing crisis: the gift that keeps on giving…
LOL..The McCain camp is trying to change the subject. They flashed the POW card to no avail, released an attack ad or two with Rezko, Ayers…zzzzzzzzzzz!! old news, no one cares…
The MSM is in a frenzy over his ten houses and Obama has delayed his Veep announcement..hopefully he starts his veep rally with..hey new Veep how many houses do u own? one? Guess what, me too!
Comment by Theard — August 22, 2008 @ 10:15 am
#20 Jon,
You're wrong in the respect that you're implying that Obama objected to protecting fetuses born alive or that he somehow condoned killing infants. Obama's argument had to do with the wording of the bills, as he and other legislators feared it was intended as a backdoor to go after Roe v. Wade. One or two words in law can make all the difference, and it's more prudent to ensure a law is worded soundly than to push for immediacy that will likely result in a legal fiasco somewhere down the road.
Here's the best explanation of the controversy I could find:
http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2008/08/bornalive.html
Comment by Melissa — August 22, 2008 @ 10:52 am
#22 Robert,
Shame on us! We shouldn't be picking on the poor POW. After all, he just dumped his first wife after her accident left her less pretty and pursued a "sugar mama" with lots of houses. We're being completely shallow and inconsiderate….
Comment by Melissa — August 22, 2008 @ 10:59 am
Melissa,
your article at the end makes it clear that Obama BLOCKED adding he language to the bill that would have made it identical to the Federal Bill. which is the opposite of what is being reported elswhere.
He choose this path and has told different stories about it which is a pattern for him.
Comment by Jon Pemberton — August 22, 2008 @ 11:12 am
Keating 5–Keating 5-Keating5
do not forget…spread the word -many have forgotten
Comment by Docb — August 22, 2008 @ 11:13 am
His campaign yesterday acknowledged that he had voted against an identical bill in the state Senate, and a spokesman, Hari Sevugan, said the senator and other lawmakers had concerns that even as worded, the legislation could have undermined existing Illinois abortion law. Those concerns did not exist for the federal bill, because there is no federal abortion law.
http://www.nysun.com/national/obama-facing-attacks-from-all-sides-over-abortion/84059/
Comment by Jon Pemberton — August 22, 2008 @ 11:17 am
Jon,
If you read the article, then you also saw this:
"The history makes it clear that Obama's role in delaying 'born-alive' legislation was minor and based on very understandable reservations of many pro abortion rights legislators in Springfield. There is simply no way to paint him as an 'extremist' when multiple versions of this same legislation failed in both chambers, often over bi-partisan concerns.."
You're trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.
Comment by Melissa — August 22, 2008 @ 11:36 am
He is the one running for President not the others. The childish arguement that "they did it too" does not wash with me. The fact that he lied recently and his own campaign had to correct him shows his moral inner self.
That is also the opinion of the author, not mine. Why did the legislation pass in 2005 once he was gone if others were opposing it?
Why is it above his pay grade to answer the questiuon when life begins and has rights?
Why can't we get a straight answer?
Comment by Jon Pemberton — August 22, 2008 @ 11:42 am
Hey Pemberdumb,
Do you think (I use the term rhetorically) any of those bombs Grampy McSame dropped on civilian villages before he started making propoganda films for the V.C managed to actually kill babies, or were they magic bombs that only killed adult gooks?
Comment by t-bone — August 22, 2008 @ 12:19 pm
Brent,
There you go you are responsible for t-bone's reprehensible comment
Comment by Jon Pemberton — August 22, 2008 @ 12:32 pm
Reading is fundamental, its hard work. It must be difficult browsing The Internets and using the google!
Did you know McCain was a POW?
Comment by Theard — August 22, 2008 @ 12:36 pm
Pemberton, what will you do when McCain picks a pro-choice running mate? You could abandon the GOP and go start the Evangelical Party. How about the Flat Earth - Evangelical Party? Now there's a novel idea.
Pemberton, the GOP will soon be abadoning you and your neocon ilk. So pull up on those bootstraps.
Comment by Jesse Templeton — August 22, 2008 @ 12:58 pm
Pemberdumb,
Fact: McSame dropped bombs on civilians.
Fact: Some of those civilians were babies.
Fact: Some of those babies were killed as a direct result of McSame's actions.
Fact: McSame cooperated with his captors while a POW and assisted their propaganda efforts, earning the nickname "Songbird".
Fact: I am a Vietnam veteran.
What is reprehensible about my comment? Was it the fact that I used puncuation and correct grammar that bothers you, or was it that it exposed your hypocrisy along with your hero McSame's?
Comment by t-bone — August 22, 2008 @ 1:08 pm
p.s. - I used the term "gooks" only because that is how McSame likes to refer to an entire race of people.
Comment by t-bone — August 22, 2008 @ 1:10 pm
Theard and t-bone,
ROFLMAO
Comment by Jon Pemberton — August 22, 2008 @ 1:33 pm
#32 Jon,
Nobody's using a "they did it too" argument. The fact is Obama played a minor role and you're implying otherwise.
The article I offered makes it implicitly clear WHY it passed when it did–the neutrality language was added! That provision is what Obama (and others) was seeking, and it was not included in previous versions of the bill.
If you aren't sure when a fetus has rights in this country, look up Roe v. Wade and corresponding case law. Obama doesn't make that decision.
Comment by Melissa — August 22, 2008 @ 1:42 pm
Docb,
Keating 5 = 4 Democrats and One Republican (McCain). McCain was cleared of any wrongdoing, was the only one to testify in a civil lawsuit.
DA
Comment by Jon Pemberton — August 22, 2008 @ 1:42 pm
Housing is only one way in which McCain is OUT OF TOUCH. He has been provided health care by the government since the day of his birth as a military brat. From cradle to grave he will NEVER ONCE have had to worry about finding a private health care provider or paying huge medical bills. Now he says that private insurance providers are just fine for the rest of us. Fine for us, he thinks. But, what does he know about it? He has had socialized medicine from the day he was born.
Comment by Gene — August 22, 2008 @ 3:39 pm
Melissa,
Then why did his campaign admit that the state and federal bills were the same? They did indeed both have the neutrality clause..
This discussion was about an infant BORN and seperate from the mother, hence no longer a fetus. As far as Obama's "Above my paygrade" comment then he should not vote on any laws since he does not understand the issue.
Comment by Jon Pemberton — August 22, 2008 @ 3:57 pm
Gene,
You have access to the same health care as McCain, just enlist.
DA
Comment by Jon Pemberton — August 22, 2008 @ 4:19 pm
Jon,
I did enlist, Jon, 44 years ago. And I thought the health care I got was actually pretty good. I'm a little past enlisting again. You can understand that. The point is that McCain is hardly in a position to fully understand the struggles other people have with health care since he has never had to worry about having it provided. That being the case, his stance on privitization is fine for him, but not for eveyone. And Jon, there are, believe it of not, people who need health care who are not of military age and can not simply solve the problem by enlisting. Your simplistic solution "enlist", is very simplistic, don't you agree? Have you enlisted, by the way? What are your experiences with military health care?
Comment by Gene — August 22, 2008 @ 4:37 pm
Jon,
I am going to try to explain this to you one more time: Two bills are introduced, one at the federal level and an identical one at the state level. At the federal level and as it is worded, there are no other federal laws that could be compromised as a result of its passage. So it is passed. However, at the state level, there ARE other state laws that could be compromised as it is worded, and so the wording becomes critical to protect existing state law. Therefore, lawmakers requested additional neutrality language be added to ensure it was not a backdoor passage to compromise or challenge existing law. Once that language was added, the bill passed.
Here is a summary of the lengthy article that I provided you earlier that succinctly sums it all up:
http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2008/08/executive-summa.html
Now, maybe you can explain why this bill was repeatedly introduced with identical wording if it didn't pass the first time around? If those presenting it were really that concerned about "born alives", why did they not simply add the necessary neutrality language so the bill could pass and protect those for whom it was intended? The fact that it was repeatedly reintroduced in its original form suggests someone had an ulterior motive that had nothing to do with "born alives".
Comment by Melissa — August 22, 2008 @ 5:29 pm
You cannot be serious. McCain doesn't live large, but he is obviously not poor. Neither is someone who makes $4 million a year or vacations on a private beach in Hawaii. McCain does not have a least one half-sibling who lives in a hut and lives on less than a dollar a month, but he and his wife own at least one condo that they provide to an aunt. This is a stupid, stupid argument Brent. Neither of these guys knows any more what average Americans have to deal with - both are well past that.
Comment by JOElias — August 22, 2008 @ 6:15 pm
Gene,
USMC 1986-1990. Care was OK.
I do not want FEDERAL government provided healthcare through forced insurance or the other methods offered.
If on the other hand individual States want to address this issue I am fine with that. See US Constitution powers not stated in the US Constitution fall to the States. We have to stop accumulating power to the Federal Government, way outside the framers intent.
Comment by Jon Pemberton — August 22, 2008 @ 6:28 pm
Melissa,
I have tried to post the test of the exception clause in the bill that Obama argued and voted against, but the site won't let me, funny that.
trying the link
http://nugentslaw.wordpress.com/2008/08/20/the-born-alive-infants-protection-act-of-2002/
Comment by Jon Pemberton — August 22, 2008 @ 6:29 pm
Ah, that worked. Read the wording then explain the great legal mind of Obama how that would impact Roe v Wade in Illinois.
Comment by Jon Pemberton — August 22, 2008 @ 6:30 pm
Melissa,
Now here the Illinois 2003 bill with the amendment exception clause Obama voted for.
http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/SenateAmdt1toSB1082.pdf
Comment by Jon Pemberton — August 22, 2008 @ 6:42 pm
Here is a comparison for you.
http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/2003AmendedILBAIPAandFedBAIPA.html
Note: You are losing
Comment by Jon Pemberton — August 22, 2008 @ 6:44 pm
Jon,
Why would I reinvent the wheel when it's already been explained? I should also point out the author mentions that Illinois already had a 20-year old law that addressed born alives. It is not as though this bill was the first to offer legal protection.
"Those bills were attempts to bypass court rulings and mandate lifesaving measures for any aborted fetus that has a beating heart, pulsating umbilical cord or movement of voluntary muscles.
Such a fetus would be deemed "born alive" and granted full human rights under the rejected legislation.
Yet the definition pretty much covers "any fetus at any stage of development, including before viability," noted the Illinois State Medical Society in a memorandum opposing the 2002 legislation on grounds that "medical practice and standard of care issues should not be legislated."
The proposed laws also required doctors performing abortions in which the fetus might fall under this expanded definition of "born alive" to have a second doctor on hand to "assess the child's viability and provide medical care."
They also would have exposed abortion doctors to more civil and criminal penalties.
The obvious purpose of it all–the expanded definition of "born alive" and the threat of more trouble from the law–was to limit access to conventional abortions."
http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2008/01/from-the-archiv.html
Comment by Melissa — August 22, 2008 @ 7:29 pm
Anytime you allow neo-conservative trolls to put you on the defensive you lose.
Just by responding to their idiotic charges you lose.
The job of the trolls is to derail the discussion from substantive issues to petty personality attacks.
It works, just look at the polls. And time is a wastin'. Do you want to spend the next month defending Obama's non-uppityness?
All of you must wisen up.
Karl Rove is laughing at you as you TAKE THE BAIT EVERY TIME.
Republicans stand for NOTHING other than funneling money upward and accreting power.
The next time a neo-con troll levels a ridiculous substantiated-by Rev.-Moon-only-claim don't take the bait.
Example #1:
The attack: Barack Obama is hiding his birth certificate, he's not a U.S. citizen.
Your response: The tax rate for the highest income earners in the country needs to be returned to 90% where it was after WW2.
Example #2:
The attack: Barack Obama is secretly a Muslim who'll be sworn in using the Koran.
Your response: The Authorization for Military Force does NOT give the Executive Unitary Powers.
** By refusing to take the bait you'll scare the sh*t out of the trolls. Go on the offensive. Control the conversation. Don't let the trolls put you on the defensive. You cannot win on the defensive. EVER. The Republican-neo-conservatives want to avoid talking about issues at all costs. Make them. Make them sweat. Then they'll be revealed for who they are.
Comment by wewillnotbeneoconned — August 22, 2008 @ 7:43 pm
JOElias
fyi, there is no such thing as a private beach in Hawaii- By state law, public access to all beaches is mandated. Senator Obama was vacationing at the private home of a friend, but the beach he was photographed on is, as they are ALL, public.
Comment by doug king — August 22, 2008 @ 9:34 pm
#52 The only one losing here is you, Jon. Since Illinois had an existing 20-year old law addressing born alives, the bill in questions sounds like it was more "nudge the emotions of pro-lifers" fluff than anything else. Yet you seem to believe you're hot on the heels of some real scoop.
The bottom line is that language is critical in law, no matter how frustrating it may be for you. I represented myself in court and won a precedent-setting appeal in my state; I can assure you that even something as seemingly benign as the use of "shall" instead of "should" can make all the difference.
Comment by Melissa — August 22, 2008 @ 11:10 pm
Barack Obama is wealthy too. So all you libs condemning McCain for his wealth should start condemning Obama too or you are going to look like two bit phonies.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — August 23, 2008 @ 7:35 am
Now we find out that at one point McCain didn't
know what kind of car he drives (Cadillac).
This could turn out to be a major moment in
the campaign. The issue is not only his lavish
lifestyle but he sure does seem to get a lot
of things wrong, and cant give right answers
to a lot of easy questions. This is a guy
who repeatedly confused Sunnis with Shi'ites
and Joe Lieberman had to whisper in his ear
to help him get it straight. This does raise
serious questions.
Comment by Brent — August 23, 2008 @ 8:10 am
And Brent..he paid his servants 270k last year.
He got his money the old fashioned way, He married into it!…lol
This is like manna from heaven, lol!!!
so much for the elitism charges, back to the drawing board!
Obama-Biden 08 Two guys, only two houses!
I hope he chooses Romney!!!
Comment by Theard — August 23, 2008 @ 10:11 am
Jon, I probably am in agreement with you in thinking that we do not want a federal health insurance plan to be imposed on all Americans. I do think we need alternatives for those who are not able to obtain proper health care. One of those alternatives might be extended throught the federal government, others through the states. I am seeing situations in which good, hardworking Americans, including veterans (maybe even some of the guys you or I served with), avoid getting the health care they need because they can't afford it. I think John McCain lacks perspective on the issue becasue it has never been an issue for him personally, and I think he is unlikely to provide any leadership in that area. In eight years President Bush has shown no leadership in addressing the problem either, other than to help craft a prescription drug plan for seniors which was really a tip of the hat to the drug companies. States have a role to play, but leadership must come from the oval office. Do you disagree with that?
Comment by Gene — August 23, 2008 @ 11:25 am
Jon, I would not be surprised if we don't agree on a lot, but not on this.
McCain's health care solution is: "just have this tax credit and go buy insurance". That is no solution if you can't afford health care to begin with. Though it works for the insurance companies and drug companies. This is a good article.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601124&sid=abot1XN3T0J0&refer=home
Comment by Gene — August 23, 2008 @ 12:33 pm
I love these takes on Obama's support of infanticide by Idiots.
What Repub Nuts complain about happened in 2003.
Bush in August 2002 signed the Born Alive Infants Protections Act. As of Today Not one person has been charged or convicted of violations of the ACT by Bush's Justice Department. Evidently Bush and Company Supports infanticide!
Comment by Donaldd — August 23, 2008 @ 4:18 pm
Bush also signed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.
It has worked Wonders: Two States have had to drop Murder charges against women that murdered their Unborn babies.
The Act clearly says a woman can't be prosecuted for killing her unborn baby.
Yet Republican Prosecutors and Pundits want to blame the "Radical" Judges "Legislating from the Bench" who followed the Law and dropped the charges. Only if they had some connection to Democrats through Appointment or Election.
Comment by Donaldd — August 23, 2008 @ 4:29 pm
Melissa,
If the law already existed, then why wasn't anyone prosecuted for leaving a born infant in the utility room?
Did you read the law or just gobble up the opinion of the writer? Read the law it is quite clear.
Gene,
We are close on this issue. McCain's idea is not going to work but is less wrong than Obama's. Anything that centralizes more power to the Federal Government that is not covered in the US Constitution I am against.
Also, think about lifestyle choices. How many people who cannot "afford" health insurance have large car payments, cable HDTV, cell phones, playstations, etc. I am NOT saying that is a majority of the uninsured, but I imagine it is a large number. Bottom line it is up to the States to provide Health Services not the Federal Governement.
Who here agrees Washington is handling its current load of responsibilities well? And you want them to take on Federal Healthcare? Madness..
Comment by Jon Pemberton — August 23, 2008 @ 4:41 pm
Brent,
You finally commented on all the postings and came up with the current Dem Party lines.. How funny and WEAK…
Cannot wait for your post on Nov 5 talking about voter fraud and supression as McCain wins….
Comment by Jon Pemberton — August 23, 2008 @ 4:43 pm
How many agree with this statement by "Wewillnotbeneoconned"
The tax rate for the highest income earners in the country needs to be returned to 90% where it was after WW2.
Comment by Jon Pemberton — August 23, 2008 @ 4:46 pm
#64 Jon,
Why don't you try actually reading before you ask foolish questions? This is the 20-year old law which the author referenced: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=1928&ChapAct=720%C2%A0ILCS%C2%A0510/&ChapterID=53&ChapterName=CRIMINAL+OFFENSES&ActName=Illinois+Abortion+Law+of+1975. I have no knowledge of any infant in a utility room, but I imagine investigators look into suspect cases, and you should take it up with investigators if you feel they overlooked evidence of a crime.
Yes, I'm becoming all too familiar with the wording of the law thanks to this discussion. The original bill did NOT contain adequate neutrality language for the state level (unnecessary at the federal level because there are no federal abortion laws). The phrase "born alive at any stage of development" appears to include fetuses that are not considered viable. The third clause in bill also conveniently neglects the issue of viability: [(c) A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.] It is easy to see how those vague phrases could contradict existing abortion laws and pave the way for a legal quagmire.
Since the bill was also paired with another bill paving the way for liability lawsuits against physicians, it is further understood why so many people, including some Republicans, were feeling uneasy.
Comment by Melissa — August 23, 2008 @ 9:21 pm
The original did not, but Obama voted FOR the additional language, got it, then voted against the bill in committee. Now why would he waste his time voting for adding the neutrality language, just to kill the whole bill in committee.
We wont agree on this its obvious. You like to be carefull with words I like to be carefull with life…
Comment by Jon Pemberton — August 23, 2008 @ 10:59 pm
Another Obama vote I disagree with…
July 25, 2006 S. 403
Bill to prohibit the transportation of a minor girl across state lines to obtain an abortion, if this would circumvent the parental consent or notification laws in her home state.
Obama's vote: No
Yes, 65; No, 34
Anything for an abortion, that crazy Obama
Comment by Jon Pemberton — August 24, 2008 @ 12:31 am
"We wont agree on this its obvious."
Right, because you refuse to examine the facts and prefer to operate on opinion. The fact is that adequate language was not included in the bill, and once satisfactory language was included, the bill passed. The facts and the chronology are laid out in the first website I provided you. But, really, why let a few facts stand in the way of your self-righteousness?
Obama's is pro-choice, a view consistent with the majority of Americans. He will work to reduce the number of abortions and encourage alternatives without seeking to take a woman's right–again, a view consistent with majority of Americans. To suggest he holds some contrary view is gross exaggeration on your part.
Comment by Melissa — August 24, 2008 @ 1:19 pm
Melissa,
We read the same things and have two different opinions on the meanings. We each obviously put more weight on our interpretations. Maybe you are right, maybe not. I see a pattern in Obama's votes on this issue and strongly disagree with him.
"Obama's is pro-choice, a view consistent with the majority of Americans."
If you leave it at Pro-Choice then yes, but you include his vote on S 403 and other votes supporting late-term abortion your point falls apart.
Comment by Jon Pemberton — August 25, 2008 @ 11:52 am
Jon,
We have two different opinions because one of us (Hint: not me) refuses to look at the facts involving the bill, the language, and the chronology of events. When a law already existed to protect born alives and the new bill's language demonstrated it would cause a legal quagmire, Obama did the right thing to vote no. As soon as the language was sufficient to protect existing law, it passed. No opinions, Jon, just chronology and facts.
Obama opposes late-term abortions except in instances which the mother could suffer physical harm as a result of carrying the fetus to term. For you to suggest otherwise is being deceitful. S 403 had nothing to do with late-term abortions, and you are now trying to change the stakes since your original argument developed gaping holes and sank.
Comment by Melissa — August 25, 2008 @ 1:37 pm
I know S 403 had nothing to do with late term abortions.
You still have not answered my question about Obama on this.. Here I'll try again..
Obama voted FOR the additional language, got it, then voted against the bill in committee. Now why would he waste his time voting for adding the neutrality language, just to kill the whole bill in committee.
Here again is the link with the Illinois language compared to the Federal.
http://nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/2003AmendedILBAIPAandFedBAIPA.html
It makes it perfectly clear that it only applies to infants born alive as defined in the bill. Why would he vote for the neutrality language then kill the bill in committe?
If he is such a legal expert like you, why did he not just propose his own amendment?
If the 1975 law covered this, then why did they pass a version of this bill in 2005, to waste time?
Comment by Jon Pemberton — August 25, 2008 @ 2:30 pm
Here is what was added to the 2005 version that passed.
(d)Nothing in this Section shall be construed to affect
existing federal or State law regarding abortion.
(e) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to alter
generally accepted medical standards.
Unnecessary language, but why did they need this version of the law if the 1975 law is sufficient, according to you.
How someone would confuse a born-alive infant as defined in the bill with abortion only you could explain.
Comment by Jon Pemberton — August 25, 2008 @ 2:51 pm
Please tell me you are not really this challenged in the way of comprehension! I already answered your question, but you fail to grasp it. Here's what I wrote already in post #46:
"I am going to try to explain this to you one more time: Two bills are introduced, one at the federal level and an identical one at the state level. At the federal level and as it is worded, there are no other federal laws that could be compromised as a result of its passage. So it is passed. However, at the state level, there ARE other state laws that could be compromised as it is worded, and so the wording becomes critical to protect existing state law. Therefore, lawmakers requested additional neutrality language be added to ensure it was not a backdoor passage to compromise or challenge existing law. Once that language was added, the bill passed."
I will reiterate that the very first link I posted offers the specific chronology and the specific words of every version of the bill in question and why it was repeatedly shot down. I am not wasting any more time beating a dead horse because you fail to read.
His legal expertise told him there was already a law on the books protecting born alives. There was no sense of urgency because 1975 law DOES cover born alives. Again, you fail to read and then question why you don't understand. Did you or did you not read the 1975 law???
Here's another thought to ponder: Why were your pro-life pals wasting time and taxpayer money passing a similar law? Why did they repeatedly submit the same bill without adding neutrality language to get it done and over with? I don't know, unless you consider it was, as many suspected, a sneaky attempt to go after Roe v. Wade…..which would have resulted in a legal quagmire….which Obama and others were seeking to avoid by demanding sufficient neutrality language…and what do you know, we're full circle again, Jon!
Comment by Melissa — August 25, 2008 @ 2:53 pm
How many agree with this statement by "Wewillnotbeneoconned"
The tax rate for the highest income earners in the country needs to be returned to 90% where it was after WW2.
Comment by Jon Pemberton — August 23, 2008 @ 4:46 pm
#
—————-
The highest income tax bracket was 90% after WW2 for quite some time. It created the middle class which is necessary for a functioning democracy. Then it was at aprox. 70% for a longer time. I agree that it needs to be returned to at least 70%.
Comment by The Poster's Poster — August 25, 2008 @ 3:23 pm
Melissa,
I tire of your condscending tone. So in short F Off.
Comment by Jon Pemberton — August 25, 2008 @ 3:34 pm
Yes, Jon, I know how darned pesky facts can be when they stand in the way of your self-righteous opinions. You'll cling to your opinions regardless, each and every time. But if you ever need your ass handed to you again, let me know and I may be able to pencil you in.
Comment by Melissa — August 25, 2008 @ 3:59 pm
Melissa,
Still waiting on your facts and not your crutch reliance on another's words in an article. Funny how I provided links to the laws you provided links to an opinion piece.
And we never actually discussed the words in the law that you and Obama found so unclear.
From the beginning I stated my opinions were my own. And when engaged in a discussion with a person who has such a big head (thats you) I figured you would point to the "facts" in the text of the law, but alas like most brain-dead liberals you kept pointing to another's opinion and labeled it fact.
"You'll CLING to your opinions regardless" hmm sounds familar, like an Obama quote, surprise surprise surprise.
btw, If I am pro-life and you are the opposite that would make you pro-death. Sure you want to call me pro-life? Sure you want to make that assumption on my beliefs?
If you think that was an ass-handing, no wonder you are so delusional about Obama's chances in Nov. Are you going to be among those who cries about voter fraud on Nov 5 when he loses?
Comment by Jon Pemberton — August 25, 2008 @ 6:06 pm
LOL Jon, if you insist, I suppose I CAN hand you your ass one more time. Here it all is in a form as condensed as it can be, and with little tiny numbers for your little simple mind to break it down into simple parts:
1. Illinois adopts a state law in 1975 that protects "born alives". The relevant portion of the law to this discussion states, "Any physician who intentionally performs an abortion when, in his medical judgment based on the particular facts of the case before him, there is a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support, shall utilize that method of abortion which, of those he knows to be available, is in his medical judgment most likely to preserve the life and health of the fetus."
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=1928&ChapAct=720%C2%A0ILCS%C2%A0510/&ChapterID=53&ChapterName=CRIMINAL+OFFENSES&ActName=Illinois+Abortion+Law+of+1975.
2. The initial state bills (1093,1094, 1095) CONTAINED NO NEUTRALITY LANGUAGE and were REJECTED.
3. The following year, three identical bills (1661,1662, and 1663) CONTAINED NO NEUTRALITY LANGUAGE and were REJECTED. Additionally, they contained language that implied additional liabilities for doctors performing abortions that concerned lawmakers.
4. Bill 1082 contained a section that CONTRADICTED the neutrality language tossed in at the last minute. That section stated: "A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law."
5. Let me back up to #4 again to drive the point home, Jon. Here's the part you should really hone in on: The statement in quotes also implies non-viable fetuses as defined by Roe v. Wade. Throwing in neutrality language from the federal version, which contradicts the above section, would not have negated the fact the bill did not distinguish between a viable and non-viable fetus!
6.Once the bill lost, the authors made NO ATTEMPT to amend the language for passage. Those against it saw no need to amend it because they knew a law already existed since 1975 protecting born alives.
7.The bill was resubmitted in its identical form several other times, failing each and every time.
8. The bill was presented in 2005 with two NEW provisions of neutrality language: (d) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to affect existing federal or State law regarding abortion. AND (e) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to alter generally accepted medical standards.
9. NOTE THE DIFFERENCE between the neutrality language in the bill that passed and THIS neutrality language clause contained in the previous bills that were denied: ""Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being born alive as defined in this Section.."
10. Also note that the pro-life crowd PROTESTED the new neutrality language (one must wonder why, if their true interest was to protect born alives?!)
11. Now go lick your wounds and don't make me have to slap you like this again. I almost feel embarrassed for you.
Comment by Melissa — August 25, 2008 @ 8:29 pm
It still amazes me that Republicans have
nothing nice to say about McCain, all they
do is demean Barack, sometimes with lies,
usually with nonsense. But here is the
real issue with the McCain homes question.
This is a question anyone should be able to
answer. It is weird and strange he could not
answer it. He has made a growing list of
ridiculous and strange gaffes, the worst is
getting the Sunnis and Shi'ites wrong a
number of times with Joe Lieberman having
to whisper the correct info in his ear, on
camera. Mark my words, folks, one way or
the other, the age and health issues are
going to bite McCain in the butt, and if he
is elected, will bite America in the butt.
Something ain't ticking right in the clock
and everyone should be worried about this.
Comment by Brent — August 26, 2008 @ 9:33 am
"This is a question anyone should be able to
answer. It is weird and strange he could not
answer it."
What's worse, Brent, is that, when asked about it on The Tonight Show, he invoked his status as a POW and completely avoided the question again. How can anyone take this man seriously when he has to evoke sympathy about his past in response to a basic question about his present? Not only is it shameful personal conduct, it denigrates POWs everywhere who do not use their status as an excuse, justification, or rationale the minute someone challenges them or asks them a simple question they don't want to answer.
Comment by Melissa — August 26, 2008 @ 11:04 am
Melissa,
Your #4 added language was removed from the 2003 bill.
Whats wrong with this ""Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being born alive as defined in this Section.."
That was in the 2003 bill as well.
#8 is the only differences between the 2005 and 2003 bills.
What the heck does this mean sounds clear to you? "Any physician who intentionally performs an abortion when, in his medical judgment based on the particular facts of the case before him, there is a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support, shall utilize that method of abortion which, of those he knows to be available, is in his medical judgment most likely to preserve the life and health of the fetus."
Use a method of abortion that is most likely to preserve the life and health of the fetus? Sounds like a contradiction to me.
Latest comments about driding Obama but not liking McCain…
I prefer McCain because..
He does not want to nationalize health care. I do not believe in centralizing more power to Washington. If the States want to provide health care for all I am fine with that.
I would prefer the Supreme Court Justices he would appoint. The Constitution is NOT a living breathing document as Obama believe it is. You do not interpret the meaning differently because time passes. The framers set up a method to cover things not in or that need to be changed in the Constitution, its called the amendment process. Judges are to interpret the law as written. Not "read in" their thoughts and feelings..
McCain wants to address all types of energy including nuclear, wind, NG, etc and to drill for our own supplies. The use of oil is never going to be eliminated, it is used in a lot of products why not have our own supply.
Comment by Jon Pemberton — August 26, 2008 @ 11:25 am
Its funny how the Dems change in 4 years. Man did you guys cry foul when anyone said anything about Kerry's military service. I mean the guy started his speech at the convention with his video shots from Vietnam and started his words with "Reporting for duty" Now McCain cannit say anything anymore about his life as a POW?
The house thing by McCain was a bad gaffe, I'll give you that. But to run with that and be effective untill November just is not going to happen. These gaffes happen how could a candidate not know the easy thing of what city they are in? It happens..
Comment by Jon Pemberton — August 26, 2008 @ 11:30 am
What's wrong with it? Compare the two! The wording of the second clearly protects established law and established medical standards; the first does not. Again, at a federal level, that wasn't so important because there are no federal laws it could have impinged upon. The same cannot be said at the state level.
"Use a method of abortion that is most likely to preserve the life and health of the fetus? Sounds like a contradiction to me."
Once again, you fail to grasp because you fail to read. Had you actually used the link I provided you, you would have seen definitions provided that offer clarity to the law. Additionally, Section (6) (2) (a) declares that any physician who does not take measures to preserve a viable (notice the clarity in that word!) fetus born alive is committing a Class 3 Felony.
And with that, I'm finished with the discussion. I consider abortion to rank very low as an issue in the election, aside from my desire to see a president elected who will nominate Supremees in line with the American majority opinion that Roe v. Wade should not be overturned.
Comment by Melissa — August 26, 2008 @ 1:38 pm
Melissa,
I read the law. How can you clarify using a method of abortion to preserve the life and health of the fetus?
ROFLMAO!!!
If Roe v Wade was overturned then the question of abortion would be left to the states, where it should be…
Comment by Jon Pemberton — August 26, 2008 @ 1:49 pm
Oh you meant this…
"Abortion" means the use of any instrument, medicine, drug or any other substance or device to terminate the pregnancy of a woman known to be pregnant with an intention other than to increase the probability of a live birth, to preserve the life or health of the child after live birth, or to remove a dead fetus.
Oh now thats clear, Kill it but if you fail preserve it so long as the individual thinks its viable..
Great law there..
Comment by Jon Pemberton — August 26, 2008 @ 1:52 pm
I never stated it was a "great law." But it DOES offer protection to born alives by charging those physicians who do not attempt to save a LIVE, VIABLE FETUS with a felony.
You either have the reading comprehension of a houseplant or you get your jollies out of pissing in the wind. Either way, it's not my concern.
Comment by Melissa — August 26, 2008 @ 2:24 pm
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html
Words mean things. What Obama said then and what he said now is the ultimate problem that I originally discussed.
You keep supporting the liar and whiner as you are two peas in a pod.
Comment by Jon Pemberton — August 26, 2008 @ 4:37 pm
Jon and the other Repubs, if McCain did pick
Lieberman or Ridge, pro-choice, would you
pledge to not for him? I doubt it, but would
be more than interested in whether you take
the pledge, or whether abortion is only an
issue for partisanship for you guys. I doubt
McCain would pick a pro-choicer, but he says
he might, on Wednesdays and Fridays. What
do you think of that?
Comment by Brent — August 27, 2008 @ 12:08 am
Brent,
No (though choosing Lieberman would bring many other issues I would have to think through). I am personally pro-life, but do understand that abortion is going to be part of our life because of different beliefs. I am against the decision on abortion coming from the Federal level. I think Roe v Wade should be removed and the decision of abortion be left to the individual states. I do not have a "litmus test" for voting.
Before Melissa got us in a discussion between the differences of the words "shall" and "should" my original post was making a point on how Obama lied about his reasoining for voting against the law and his accusations against others that proved to be false.
Comment by Jon Pemberton — August 27, 2008 @ 11:31 am