Not too much action we pray------

Police prepare for unrest

Alexander Bolton
The Hill
October 22, 2008

Police departments in cities across the country are beefing up their ranks for Election Day, preparing for possible civil unrest and riots after the historic presidential contest.

Public safety officials said in interviews with The Hill that the election, which will end with either the nation’s first black president or its first female vice president, demanded a stronger police presence.

Some worry that if Barack Obama loses and there is suspicion of foul play in the election, violence could ensue in cities with large black populations. Others based the need for enhanced patrols on past riots in urban areas (following professional sports events) and also on Internet rumors.

Democratic strategists and advocates for black voters say they understand officers wanting to keep the peace, but caution that excessive police presence could intimidate voters.

Sen. Obama (Ill.), the Democratic nominee for president, has seen his lead over rival Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) grow in recent weeks, prompting speculation that there could be a violent backlash if he loses unexpectedly.

Cities that have suffered unrest before, such as Detroit, Chicago, Oakland and Philadelphia, will have extra police deployed.

In Oakland, the police will deploy extra units trained in riot control, as well as extra traffic police, and even put SWAT teams on standby.

“Are we anticipating it will be a riot situation? No. But will we be prepared if it goes awry? Yes,” said Jeff Thomason, spokesman for the Oakland Police Department.

Just was on the news. No campaign funds were used.
And clothes aren't hers to keep.

Actually, U couldn't pay me enough to do what she is doing. Media is so cruel. Look at her gafs and then Joe Biden's - sure does not get equal laugh up time! But, it has been shown unfair almost from the start. BB

PS. If U couldn't tell, I'm w/Clint Eastwood, make my day (smile) like he does and back McCain!

Did U see the McCain ad at the top of this page (when I just came here) lol about Joe the Plumber.

---copy---

http://lighthousepatriotjournal.wordpress.com/2008/10/17/senator-obama-taking-from-the-rich-to-give-to-the-poor/

Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?" the blue-collar worker asked.

After Obama responded that it would, Wurzelbacher continued: "I've worked hard . . . I work 10 to 12 hours a day and I'm buying this company and I'm going to continue working that way. I'm getting taxed more and more while fulfilling the American Dream."

"It's not that I want to punish your success," Obama told him. "I want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success, too.

Then, Obama explained his trickle-up theory of economics.

"My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

Critics said Obama let the cat out of the bag.

"It's clear that his main goal is redistribution of wealth, not growth," said Andy Roth with the anti-tax group Club for Growth. "He's perfectly happy to destroy wealth as long as he can redistribute it."

Obama has been meticulous, Roth said, to conceal the "socialistic" nature of his tax plans. "But every once in a while, he lets it slip," he said.

Republican candidate John McCain yesterday charged that Obama's comment was telling.
---end c---

No, T, not all about that. There are many reasons why some have more than others. Not always fair to those who have given up peace, hours, risked alot, and st rived to get to their goals. While some others are just content to sleep late every day, not interested in bettering themselves and/or party all the time.

If you were the one who had to give up much of what you had sweat-ed for, to someone who didn't, how would you feel? Would you feel like getting out of bed some more (for the next FOUR years??)and risking everything to share and spread the wealth? Or maybe hey, close the business and go work for some-other bloke who lets U have more at his expense?? Lots of jobs gone, many out of work is what I see.
Pls ck out the above link to read more, BB

PS. Yes, most of us share when we can, quite a bit, just not wanting to be dictated to do so.

I agree, some things are not fair. Makes one shake their head.

But I just read, and posted in anther thread, from Obama's fathers quote: "You can never fulfill the demands of the poor." So his trickle up theory makes even less sense to me. BB

I know many think that Bush got in unfairly. Seems we should have been able to learn from that?

Figures that might surprise some ---copy---

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/the_joetheplumber_vote_is_bigg.html

October 22, 2008
The Joe-the-Plumber vote is bigger than you think
--snip--
But with his reply to Wurzelbacher, Obama made it clear to him and many others in his situation that they would face higher taxes not because of pressing budget needs, but simply to advance the redistributionist notion of "spread[ing] the wealth around." -------
Frum is certainly correct on his first point that the rich pay an overwhelming share of the tax burden. But the latter part of his argument contains a fallacy common in observing voters. That is, he assumes that all groups vote in proportion to their share or the U.S adult population, or even their eligibility to vote. The fact is that in elections with around 50 percent voter participation rates - and a 50 percent turnout would be high -- upper-income voters still have recently constituted almost 25 percent of the electorate. As liberal financial columnist Daniel Gross has written in Slate, "Because we're in an age of mass affluence, and because wealthier people tend to vote more frequently than poorer people do, the voting behavior of the rich can be almost as significant as the political donations they make."
-----But Joe the plumber just may have opened the pipes and spread the message to those who don't wish to see their newly acquired wealth go down the political drain.---end--
Joe the plumber is the average business owner, as a symbol of “average Joe” America. (At least that is the idea people are feeling.) But regardless, the idea of someone 'spreading their wealth around' just doesn't cut it!!BB

The advertising - knew it was so unbalanced. Had no idea it was this bad ----copy--

http://www.usnews.com/articles/opinion/2008/10/15/blog-buzz-barack-obamas-ad-spending-john-mccain-and-voter-fraud-debate-over-rev-jeremiah-wright.html

Barack Obama's Ad Spending, John McCain and Voter Fraud, Debate Over Rev. Jeremiah Wright
Posted October 15, 2008
Our daily look at stories and topics that are lighting up the Internets:

Obama 1,342, McCain 8


A Politico article on how Barack Obama is "drowning" John McCain in terms of TV ads has bloggers saying "yowza" about the massive ad advantage the Democratic candidate has gained recently. (For example, in the Washington, D.C., market in the first three weeks of September, Obama ran 1,342 TV spots to McCain's eight.) "Shocking" numbers like the $32 million Obama spent in battleground states between September 30 and October 6 are the reason he decided to forgo public financing, says Political Animal. Chris Cillizza explains how Obama's fund-raising has allowed him to "alter the traditional red state/blue state divide." Noam Scheiber at the New Republic wonders when Obama will announce his record-setting September money total.

----end copy----- ouch, he has all this other (cough, cough) that should be going or him (O). (IF his camp really had much to offer, fairness would prevail). eight ads to OVER 1300?????
Does he really need to BUY the presidential seat with all the money?? There really ought to be a law!!!!

It really is McCain who should get this 'seat' (and your vote IMO) based upon his agenda, service, being more for the average person, having more experience too. M is running against alot of drawbacks being thrown at him. Voter fraud (ACORN) plus others (lies in ads, etc).
A media that spins toward O most all the time to boot. (and refuses to report all the fraud and pals in depth on Obama.

http://www.cashill.com/natl_general/more_evidence.htm

Geese, BB

now to find time to read it huh?? I saw where the audio is over 7 hrs long.

The book "audacity of hope" by O I looked into...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/17/books/17kaku.html

---copy--
Mr. Obama writes that “conservatives — and Bill Clinton — were right about welfare as it was previously structured: By detaching income from work and by making no demands on welfare recipients other than a tolerance for intrusive bureaucracy and an assurance that no man lived in the same house as the mother of his children, the old A.F.D.C. program sapped people of their initiative and eroded their self respect.”

He uses the Bush administration’s tough language to talk about national security in the age of terrorism (“if we have to go it alone, the American people stand ready to pay any price and bear any burden to protect our country”) but adds, crucially, that “once we get beyond matters of self-defense,” he is “convinced that it will almost always be in our strategic interest to act multilaterally rather than unilaterally when we use force around the world.”

He assails President Bush for waging an unnecessary and misguided war in Iraq and for promoting an “Ownership Society” that “magnifies the uneven risks and rewards of today’s winner-take-all economy.” Yet he also takes the Democrats to task for becoming “the party of reaction”: “In reaction to a war that is ill-conceived, we appear suspicious of all military action. In reaction to those who proclaim the market can cure all ills, we resist efforts to use market principles to tackle pressing problems. In reaction to religious overreach, we equate tolerance with secularism and forfeit the moral language that would help infuse our policies with a larger meaning. We lose elections and hope for the courts to foil Republican plans. We lose the courts and wait for a White House scandal.” ---end c--

But, I read quite a few pages off of

http://www.newsweek.com/id/128633/page/1

CAMPAIGN 2008 When Barry Became Barack

--snip--His Indonesian stepfather, an unsentimental man with a more practical view of the world, counseled the boy
that the demands of the needy had no end;
it was best to be strong because "men take advantage of weakness in other men."
---end copy--
This is the same man who he wrote the 2nd book about Dreams from My Father ??
This surprises me then, seems to idolize him, and yet he would adhere to his beliefs on the poor?

Regards, BB

Saw it too. Nice to see them all laughing, even Hillary broke up badly. Neat, BB

Hi Winx: I posted the second site (that U just snooped around) to show where the pics came from and they were no photo shopped. Yes, it appears so.

However, did you see the first link?

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/10/antiobama_sign_in_maine_draws.html

which I posted that carried news of 15 ft sign? If U click onto homepage, think it shows anti-MC.

Nice to follow other places and get others input.BB

Thanks T, Sleep Tight A-okay, BB

They spread truth, opposing views, widen one's options, education and laughter too.

Just like videos.... Hey did U catch Sat. Night Live with S.P?

two cool videos off this website of it. Enjoy, BB

Sarah Palin, "You betcha"

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/10/palin-returns-s.html

---copy words of song--
AMY POEHLER as PALIN)

MY NAME IS SARAH PALIN, YOU ALL KNOW ME,
VICE-PREZZY NOMINEE OF THE GOP,
GONNA NEED YOUR VOTE IN THE NEXT ELECTION,
CAN I GET A WHAT-WHAT FROM THE SENIOR SECTION!
McCAIN GOT EXPERIENCE,
McCAIN GOT STYLE,
BUT DON'T LET HIM FREAK YOU OUT
WHEN HE TRIES TO SMILE
CUZ THAT SMILE BE CREEPY,
BUT WHEN I'M V.P.,
ALL THE LEADERS IN THE WORLD GONNA FINALLY MEET ME!

(FRED ARMISEN & ANDY SAMBERG enter as ESKIMOS)

(POEHLER) HOW'S IT GO, ESKIMOS?
TELL TELL ME WHAT YOU KNOW, ESKIMOS!
HOW YA FEEL, ESKIMOS?
TELL TELL ME WHAT YOU FEEL, ESKIMOS!

(SAMBERG/ARMISEN) ESKIMOS! ESKIMOS! ICE COLD! SUPER COLD!

(POEHLER) I'M JEREMIAH WRIGHT CUZ TONIGHT I'M THE PREACHER,
I GOT A BOOKISH LOOK AND YOU'RE ALL HOT FOR TEACHER,

(JASON SUDEIKIS enters as TODD PALIN and stands next to POEHLER)

(POEHLER) TODD LOOKING FINE ON HIS SNOW MACHINE,
SO HOT FOR EACH OTHER, NEED A GO-BETWEEN!
IN WASILLA, WE JUST CHILL BABY CHILLA
BUT WHEN I SEE OIL, IT'S ...
(ALL) DRILL BABY DRILLA!

(POEHLER) MY COUNTRY 'TIS OF THEE,
FROM MY PORCH I CAN SEE
RUSSIA AND SUCH.

ALL THE MAVERICKS IN THE HOUSE, PUT YOUR HANDS UP,
ALL THE MAVERICKS IN THE HOUSE, PUT YOUR HANDS UP!
ALL THE PLUMBERS IN THE HOUSE, PULL YOUR PANTS UP,
ALL THE PLUMBERS IN THE HOUSE, PULL YOUR PANTS UP!

WHEN I SAY OBAMA,
YOU SAY AYERS,
OBAMA!
(SAMBERG/ARMISEN) AYERS!
(POEHLER) OBAMA!
(SAMBERG/ARMISEN) AYERS!
(POEHLER) I BUILT ME A BRIDGE AND IT AIN'T GOING NOWHERE!
OOOOOHHHHHHHH.
McCAIN/PALIN
GONNA PUT THE NAIL IN
THE COFFIN … OF THE MEDIA ELITE!
(SAMBERG/ARMISEN) SHE LIKES RED MEAT!

(MOOSE enters)

(POEHLER) SHOOT A MUTHA HUMPIN MOOSE EIGHT DAYS OF THE WEEK,
NOW YOU'RE DEAD
NOW YOU'RE DEAD
CUZ I'M AN ANIMAL, AND I'M BIGGER THAN YOU
HOLDIN' A SHOTGUN, WORKIN' THE PUMP
EVERYBODY PARTY, WE GOING ON A HUNT
LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA
YO I'M PALIN I'M OUT!

(POEHLER, SUDEIKIS and SAMBERG exit)

This is the interview one should've paid attention to.



http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=28926


---copy--Sen. O'Malley," Obama said near the beginning of the discussion, "the testimony during the committee indicated that one of the key concerns was -- is that there was a method of abortion, an induced abortion, where the -- the fetus or child, as -- as some might describe it, is still temporarily alive outside the womb."
Obama made three crucial concessions here: the legislation was about 1) a human being, who was 2) "alive" and 3) "outside the womb."
He also used an odd redundancy: "temporarily alive." Is there another type of human?
"And one of the concerns that came out in the testimony was the fact that they were not being properly cared for during that brief period of time that they were still living," Obama continued.
Here he made another crucial concession: The intention of the legislation was to make sure that 1) a human being, 2) alive and 3) outside the womb was 4) "properly cared for."
"Is that correct?" Obama asked O'Malley.
O'Malley tightened the logical knot. "(T)his bill suggests that appropriate steps be taken to treat that baby as a -- a citizen of the United States and afforded all the rights and protections it deserves under the Constitution of the United States," said O'Malley.
But to these specific temporarily-alive-outside-the-womb-human beings -- to these children who had survived a botched abortion, whose hearts were beating, whose muscles were moving, whose lungs were heaving -- to these specific children of God, Obama was not willing to concede any constitutional rights at all.
To explain his position, Obama came up with yet another term to describe the human being who would be protected by O'Malley's bills. The abortion survivor became a "pre-viable fetus."
By definition, however, a born baby cannot be a "fetus." Merriam-Webster Online defines "fetus" as an "unborn or unhatched vertebrate" or "a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth." Obama had already conceded these human beings were "alive outside the womb."
"No. 1," said Obama, "whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or other elements of the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a -- a child, a nine-month-old -- child that was delivered to term."
Yes. In other words, a baby born alive at 37 weeks is just as much a human "person" as a baby born alive at 22 weeks.
Obama, however, saw a problem with calling abortion survivors "persons." "I mean, it -- it would essentially bar abortions," said Obama, "because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute."
For Obama, whether or not a temporarily-alive-outside-the-womb little girl is a "person" entitled to constitutional rights is not determined by her humanity, her age or even her place in space relative to her mother's uterus. It is determined by a whether a doctor has been trying to kill her.
-------whew! BB

Hummmm, many don't believe in the
big bang' theroy either (I for one.) Doens't make me the odd man out (smile)

Hey, are you up to the times?? ---copy---

http://michellemalkin.com/2005/03/01/how-many-americans-read-political-blogs/

How many Americans read political blogs?
By Michelle Malkin • March 1, 2005 02:15 PM According to the Wall Street Journal, “Some eight million Americans now publish blogs and 32 million people read them, according to the Pew Internet & American Life Project.”
-- and that was in 2005!! Peace, BB

Yeah, you are seeing me. Some of these pics on here are out of this world (smile)BB

T, the only accusations I speak of here, is the fact, if one brings up something that is factual, but maybe touchy to some, the first thing out of someone's mouth is a name, or negative stuff. No one should have to endure that for voicing their opinion, period. BB

PS. The truth to you, may not be how I see the truth - to me. All's good.

I agree but people shouldnt be posting propaganda without proof..Thats mudding the waters..This election for the first time in along time, Issues mater, facts matter..All the mudd slinging dosnt.. People are getting informed on what matters to them..Just because they dont agree with you dosnt make them less informed..What might be a high priority for you might not be for me..We all know what we have lived...
Sure, I agree w/U 100% but tell me, please, point to where I posted propaganda - just a response about a 15 ft sign in a yard, with the pics of the two in their youth on it.

U too, accuse me of mudding the waters, did not. Just a pic, and topic of why things are okay to speak of. No one needs to agree w/me, or you, they form their own opinions, sure doesn't make me mad, does it you?
Peace, BB

Thanks, really, me too. But you are wrong. NO where else on this (or any other site) did I copy or post about the 15 ft pic a man had in his yard, and that is what I am talking, responding to /about - here.

Also, to 'MirrorMirror', see, you are doing exactly what WE mean! You are putting something negative,

>>Its about (silly)falsehoods being spread about a decent man.<<

words into another's mouth. Not about that at all. Just that - well, covered before, and U push this out instead. Regards, BB

Thanks, (and no, it was not pertaining to another thread, as stated by another). Peace, BB

You are right, not but for the facts what people are saying and doing when someone brings up a subject that is ,,,,,what,,,, too touchy to talk about?? I think sometimes that is exactly the reaction the O camp is putting out, so then if something a bit touchy comes up, people are hesitant to talk about it.
That is exactly why I put it up. Because it seems, if they question anything, it gets slammed instead of being a matter of fact.
Nothing wrong with O wearing stuff, but the fact that first, they try to say it is photo shop, and then a blogger proved it was not, they then tried to shame the Hillary champaign because she introduced it. What is the big deal? Photos of McCain's daughter wearing stuff didn't get the fake, lie and shame treatments.

We are being deprived of our freedom of speech and others are being shamed for saying what is on people's mind, or what the truth is.
It's an election, we should question, and talk freely about everything. Yet, Obama did say 'get in their faces" and does lead by example about 'not going there' when there is where his
own agenda is hidden. Using the race card to make others 'hate' when none but him is mudding the waters like that.
No one should be calling people names, hurting feelings or slamming people. Period, BB

I think this is kinda what U are talking about b.

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/10/antiobama_sign_in_maine_draws.html

Anti-Obama sign in Maine draws stares --copy--
Horr has erected a 15-foot tall sign with paintings that depict Sen. John McCain as a young Navy pilot and Obama in the turban and robe he briefly donned during his 2006 visit to Kenya.

The sign points out that McCain has military experience and Obama doesn't. But I'm guessing that even if Obama had served in the military, Horr might have still found a pretext for this sign.

The Associated Press report indicates that people driving by are slowing down to look at Horr's sign
--snip--The sign illustrates the truth-
Seems that Comrade Obama's socialist can't take it---snip-- The resident “experts” at Free Republic are pronouncing this a photoshopped fake. ------

[Geeska Afrika caption:] U.S. Senator Barack Obama, right, is dressed as a Somali Elder by Sheikh Mahmed Hassan, left, during his visit to Wajir, a rural area in northeastern Kenya, near the borders with Somalia and Ethiopia. The area is at the epicenter of a severe drought that has hit the Horn of Africa region, after erratic and insufficient rains during the April-June season

So it isn’t a faked photograph after all.

Hmmmm.


http://sweetness-light.com/archive/obama-wore-muslim-gear-during-kenya-trip

-----end c---

The pics are real, and while the one of O is in Muslim garb, he is getting flack for it, Saying he is racist. And tried to shame the H. Clinton offices when they first discovered the photo. Facts BB