How can you allow your rightful outrage lead you in the exact wrong direction?

It was the Clinton Administration that failed to see the signs of a strengthening and emboldened terrorist network.

Bush's actions have been disappointing, but it was McCain who spoke up when everyone wanted to declare Iraq a total loss.

McCain has the experience and knows what the evil is that needs to be defeated. He also is aware that a greater threat for our future is the risk of pushing a majority of the mainstream in the Middle East into extremist camps.

What was the primary evil Obama cited in the world when asked at Saddleback? It wasn't Islamic terrorism. Nor did he say it should be defeated. He repeated a tamped-down, "nuanced" version of Reverend Wright's slurs against America.

Unconditionally sitting down with a potentially nuclear Iran is the action you feel is going to make up for past errors? Your anger is interfering with your reason, and you are being misled by people who are more concerned with America's image than interests.

www.blockingthepath.com

And Barack tasking the UN Security Council sounds so well prepared, except for that annoying Russian veto. The VP has time to learn, as many have in the past, but Barack is just flat unprepared and doesn't have time to learn.

It's the idea of sitting down with Iran to discuss... what? their denial of nuclear ambition and policy to take Israel off the map? Sponsering terrorism? Sitting face to face with terrorists is what makes a mockery of 9/11.

Republican Pragmatism: win the election, then you can implement all the changes you believe in.

Democratic Idealism: talk about rising above politics by talking about issues.

Result: Bill Clinton is the only dem to be elected twice since FDR. Why? Because he was a pragmatist.

Obama should've gone to the town hall forum if he really wanted to change the tone, but he didn't.

McCain is a neanderthal for some tasteless comments? How then do we describe John Edwards, Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, JFK, just to name a few? Maybe we should look more at leadership abilities.

The momentum is all for McCain now... 20 point swing in white women voters, well up in the state-by-state polls in places the left never thought he stood a chance. Obama was just a big self-inflated bubble now burst.

McCain/Palin do represent our interests, despite what the left tries to say about corporate interests. Creating jobs creates wealth. Obama wants socialist wealth redistribution, which is proven time and again to be completely counterproductive.

Why do they love Sarah, and tout her background? Because she's not an elitist hypoctical self-appointed messiah like Obama. She's a real person and understands their plight. And John McCain knows, from braving torture and running a large naval fleet, the kind of adversaries we will soon be facing, and he knows evil when he sees it.

Obama is Neville Chamberlain, appeasing Hitler, and McCain is Churchill, the ultimate realist. As Churchill said to Chamberlain, "You were given the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour, and you will have war."

If people could put their vitriol aside, it might just be a worthwhile discussion.

To see momentum, you must look further back than last week. Sure campaign bounces always even out and correct a bit, but overall, momentum is in favor of McCain. Independants, women, key swing voters are being pulled in his direction. Obama's bubble is burst... otherwise he'd be able to use an unpopular president to his advantage. But the dems in Congress have half W's approval rating, and the momentum is seen in congressional races as well favoring republicans.

Sarah is not a religious nut, she's a Christian. Objectively, Obama was saturated with far more outlandish and divisive preaching than Sarah ever was. She never said this is a holy war, she simply prays that we are on God's side, paraphrasing Lincoln.

If you think corporate tax cuts have caused layoffs, I'd like to understand the bridge between the two. And how raising corporate taxes will work in the opposite direction. Corporate tax cuts lead to growth, growth leads to jobs, jobs lead to wealth.

Socialist redistribution leads to the wealthier people producing less, providing fewer jobs, because Obama wants to force them to give away their earnings, on top of taxing them more.

Security is number one. Most of America doesn't want us to sit down to talk to Iran while they develop nukes and threaten Israel. Israel is not going to wait for another Holocaust. They will act pre-emptively, and we will stand with them.

I'll put this here again, because this is what people care about, not some Harvard lawyer who can't even figure out when life begins. They care about security, and Obama is clueless about it.

Obama is Neville Chamberlain, appeasing Hitler, and McCain is Churchill, the ultimate realist. As Churchill said to Chamberlain, "You were given the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour, and you will have war."

You are presenting a fragmented anecdote about one company, trying to make it sound as if their tax cuts led to layoffs. Maybe their profits are down. The economy is on a downturn obviously that has nothing to do with corporate tax cuts. It comes from a housing crisis.

If you in fact look it up, GDP has risen under Bush more since 2003 than it did under Clinton even during the prosperous dot com boom.

Even if you believe the tax cuts are bad, how do you propose raising corporate taxes on a company like yours, already cutting jobs, would do it any good?

If you think McCain's hand will be in your pocket, Obama and his Chicago thugs will be shaking you by your ankles over the balcony.