2007 (223)
2008 (139)
2009 (90)
2017 (1)
2018 (3)
自從ABC采訪佩林以來，這個有五個孩子的媽媽，曾是阿拉斯加州小姐第二名的現任州長和共和黨副總統提名人，到底有沒有經驗和能力勝任美國最高行政長官的位置，一直是選民們所關心的話題。
在ABC和CBS的采訪中，佩林在回答有關國際事件的考問時顯得不是很放鬆。一時間，一直在保護奧巴馬的媒體把她描繪成一個花瓶，SNL幾次拿她當笑料。
在奧巴馬和麥肯第一輪辯論中，奧巴馬的表現不夠老煉，多次說麥肯是對的，絕對同意他的觀點，令奧巴馬的支持者擔心。
對於支持奧巴馬的選民來說，昨晚拜登和佩林的辯論，是拜登徹底摧毀佩林的機會。
對於支持麥肯的選民來說，也很擔心佩林能不能應付得了能言善辯，善於攻擊對手的拜登。
結果是，奧巴馬的支持者大失所望，麥肯的支持者鬆了一大口氣。
在整個辯論過程中，拜登沒有一次對佩林個人進行攻擊，而是把矛頭直接指向麥肯。而佩林以柔克剛，不斷強調自己的行政經驗，對拜登個人以前反對奧巴馬現在又說非奧巴馬莫屬提出質疑。
佩林在維護麥肯的方針路線的同時，對奧巴馬和他開的空頭支票給予有力的批駁。
盡管拜登時不時地露出一絲微笑，以改變他嚴厲和咄咄逼人的形象，但是整體上來說，這場辯論的主角是佩林。她麵對鏡頭，不卑不亢，有條有理。
佩林還多次說俏皮話來諷刺奧巴馬和拜登的言行不一。她表現處來的從容自如和個人魅力，令廣大觀眾耳目一新。
這場辯論可以說是最有意思，最有特色，最吸引人的一場。
有看習慣了政客們互相對罵的觀眾覺得佩林沒能對奧巴馬和拜登給予最嚴厲的批判，會覺得麥肯選錯了人。其實不對，這場辯論的目的對於麥肯陣營來說不是讓佩林來救麥肯，而是讓美國人民了解誰是佩林。從會後媒體反映來看，這個目的到達了出奇的效果。連傾向奧巴馬的NBC和CNN都對佩林能以柔克剛表示出極大的讚賞，說她殺敗了拜登。
值得一提的是，辯論主持人Gwen Ifill 是奧巴馬的粉絲，在主持過程中表現出明顯的政治傾向。她給拜登足夠的時間和機會來論證奧巴馬的施政綱領和對麥肯的指責，而給佩林反駁的時間很短，在佩林需要進一步闡述觀點的時候，主持人把話題一轉，迫使佩林中止她的思路。好在佩林並沒有就此罷休，在回答下一個問題的時候，再把自己對前一個問題的反駁陳述一遍。
很多華人都是民主黨支持者，所以認為同希拉莉男人婆的風格相比，佩林的表現是可憐的，太女性化。他們認可拜登這種有攻擊力的政客，覺得佩林不堪一擊。
我覺得這個觀點很有意思。
在人和事上，華人有約定俗成的框框。政客應該是什麽樣，辯論應該是怎麽辯，在老中腦子裏有先入為主的觀念。對於不同的思想和表現，老中們都嗤之以鼻，認為不入流，異類是不能成氣候的。
美國人不這樣看。老美更看重標新立異，認為凡是不同的有不同的道理，有新鮮的血液是件好事，大家都要支持，都想試試看。
就這場辯論看，很多老中們最得意的是對佩林諷刺挖苦，說她是花瓶。
最有諷刺意義的是，很多老中在幾次美國大選裏都站錯隊。老中們看好的，無論是戈爾，凱利，還是希拉莉，都沒選上。
這次是不是又站錯隊了，再有一個月便知分曉。
我在電視上看過幾次，像是廣告，是奧巴馬的妻子做的。
snl: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdDqSvJ6aHc
CNN: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Tc7BF_Fd7I
現在文學城裏老左占絕大多數，其實到處老左的都是主流。看來持主流思維的確實保險，不顧後果人雲亦雲就是了：）但是，哪裏有老左，哪裏就有右派的聲音。右派保守理念真是能讓發狂的更發狂，清醒的更清醒：）。這世界如果離開右派理念，就會真完蛋了。
昨天看了歌唱偉大領袖奧巴馬的”忠字舞“，一點不新鮮，隻是專製下文革的再版本而已。怎麽全世界老左們都長一個模樣呢？而且為什麽大多是黑人小孩在表演呢？我心想，教他們跳舞的沒準也是個狂熱奧飯的民族主義老師吧，黑黑：）
"左派沒什麽新鮮內容，說來說去就那麽幾句，江郎才盡", well said indeed.
左派裏的老中，基本上都是國內來的，很多人經曆過文革，當年的紅衛兵小將，滿腦子階級鬥爭，在論壇裏發言三句話不離本行，上來就是大帽子，打棍子，人身攻擊是家常便飯。
在中國沒出人頭地，在美國也是混口飯吃。
奧巴馬的競選正合他們的口味，給了他們人五人六的機會，道理說不出什麽，罵人是無比惡毒。
捍衛奧巴馬跟當年捍衛老毛似的，別人說不得，碰不得。
殊不知，言論自由受美國憲法保護，這裏不是國內，奧巴馬也不是什麽神。看他們又拿出紅衛兵的勁頭來攻擊誣陷，實在是很好笑。
你就編吧你。 我查遍各大媒體，包括你喜歡的foxnews, 沒有見到你說的故事。
有種把出處寫給大家看。
那位博主又來了一篇有關媒體拿對佩林開涮。
嗬嗬，曆屆哪位總統或總統候選人不被嘲笑諷刺？
高爾，克林頓，布什自己還上台表演開涮自己。
左派沒什麽新鮮內容，說來說去就那麽幾句，江郎才盡。
今天新聞專訪奧巴馬被問道：你結婚多少年了？
奧巴馬居然答道：記不清了。
做為一個男人自己結婚幾年都記不住的人，怎麽當總統？
嗬嗬！
就是，右派觀點實際，語言生動，很有個人色彩。
現在再看文學城那些華人老左們（左舟博客）對佩林的人身攻擊，語言乏味觀點可憎。實在是乏味頭頂。
不過，無論現實還是網上，老左都是千篇一律極其乏味的，這和他們頭腦裏的思維方式有關係吧。
華人終於也有了宣揚保守理念的網站，真是欣慰！
同我一樣有保守主義思想的讀者不妨去這個網站看看。
我也是第一次聽說還有這麽個網站，挺有意思。
www.youpai.org
Well said, indeed!
You may also ask why the media and Hollywood are protecting him? Because the media and hollywood are controlled by liberals and socialists.
It is amazing to see that those who benefit the most from this great country hate America so much. Most Chinese American here still have socialist ideology in their heads, who still think someone should take care of them financially instead of becoming a master of their own.
Great points!
Like I said, Obama is an empty suit. He is good at giving speeches, which he borrows from others all the time, but he is speechless when you ask his records before and after becoming a politician.
Are we going to let some talker take over this great country? Hell no!
"One more thing, isn't she easy on the eyes!"
Not really to most women, maybe only to some ladies with some lesiban tendency. In the eyes of a normal woman, Senator Biden is much easier on the eyes. Sorry, I didn't get any wink when I watched the debate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8__aXxXPVc&NR=1
Yes, she can be PTA president, but not VP.
"佩林在回答CBS的采訪時，居然認為如果一個15歲的女孩被自己的父親強奸而懷孕，應該努力把孩子生下來。她這種絕對禁止墮胎的觀點真是全美國強奸犯的福音。"
講得太好了！
把美國女性選民對佩林將宗教教義淩駕於婦女切身利益的憤怒表達得真真切切！
回複nywalker 評論:
"8年前，美國人選了個傻子當總統，把美國搞得一蹋糊塗。"
兩害相權取其輕。老馬是那傻子總統的再版，歐巴馬至少讓人還有一線變化的希望。
Is this a lie contest? If so, Biden wins hands down:)
2008大選副總統辯論中，Joe Biden的14大謊言:
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2096370/posts
民主黨副總統候選人拜登（Biden）在辯論中對副總統職權的界定是來自憲法還是自己編造？
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/10/021676.php
Mr. Zero現在要當總統，也同樣地要靠人照顧才行。那就是媒體的悉心愛護。
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2008/10/04/dnt.lemon.natl.debt.clock.cnn
Any logical people can draw the conclusion. The country was controlled by a Republican president and a Republican congress between 2000-2006. Tell me how John McCain is going to make the national debt smaller.
"One more thing, isn't she easy on the eyes!"
Is this a beauty contest? If so, Sarah wins hands down.
Too bad it isn't.
The media is just showing the public what Sarah Palin truely is: a person who could not name the magazines she read or the decisions of Supreme Court she disagrees with, a person who is incoherent in answering simple questions, a person whose only ability is to recite prepared buzz words when asked about a question which has nothing to do with it.
Your impression on John McCain and Sarah Palin is so deja vu to what I hear 4 years ago of Bush and Chaney. Look what the country has changed since then.
Tax break is the main thing Republicans use to seduce the public. When the economy is bad, they say tax break is good for economy. When the economy is good, they say it is because of tax breaks therefore we should do more tax breaks.
This is their illogical philosophy. The end results: gigantic national debts and budget deficits under Ronald Reagan, George the father and son Bushes. Who will pay these debts? Did John McCain mention anything?
A mother of five, a career woman, a straight talker, I would cheer for her all the way.
Because she does not have Harvard Law degree, I identify with her even better than some other people. I would not worry about the media’s attack on her. They are biased all the time, if they really think Palin is such an idiot, why would they work so hard to smear her reputation and intelligence? I truly believe, in the face of danger, only McCain and Palin will be able to handle the situation without sale the country short. After all, this country needs a leader, not a follower who always changes his mind depends on which direction the wind blows.
There are two more debates coming, I would like to see more of their detailed plans before I make a final decision on who I would like to vote for. We can all stay tuned.
Ps, love your political assays, looking forward to more from you.
only you supporters for Obama think this guy will save you out of misery and change the world to a better place. Not only you guys are naive at default, you kid yourself, you also could not see through the undercurrent of this election. You people act like a cult member of Church Of Obama, all you can say is what you have been brain washed about.
Let me tell you something else, under current economic situation, almost all Obama's promises will fall flat on his face. The people he really needs to pay back are wall street and mortgage industry people, not even those black people he uses, and to you, a Chinese American who votes for him because you really believe his BS that McCain = Bush, you will be left alone with nothing.
“還有，誰上台老百姓該怎麽樣還怎麽樣。”
您這話聽上去好像有點底氣不足，有點和稀泥的味道。美國老百姓過去八年的日子和克林頓時代可是大不相同了。
其實除非你在象OHIO和FLORIDA這樣競爭激烈的州，您那一票沒多大作用.
您這話我舉雙手讚成。 這也就是我支持美國大選改革，取消electorial college, 改成direct popular vote的原因.
很多老中們老覺得自己一票多有重要似的。其實除非你在象OHIO和FLORIDA這樣競爭激烈的州，您那一票沒多大作用。
還有，誰上台老百姓該怎麽樣還怎麽樣。喊口號最響的也是最腐敗的。搞群眾運動的沒一個好東西。
Totally agree with you. Go Palin!
thanks for sharing.
Forget about McCain, I will vote for Palin. : )
Your left wingers not only like to kid yourself, but also like to lecture others with laughable materials.
The following is from a pro-Obama press, enjoy it:
Obama and ’60s Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths
By SCOTT SHANE
Published: October 3, 2008
New York Times
CHICAGO — At a tumultuous meeting of anti-Vietnam War militants at the Chicago Coliseum in 1969, Bill Ayers helped found the radical Weathermen, launching a campaign of bombings that would target the Pentagon and United States Capitol.
Bill Ayers is now an education professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago. His wife, Bernardine Dohrn, teaches at Northwestern University.
Mr. Ayers was wanted by the F.B.I. in 1970. Charges against him were dropped in 1974 because of prosecutorial misconduct.
Opponents of Senator Barack Obama have created advertisements linking him to Mr. Ayers.
Twenty-six years later, at a lunchtime meeting about school reform in a Chicago skyscraper, Barack Obama met Mr. Ayers, by then an education professor. Their paths have crossed sporadically since then, at a coffee Mr. Ayers hosted for Mr. Obama’s first run for office, on the schools project and a charitable board, and in casual encounters as Hyde Park neighbors.
Their relationship has become a touchstone for opponents of Mr. Obama, the Democratic senator, in his bid for the presidency. Video clips on YouTube, including a new advertisement that was broadcast on Friday, juxtapose Mr. Obama’s face with the young Mr. Ayers or grainy shots of the bombings.
In a televised interview last spring, Senator John McCain, Mr. Obama’s Republican rival, asked, “How can you countenance someone who was engaged in bombings that could have or did kill innocent people?”
More recently, conservative critics who accuse Mr. Obama of a stealth radical agenda have asserted that he has misleadingly minimized his relationship with Mr. Ayers, whom the candidate has dismissed as “a guy who lives in my neighborhood” and “somebody who worked on education issues in Chicago that I know.”
A review of records of the schools project and interviews with a dozen people who know both men, suggest that Mr. Obama, 47, has played down his contacts with Mr. Ayers, 63. But the two men do not appear to have been close. Nor has Mr. Obama ever expressed sympathy for the radical views and actions of Mr. Ayers, whom he has called “somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8.”
Obama campaign aides said the Ayers relationship had been greatly exaggerated by opponents to smear the candidate.
“The suggestion that Ayers was a political adviser to Obama or someone who shaped his political views is patently false,” said Ben LaBolt, a campaign spokesman. Mr. LaBolt said the men first met in 1995 through the education project, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, and have encountered each other occasionally in public life or in the neighborhood. He said they have not spoken by phone or exchanged e-mail messages since Mr. Obama began serving in the United States Senate in January 2005 and last met more than a year ago when they bumped into each other on the street in Hyde Park.
In the stark presentation of a 30-second advertisement or a television clip, Mr. Obama’s connections with a man who once bombed buildings and who is unapologetic about it may seem puzzling. But in Chicago, Mr. Ayers has largely been rehabilitated.
Federal riot and bombing conspiracy charges against him were dropped in 1974 because of illegal wiretaps and other prosecutorial misconduct, and he was welcomed back after years in hiding by his large and prominent family. His father, Thomas G. Ayers, had served as chief executive of Commonwealth Edison, the local power company.
Since earning a doctorate in education at Columbia in 1987, Mr. Ayers has been a professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago, the author or editor of 15 books, and an advocate of school reform.
“He’s done a lot of good in this city and nationally,” Mayor Richard M. Daley said in an interview this week, explaining that he has long consulted Mr. Ayers on school issues. Mr. Daley, whose father was Chicago’s mayor during the street violence accompanying the 1968 Democratic National Convention and the so-called Days of Rage the following year, said he saw the bombings of that time in the context of a polarized and turbulent era.
“This is 2008,” Mr. Daley said. “People make mistakes. You judge a person by his whole life.”
That attitude is widely shared in Chicago, but it is not universal. Steve Chapman, a columnist for The Chicago Tribune, defended Mr. Obama’s relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., his longtime pastor, whose black liberation theology and “God damn America” sermon became notorious last spring. But he denounced Mr. Obama for associating with Mr. Ayers, whom he said the University of Illinois should never have hired.
“I don’t think there’s a statute of limitations on terrorist bombings,” Mr. Chapman said in an interview, speaking not of the law but of political and moral implications.
“If you’re in public life, you ought to say, ‘I don’t want to be associated with this guy,’ ” Mr. Chapman said. “If John McCain had a long association with a guy who’d bombed abortion clinics, I don’t think people would say, ‘That’s ancient history.’ ”
Mr. Ayers and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn, a clinical associate professor at Northwestern University Law School who was also a Weather Underground founder, did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
The Schools Project
The Ayers-Obama connection first came to public attention last spring, when both Senator Hilary Rodham Clinton, Mr. Obama’s Democratic primary rival, and Mr. McCain brought it up. It became the subject of a television advertisement in August by the anti-Obama American Issues Project and drew new attention recently on The Wall Street Journal’s op-ed page and elsewhere as the archives of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge at the University of Illinois were opened to researchers.
That project was part of a national school reform effort financed with $500 million from Walter H. Annenberg, the billionaire publisher and philanthropist and President Richard M. Nixon’s ambassador to the United Kingdom. Many cities applied for the Annenberg money, and Mr. Ayers joined two other local education activists to lead a broad, citywide effort that won nearly $50 million for Chicago.
In March 1995, Mr. Obama became chairman of the six-member board that oversaw the distribution of grants in Chicago. Some bloggers have recently speculated that Mr. Ayers had engineered that post for him.
In fact, according to several people involved, Mr. Ayers played no role in Mr. Obama’s appointment. Instead, it was suggested by Deborah Leff, then president of the Joyce Foundation, a Chicago-based group whose board Mr. Obama, a young lawyer, had joined the previous year. At a lunch with two other foundation heads, Patricia A. Graham of the Spencer Foundation and Adele Simmons of the MacArthur Foundation, Ms. Leff suggested that Mr. Obama would make a good board chairman, she said in an interview. Mr. Ayers was not present and had not suggested Mr. Obama, she said.
Ms. Graham said she invited Mr. Obama to dinner at an Italian restaurant in Chicago and was impressed.
“At the end of the dinner I said, ‘I really want you to be chairman.’ He said, ‘I’ll do it if you’ll be vice chairman,’ ” Ms. Graham recalled, and she agreed.
Archives of the Chicago Annenberg project, which funneled the money to networks of schools from 1995 to 2000, show both men attended six board meetings early in the project — Mr. Obama as chairman, Mr. Ayers to brief members on school issues.
It was later in 1995 that Mr. Ayers and Ms. Dohrn hosted the gathering, in their town house three blocks from Mr. Obama’s home, at which State Senator Alice J. Palmer, who planned to run for Congress, introduced Mr. Obama to a few Democratic friends as her chosen successor. That was one of several such neighborhood events as Mr. Obama prepared to run, said A. J. Wolf, the 84-year-old emeritus rabbi of KAM Isaiah Israel Synagogue, across the street from Mr. Obama’s current house.
“If you ask my wife, we had the first coffee for Barack,” Rabbi Wolf said. He said he had known Mr. Ayers for decades but added, “Bill’s mad at me because I told a reporter he’s a toothless ex-radical.”
“It was kind of a nasty shot,” Mr. Wolf said. “But it’s true. For God’s sake, he’s a professor.”
Other Connections
In 1997, after Mr. Obama took office, the new state senator was asked what he was reading by The Chicago Tribune. He praised a book by Mr. Ayers, “A Kind and Just Parent: The Children of Juvenile Court,” which Mr. Obama called “a searing and timely account of the juvenile court system.” In 2001, Mr. Ayers donated $200 to Mr. Obama’s re-election campaign.
In addition, from 2000 to 2002, the two men also overlapped on the seven-member board of the Woods Fund, a Chicago charity that had supported Mr. Obama’s first work as a community organizer in the 1980s. Officials there said the board met about a dozen times during those three years but declined to make public the minutes, saying they wanted members to be candid in assessing people and organizations applying for grants.
A board member at the time, R. Eden Martin, a corporate lawyer and president of the Commercial Club of Chicago, described both men as conscientious in examining proposed community projects but could recall nothing remarkable about their dealings with each other. “You had people who were liberal and some who were pretty conservative, but we usually reached a consensus,” Mr. Martin said of the panel.
Since 2002, there is little public evidence of their relationship.
If by then the ambitious politician was trying to keep his distance, it would not be a surprise. In an article that by chance was published on Sept. 11, 2001, The New York Times wrote about Mr. Ayers and his just-published memoir, “Fugitive Days,” opening with a quotation from the author: “I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough.”
Three days after the Qaeda attacks, Mr. Ayers wrote a reply posted on his Web site to clarify his quoted remarks, saying the meaning had been distorted.
“My memoir is from start to finish a condemnation of terrorism, of the indiscriminate murder of human beings, whether driven by fanaticism or official policy,” he wrote. But he added that the Weathermen had “showed remarkable restraint” given the nature of the American bombing campaign in Vietnam that they were trying to stop.
Most of the bombs the Weathermen were blamed for had been placed to do only property damage, a fact Mr. Ayers emphasizes in his memoir. But a 1970 pipe bomb in San Francisco attributed to the group killed one police officer and severely hurt another. An accidental 1970 explosion in a Greenwich Village town house basement killed three radicals; survivors later said they had been making nail bombs to detonate at a military dance at Fort Dix in New Jersey. And in 1981, in an armed robbery of a Brinks armored truck in Nanuet, N.Y., that involved Weather Underground members including Kathy Boudin and David Gilbert, two police officers and a Brinks guard were killed.
In his memoir, Mr. Ayers was evasive as to which bombings he had a hand in, writing that “some details cannot be told.” By the time of the Brinks robbery, he and Ms. Dohrn had emerged from underground to raise their two children, then Chesa Boudin, whose parents were imprisoned for their role in the heist.
Little Influence Seen
Mr. Obama’s friends said that history was utterly irrelevant to judging the candidate, because Mr. Ayers was never a significant influence on him. Even some conservatives who know Mr. Obama said that if he was drawn to Ayers-style radicalism, he hid it well.
“I saw no evidence of a radical streak, either overt or covert, when we were together at Harvard Law School,” said Bradford A. Berenson, who worked on the Harvard Law Review with Mr. Obama and who served as associate White House counsel under President Bush. Mr. Berenson, who is backing Mr. McCain, described his fellow student as “a pragmatic liberal” whose moderation frustrated others at the law review whose views were much farther to the left.
Some 15 years later, left-leaning backers of Mr. Obama have the same complaint. “We’re fully for Obama, but we disagree with some of his stands,” said Tom Hayden, the 1960s activist and former California legislator, who helped organize Progressives for Obama. His group opposes the candidate’s call for sending more troops to Afghanistan, for instance, “because we think it’s a quagmire just like Iraq,” he said. “A lot of our work is trying to win over progressives who think Obama is too conservative.”
Mr. Hayden, 68, said he has known Mr. Ayers for 45 years and was on the other side of the split in the radical antiwar movement that led Mr. Ayers and others to form the Weathermen. But Mr. Hayden said he saw attempts to link Mr. Obama with bombings and radicalism as “typical campaign shenanigans.”
“If Barack Obama says he’s willing to talk to foreign leaders without preconditions,” Mr. Hayden said, “I can imagine he’d be willing to talk to Bill Ayers about schools. But I think that’s about as far as their relationship goes.”
任何有腦子有自尊心的人都不會真心讚美佩林的。美國民眾再怎麽不知好歹，still deserve better than that. God bless America, no more Republicans in the White House in the next 4 years.
"說小布什是小傻子，那麽是美國人選的他。都是小傻子？嗬嗬"
04年選布什的那些50.7%的美國民眾裏現在有一大批人覺得自己當年很傻。 不然怎麽解釋他29%的支持率？ 另外48.3%的美國民眾當年沒傻，現在對另一半的人說“ I told you so!"
“她不但是位美麗的女人和母親,敬佩她的勇敢，率直，慈愛和智慧.”
做一個好的副總統需要的遠不止美麗，勇敢，率直，慈愛和智慧。有這些素質的人每個基督教會都能抓一把。
讓奧巴馬放空話的理想主義者玩玩也好。
說小布什是小傻子，那麽是美國人選的他。都是小傻子？嗬嗬
如果McCain競選陣營對她有一點信心的話，就不會在辯論的第二天宣布從現在到大選結束，佩林不再接受任何新聞媒介的單獨采訪，甚至包括極右的fox news.
佩林之所以在辯論中沒有說錯話，犯大錯誤，就是因為她隻敢照事先準備好的稿子背誦。結果就是所答非所問。
這種沒有頭腦，沒有基本常識的人居然能當副總統，甚至總統？ 右派的人的致命錯誤就是他們選人觀看這個人的宗教價值觀， 不看她的執政能力。小布什就是這樣給選上去的。
"在我眼裏她就是完美婦女的形象"
幫幫忙！ 佩林在回答CBS的采訪時，居然認為如果一個15歲的女孩被自己的父親強奸而懷孕，應該努力把孩子生下來。她這種絕對禁止墮胎的觀點真是全美國強奸犯的福音。他們不會絕後了， 赫赫。
她絕對就是被上帝祝福的人，嗬嗬。
右派普遍不會人雲亦雲而且都具個人特色，好玩又有意思！
謝謝轉貼！
Biden幾乎自始至終表現乏味，典型的老左形象。一點都沒興趣。怎麽看老左，怎麽沒勁。
Correction: They were too afraid she would look too stupid if she had to talk without written scripts
She speaks like average Americans and her intelligence and abilities are just like average Americans. So just be herself, an average American. Do not try to pretend she's an expert on everything, do not try to seek the high office position. For the experience of past eight years, Americans are better to have leaders smarter than the average Joes.
MSNBC, 313,013votes, 76% says Joe Biden won.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032553
CNN Lary King Live, 15484 votes, 85%: Joe Biden won.
http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/larry.king.live/
就連樓主喜歡的Fox News（偏右）, 462,541 votes, 54% says Joe Biden was the winner.
http://elections.foxnews.com/
00，04年真正輸的不是戈爾，凱利， 輸的是美國和美國經濟，輸的是美國普通民衆，尤其是那伊戰中四千美國士兵的Body Bags和他們的親人。套用一句裏根的原話：“你今天的日子比八年前好嗎？”
I don't need your cheap "sorry" for my "own problem". My problem is big: it's the American problem: it's in knee-deep trouble of the Iraq war etc. Shoud I blame the Iraq war problem on myself?
If you want to feel sorry, feel for those who lost their mom or dad to the war!
McCain/Palin will keep running along the Bush/Cheney's disastrous railway--that's why my vote is not for them.
My main concern is the enviroment, people who lose money now may recover later. but when the tree (or enviroment) were down, they will be gone forever.
I am aginst immigration also. for example one people uses 1 unit energy in Maxico, when he move to US the same person will consumes may be 5 unit energy. how the world resources can support that many people?
By the way, winking to the audience is not professional. It is folksy at best, childish at worse.
Sarah Palin does not have the brain to be the vice president of the country. Period.
Barack Obama is 'aloof' says British ambassador to US
Barack Obama is a "decidedly liberal" senator "who was finding his feet, and then got diverted by his presidential ambitions", according to a frank verdict delivered to Gordon Brown by the British ambassador to the United States.
Sir Nigel Sheinwald, ambassador in Washington since last year, delivered his unvarnished assessment of the White House front runner in a seven-page letter to the Prime Minister, obtained by The Daily Telegraph, just before the Democratic nominee's visit to Downing Street just over two months ago.
The candid letter, marked as containing "sensitive judgements" and requesting officials to "protect the contents carefully" gives a remarkable insight into how the Foreign Office views the political phenomenon who stunned Mr Brown's inner circle by defeating their favourite, Hillary Clinton, in the Democratic primaries.
Although the picture Sir Nigel paints is a highly complimentary one - Mr Obama's speeches are "elegant" and "mesmerising", he is "highly intelligent" and has "star quality" - he also judges that his "policies are still evolving" and that if elected he will "have less of a track record than any recent president".
The letter's contents suggest that Mr Brown could initially find it difficult to deal with a President Obama because he remains a largely unknown quantity who "resists pigeon-holing" and the leak is likely to complicate relations.
Last month, the prime minister was forced to backtrack after an article written in his name broke with convention by showering praise on the Democratic candidate at the expense of his Republican rival, Senator John McCain of Arizona.
Sir Nigel traces the ambition of Mr Obama, 47, to reach the White House right back to his 20s or before. "He has talked at least since the 1980s about a shot at the Presidency."
He also identifies several political vulnerabilities that Sen McCain will seek to exploit in the last month of his campaign against the Illinois senator. The leaked letter will provide him with welcome ammunition.
Mr Obama "can seem to sit on the fence, assiduously balancing pros and cons", Sir Nigel wrote, and "does betray a highly educated and upper middle class mindset". Charges of elitism "are not entirely unfair" and he is "maybe aloof, insensitive" at times.
"He can talk too dispassionately for a national campaign about issues which touch people personally, eg his notorious San Francisco comments [in April] about small-town Pennsylvanians 'clinging' to guns and religion."
Mr Obama's Democratic primary victory over the former First Lady showed that "he is tough and competitive. This is of course the Chicago school.
You don't beat Clinton without being resilient" but "his energy levels do dip and he can be uninspiring e.g. in debates".
Curiously, there is no mention of his wife Michelle - a central figure in his rise and his closest adviser - and little examination of his time in Chicago, where he had radical associations, or his background in Hawaii, essential to understanding why "Obama is cool", as the letter puts it.
Sir Nigel detects a potential clash between Downing Street and an Obama administration over Iran.
"If Obama wins, we will need to consider with him the articulation between (a) his desire for 'unconditional' dialogue with Iran and (b) our and the [United Nations Security Council]'s requirement of prior suspension of enrichment before the nuclear negotiations proper can begin."
But Sir Nigel - who described the Iraq war as "the Iraq expedition" and "Bush's Iraq adventure" - briefed that Mr Obama's Iraq policy gelled with Britain's.
"Whatever the detail, our own proposed transition in south-east Iraq would be consistent with Obama's likely approach. Obama's ideas on a more expansive regional framework for Iraq would also fit well with our thinking."
He wrote approvingly of Mr Obama's "mainstream team of youthful economic advisers, with strong credentials [who] approach policy with refreshingly few prescriptions", his "progressive position on climate change" and his 'pragmatic realism" and "balanced approach to the big security issues".
Sir Nigel concludes that searching for a deal between Israel and the Palestinians is "unlikely to be a top priority for Obama" and he expresses concern about his protectionist trade policy, while noting that he has "repositioned himself somewhat towards free trade".
British officials said that since it became clear that Mr Obama would overcome Mrs Clinton, Sir Nigel had worked hard to dampen down what he viewed as "Obamamania" within Downing Street that had become so strong that he feared it might alienate the McCain campaign.
Sir Nigel's letter, though initially drafted by his political staff, is an intensely personal assessment of Mr Obama and is based largely on the ambassador's owns observations from the campaign trail.
He has travelled to rallies as far afield as New Hampshire and South Carolina - where he had a personal meeting with Mr McCain - and to the party conventions in Denver and St Paul, Minnesota.
Although he has the lowest public profile of any recent British ambassador in Washington, Sir Nigel has won respect for his range of contacts within the Bush administration and the campaigns.
The letter quotes Tom Daschle, a former Senate Majority Leader and Obama confidant who is hotly tipped to become White House chief of staff should Mr Obama be elected, from a private meeting with Sir Nigel.
There is a strong indication Sir Nigel also consulted Senator Richard Lugar, a Republican who has worked with Mr Obama on legislation and travelled abroad with him.
"Obama's politics and policies are still evolving," Sir Nigel wrote.
"His Illinois and US Senate careers give us only a few clues as to his likely priorities in office.
"In the Senate he took a low profile in 2005-6, but was a diligent member of the Foreign Relations Committee, respectful and friendly to the veteran Republican Senator Lugar, with whom he travelled to London in 2005.
"His voting record was decidedly liberal. But the main impression is of someone who was finding his feet, and then got diverted by his presidential ambitions."
Sir Nigel later reiterates the point: "Although he has been a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for four years, and a regular attender of meetings in his first two, there is little Obama track record to refer back to."
He highlights luck as a key factor in Mr Obama's rise. "He was certainly lucky in having Democratic and Republican opponents for the US Senate in 2004 who were tarnished. He was lucky that Hillary Clinton had such a bad organisation in the primary campaign, and took so long to respond to Obama's threat."
A spokesman for the British Embassy in Washington declined to comment.
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, October 02, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Obamanomics: To those of us who can still tell the difference between a tax cut and a government handout, the Democratic plan for "relief" looks more like a blueprint for dependency.
In the first presidential debate, Barack Obama repeated a claim he has made many a time — that his economic plan would cut taxes for "95% of working families." But is this really so? Yes, more or less, but only if you accept Obama's definition of a tax cut. And doing that may force you to leave your common-sense zone.
First of all, "working families" does not include all households. Throw in singles, retirees, students and the unemployed, and the share getting some tax-related benefit is a good deal less. The Tax Policy Center, a group affiliated with the center-left Brookings Institution and Urban Institute, says only about 80% of households would get a cut.
Then there's the difference, not acknowledged by the Obama camp, between a real tax cut and the type of "tax relief" that looks suspiciously like welfare. A true tax "cut" is a reduction in the taxes you're paying. In contrast, much of the "relief" in Obama's plan consists of "refundable credit" — payments you get even if you owe no taxes at all.
The plan does have some real tax cuts, such as the extension of President Bush's cuts for families making under $250,000. This relief is significant — though John McCain would go further and provide it for everyone. However, so are Obama's new or expanded refundable credits. These include, with five-year costs estimated by the Tax Policy Center:
• The "making work pay" credit of 6.2% up to $8,100 of earnings. Cost: $323.7 billion.
• A "universal mortgage" credit equal to 10% of mortgage interest for income-tax filers who don't itemize. Cost: $54 billion.
• An expansion of the child and dependent care credit, which would rise from 35% to 50% of expenses and would be refundable for the first time. Cost: $10.6 billion.
• The "American opportunity tax credit" to replace the (non-refundable) hope credit with a refundable credit of $4,000 for college costs. Cost: $58.2 billion.
• Expansion of the earned income tax credit to lower-income workers. Cost: $19.3 billion.
That's $465.8 billion in all over five years, all transferred from the $250K-plus set and going mostly to lower- and lower-middle-income Americans.
Millions of those in line for these benefits pay no income tax, and Obama's plan — both through these credits and a pure-pander policy of eliminating taxes for 7 million seniors — would increase the nontaxpaying class by millions more.
The Tax Policy Center estimates that the share of households not owing income tax would rise from 38% under current law to 48% under the Obama plan.
Another think tank, the Tax Foundation, says the number of nonpayers would rise from a third of tax filers to 44%.
So how many will get "tax relief" that is really just welfare? The number is impossible to pin down exactly, but it's likely to be huge.
Start with the nonpaying class of 48% or 44%, depending on whose calculation you use. That's well over 60 million tax filers. Many, if not most, of these would probably qualify for at least one of the Obama credits, because it doesn't take much, other than low income, to qualify.
For one of those credits, dependent and child care, you don't even have to have a job. You can simply be looking for one. Taking college courses (and agreeing to 100 hours of community service) qualifies you for the "American opportunity credit."
The most expensive credit, "making work pay," is aimed at low-wage workers but will have to be phased out at higher income levels. As the Tax Policy Center notes, the resulting jump in marginal tax rates in the phaseout zone "might actually give workers an incentive to work less."
What happens to our society and politics when so many Americans no longer expect to share the income-tax burden and instead think "tax relief" means getting checks extracted from "the rich"?
The country is on dangerous ground at such a point, because there may be no stopping the zeal of politicians to pad their majorities even more by squeezing the wealth producers and buying the votes of a new welfare class that once was proud of paying its own way.
go ahead blame others for your own problem. When you are not doing well, it always some one else's fault.
BTW, you did not get my point from the story I told at all. I am sorry for you.
上一頁 [1] 2
Shake hand! 北鶴, we were thinking about the same thing...I didn't read your comments before post mine.
"最有諷刺意義的是，很多老中在幾次美國大選裏都站錯隊。老中們看好的，無論是戈爾，凱利，還是希拉莉，都沒選上。
這次是不是又站錯隊了，再有一個月便知分曉。"
Of course YOU are living a better life after 8 years of Bush/Cheney but not your FRIENDS (re: "災難真的來了") and the MOST of American people and those who lost their loved ones to the war of who-knows-what's-the cause. But I guess you could care less.
來源: dell_dell
http://minx.cc/?post=274757
1. TAX VOTE: Biden said McCain voted “the exact same way” as Obama to
increase taxes on Americans earning just $42,000, but McCain DID NOT VOTE
THAT WAY.
2. AHMEDINIJAD MEETING: Joe Biden lied when he said that Barack Obama never
said that he would sit down unconditionally with Mahmoud Ahmedinijad of Iran
. Barack Obama did say specifically, and Joe Biden attacked him for it.
3. OFFSHORE OIL DRILLING: Biden said, “Drill we must.” But Biden has
opposed offshore drilling and even compared offshore drilling to “raping”
the Outer Continental Shelf.”
4. TROOP FUNDING: Joe Biden lied when he indicated that John McCain and
Barack Obama voted the same way against funding the troops in the field.
John McCain opposed a bill that included a timeline, that the President of
the United States had already said he would veto regardless of it’s passage.
5. OPPOSING CLEAN COAL: Biden says he’s always been for clean coal, but he
just told a voter that he is against clean coal and any new coal plants in
America and has a record of voting against clean coal and coal in the U.S.
Senate.
6. ALERNATIVE ENERGY VOTES: According to FactCheck.org, Biden is
exaggerating and overstating John McCain’s record voting for alternative
energy when he says he voted against it 23 times.
7. HEALTH INSURANCE: Biden falsely said McCain will raise taxes on people's
health insurance coverage -- they get a tax credit to offset any tax hike.
Independent fact checkers have confirmed this attack is false
8. OIL TAXES: Biden falsely said Palin supported a windfall profits tax in
Alaska -- she reformed the state tax and revenue system, it's not a windfall
profits tax.
9. AFGHANISTAN / GEN. MCKIERNAN COMMENTS: Biden said that top military
commander in Iraq said the principles of the surge could not be applied to
Afghanistan, but the commander of NATO's International Security Assistance
Force Gen. David D. McKiernan said that there were principles of the surge
strategy, including working with tribes, that could be applied in
Afghanistan.
10. REGULATION: Biden falsely said McCain weakened regulation -- he actually
called for more regulation on Fannie and Freddie.
11. IRAQ: When Joe Biden lied when he said that John McCain was “dead wrong
on Iraq”, because Joe Biden shared the same vote to authorize the war and
differed on the surge strategy where they John McCain has been proven right.
12. TAX INCREASES: Biden said Americans earning less than $250,000 wouldn’t
see higher taxes, but the Obama-Biden tax plan would raise taxes on
individuals making $200,000 or more.
13. BAILOUT: Biden said the economic rescue legislation matches the four
principles that Obama laid out, but in reality it doesn’t meet two of the
four principles that Obama outlined on Sept. 19, which were that it include
an emergency economic stimulus package, and that it be part of “part of a
globally coordinated effort with our partners in the G-20.”
14. REAGAN TAX RATES: Biden is wrong in saying that under Obama, Americans
won't pay any more in taxes then they did under Reagan.
"佩林對奧巴地批評也很中肯：見人說人話，見鬼說鬼話。", well said indeed.
Many Chinese here who root for Obama don't even have right to vote, some of them are living in Canada. I realize that the country who dislikes America most is actually Canada. : )
Am I living a better life after 8 years of Bush administration? Damn right I am.
the following is what I wrote before the debate.
今晚辯論和明天民調預測
今晚肯定是PALIN贏，隻要她別打斷BIDEN的發言。BIDEN滿嘴跑火車，已經鬧出很多笑話：1。說JOHN MCCAIN是GEORGE MCCAIN。2。說BARACK OBAMA是BAWA OBAMA。3。讓做坐在輪椅上的議員站起來。3。說自己的飛機在阿富汗被炮轟迫降。4。說自己在伊拉克挨槍子兒。5。說要愛國多納稅。6。說HILLARY是更好的VP候選人。 7。說羅斯福29當總統上電視。。。。
當然，媒體是不會計較這些的。這些話要是布什或MCCAIN說的，能被笑話死。OBAMA同夥說的可以忽略不計。
所以PALIN不用多說什麽，BIDEN自己說就夠讓人笑話的了。
但是：
無論今晚PALIN怎麽出色，明天媒體報道的文章其實已經寫好了。標題是：
BIDEN以經驗贏PALIN，民調顯示OBAMA繼續大幅度領先MCCAIN。
現在媒體一邊倒，保護OBAMA，是美國曆史上空前絕後的。除了FOXNEWS還能看看以外，其它的報道非常可笑了!
GO MCCAIN! GO PALIN!
Thanks.
yes, u r correct. have changed it. thanks. long time no c. : )
What I am talking about here is that many Chinese don't think independently. We Chinese are actually very conservative on social and economic issues, yet most of us vote with liberals and left wingers, who represent nothing to our value.
Go ask any Chinese voter who like to vote for Obama and soon you will find out that the reasoning in their heads doesn't make any sense.
"在美國，為了political right,政客們一般都不對loser說實話，obama更是要給他們畫餅，讓這些人得錯不饒人，我覺得palin在這裏點得很好。一部分美國人也需要奮鬥、用腦子、少貪婪。"
well said indeed. Thanks.
同意你的觀點。BIDEN老爸以前是USED CAR DEALER，他聽起來在向美國人民賣舊車。
check this out:
VP Moderator Ifill Has Anti-Palin Bias
Thursday, October 2, 2008 11:34 AM
By: Jim Meyers Article Font Size
Gwen Ifill, the moderator of Thursday night’s vice presidential debate between Sarah Palin and Joe Biden, is coming under increasing fire for her apparent anti-Palin bias.
When Ifill was chosen to moderate the debate, the John McCain-Palin campaign was unaware that she has a new book coming out that expresses admiration for Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama, “Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama.”
McCain himself complained on “Fox & Friends” Thursday morning: “Frankly, I wish they had picked a moderator that isn’t writing a book favorable to Barack Obama…
“Life isn’t fair.”
Ifill tipped her hand when she hosted a discussion on PBS’ “Washington Week” on Sept. 5, after the close of the Republican convention that nominated Palin.
Ifill showed a video showing Palin saying, “Here’s a little news flash for those reporters and commentators: I’m not going to Washington to seek their good opinion, I’m going to Washington to serve the people of this great country.”
Ifill sniped: “Wow, was she talking about us, or just changing the subject?”
Later Ifill said about Palin: “Lots of talk about, what, gutting caribou or whatever — I shouldn’t say it this way — gutting caribou in Alaska, which I’m sure is a fine, fine thing to do.” That drew laughter from the audience. “What I’m just saying, we heard a lot more about what Sarah Palin did for sport or what she did as a mother or what she did — than what she did as a governor actually, the actual policy decisions.”
Ifill also raised this point: “This is a weird question, but what don’t we know about Sarah Palin?”
Conservative commentator Michelle Malkin said on Tuesday that Ifill is “so far in the tank” for Obama that “her oxygen delivery line is running out.”
Ifill was cited in complaints PBS Ombudsman Michael Getler said he received after Palin delivered her nomination acceptance speech at the convention, World Net Daily reported.
Some viewers complained of a “dismissive” look by Ifill when discussing Palin’s speech, and some said she wore a look of “disgust” while reporting on the GOP candidate.
One complaint read in part: “It is quite obvious that Ms. Ifill supports Obama as she struggled to say anything redemptive about Gov. Palin’s performance. I am disappointed in Ms. Ifill’s complete disregard for journalistic objectivity.”
That's all.
If you enjoyed the past 8 years--by all means go on vote her.
If you do not want to repeat the 8 years, vote otherwise. Period.
佩林做家庭主婦可以，做總統就可笑了。讓佩林作總統候選人， 是對美國人民的嘲弄。
認識。
其中的一個佩林應該是拜登？
This might be a slip of a pen from a writer I have been fond of---Election is for what you believe and what is good for the country, not a popularity contest. And it is certainly not a game show to see how good a guesser you are to match the final outcome. If a nincompoop or a charlatan is elected, it hurts everyone, and the past 8 years clearly demonstrated that.
This might be a slip of a pen from a writer I have been fond of---Election is for what you believe and what is good for the country, not a popularity contest. And it is certainly not a game to show to see how good a guesser you to match the final outcome. If a nincompoop or a charletan is elected, it hurts everyone, and the past 8 years clearily demonstrated that.
在美國，為了political right,政客們一般都不對loser說實話，obama更是要給他們畫餅，讓這些人得錯不饒人，我覺得palin在這裏點得很好。一部分美國人也需要奮鬥、用腦子、少貪婪。
中國人好像比較容易對容貌好、智慧佳的女性有偏見，非得缺一樣，或者兩者都缺大家好像才能心理平衡。
何改變防止再餡危機。不是為竟選， 是為事實， 是為人民。
You are right, I think Palin did a great job last night. Binden was so fake...