Jim Carrey Online

Since I'm not from the United States, I'm realy curious how people are going to vote this time.

My thoughts (as short as possible) ;

Whole Europe (and others) were simply shocked that President Bush was chosen again after years of big mistakes. And we were right. I know overthere the media is an extremely powerfull item in all this and lots of the stuff they show aren't realy the facts as they are. Not at all. When I look at the facts and then see the things aired overthere, I just can't believe it ... A whole nation sees that crap, you know.

I think it's a fascinating thing that McCain is getting such a positive vibe now. Since Bush did his thing, now the whole is suffering on so many levels (specially economic) by the many consequences coming from his descissions. (specially involving Irac) I know that mostly stuff like that isn't on the news there, but overhere we have a more objective look at it. I'm sorry to say, but those are the facts. That circus going on in the media there is just focusing on ALL the things that are NOT important. Can someone please explain how someone like Palin even made it into politics!?

And yes, I have to admit ... I just can't stand the thought of Obama not winning. It's just insane! When McCain wins, one thing will pop into my head ... "How can you (americans) do this to yourself!?" "Do you guys want to be in the same shit over and over again?" It's time for a change! NOW you have the chance! Get real, vote right.

My thoughts......as to the point as possible.....

I guess it is a good thing that you, Europe (and others) live where you live and not in America then. (Although not ALL of Europe would appreciate you speaking on their behalf because I have a dear friend in France who follows our Politics well and he completely would disagree with you and not appreciate you speaking for him.)

Yes, Bush did make mistakes (is this where I should mention….he’s HUMAN), but so have many of the other presidents, at least he didn’t lie to the world and get away with it….OH wait….he DID NOT have sexual relations with THAT woman. Jimmy Carter, well lets just say he was a train wreck in the presidency and he still is. So as far as Bush and all his BIG mistakes…..well, congratulations...there's a little bit of truth to that. Although President Bush has over 3 TIMES the approval rating of Congress. The democrat-majority Congress is at NINE PERCENT approval! I don't think it can get any worse than that...most of that 9% is probably Congressional family members. And if our nation has enough faith in him (as they did because he did make it another term), then so be it! He has had more than his share of crap to deal with throughout his second term (thank you Bin Laden and your bomb toting jihad FREAKS! Kill yourself and thousands of others well done here are your virgins….OH! Not so fast!……you’re in hell now – Satan is free to do as he will with you).

I will tell you what, I’m grateful that Bush was in the presidency the day 3 planes flew into some of our most prominent buildings seven years ago. So what were you so right about? You are right about our left wing, liberal media freaks. But you shouldn’t say that we aren’t getting ALL the facts. My brother has served 2 tours over there first in Iraq and the second in Afghanistan. I think that his first hand experience is as much truth than you and our media know. But guess what, the war in Iraq isn't even being discussed anymore by the media...because we're WINNING it. We're winning to the degree that we're even preparing to turn it all over to the Iraqis and start withdrawing our troops. Nancy Pelosi and Congress's problem is, they promised ACTION. Instead, we have the least productive Congress in American history. Up to this point, only 294 actual laws have been passed. By far, the fewest in HISTORY, over 2 years in after an election. So you are right again…..because the media is so screwed up and so in favor of the freaking left……they don’t show the good that the war has done, because that would make Bush look good. Heaven forbid! They would have you believe that the Holocaust never happened too.

As far as McCain getting a positive vibe….yeah, because Barry Obama is starting to show his true colors……along with the whole Democrap party. And actually I think you are wrong in your statement that because you’re over there hearing your media feeds that you have a more objective view. Bull crap! You are not here, you don’t understand our government obviously because it takes much more than one man to call the shots……ever heard of the house of representatives…… there is a process and it is followed. And I’m sorry to say, but those aren’t the facts. First of all, talk radio ISN'T just NEWS, and has never pretended to be. It's all about opinion and you know that up front. Talk radio isn't trying to deceive the American people the way that the NY Times and others are, by portraying themselves as objective news sources. As for Fox, they only seem biased compared to the one-sided reporting of NBC, ABC, CBS and especially MSNBC. The fact is, I don't know of ANY lies Fox News has told. Fox gives BOTH sides of the argument of virtually every issue. Hannity and Colmes is a great example. Juan Williams, Bob Beckel and many other democrats have a huge presence on the channel. Contrast that with the likes of Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews, who had a "thrill going up his leg" after an Obama speech, and declared that the speech should be required reading for school children for generations to come. Does that sound objective to you? I can't quite envision Edward R. Murrow talking about "wetting his pants" over a Harry Truman speech, but maybe that's just me.

That circus going on in the media would have you believe that Palin is a gun-toting, God loving Christian woman who is a war-monger. Well, this "war-monger" has a son enlisted in the Army who was deployed to Iraq on September 11th. Now, BOTH members of the Republican ticket now have, or did have sons in this war. I'd say they're pretty heavily invested in it, wouldn't you? Who does Obama have in it? What's HIS military record? I'm sorry, maybe "community organizer" on the South Side of Chicago qualifies? Can someone please explain how someone like you feels the liberty to think you know what you’re saying!? OH wait…..you must be a Community Organizer also…..right? That would qualify you to not only run your mouth about something you know a little about and have no experience with…OH and run for president while you’re at it. Palin, as the chief executive of her state, she is better prepared, and has more experience to bring to the presidency than the man who heads the democratic ticket, who had only a year in the U.S. Senate before he started running for president.

And as you admitted you can’t stand the thought of Obama not winning. Well, guess what little boy….He’s not going to win so get use to that thought! The Democratic Party is hanging Obama and themselves with the rope they had hoped to hang McCain and Palin with and we’re all laughing and watching as they do so. For example…..Obama said 'well, the political goals have not been met' ---NOT SO FAST OBAMA…..let me remind you that 15 out of the 18 political benchmarks have been met! So it is you sir, who is insane! And it’s sure a good thing that you do not reside in the USA. And yeah, we all want change…..I thought Washington was broken and we were looking for change? It seems to me that you can't get much further from Washington than Anchorage, Alaska.

WE AMERICANS DO HAVE THE CHANCE TO VOTE RIGHT AND THE MCCAIN/PALIN TICKET IS OUR TICKET TO A CHANGE!! SO BACK OFF BELGIUM BOY! It doesn’t come down to who has the most experience (if it did we all know Obama wouldn’t win anyway) or who speaks the most eloquently or is the most educated, it doesn’t come down to whether or not you went to an Ivy league school. What it does come down to is who has the ability to reason. I will not stand by and watch Obama bastardize America and what it stands for.

I find it amazing that the right and the good always comes up against the most opposition…..keep on saying what you say….because you truly help me even more to see who really should be in that White House.

Here are a few other little things I must point out……everyone thinks Obama is the answer…well, lets just look at a few things shall we? These are all questions or statements that seem to be prominent so let’s address them…..

'Barack Obama will bring UNITY to our country to finally get things done!'

Really? Can you name even ONE instance where Barack Obama worked in a united way with Republicans on ANY issue? His positions are so far to the left, there's no way he could reach out to anyone but extreme left wing liberals. He's never shown the least bit of interest working with members on the other side of the isle. On the other hand, John McCain has "reached across the isle" numerous times...McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, McCain-Lieberman to name just a few. If you really want UNITY or bi-partisanship, John McCain is definitely your man.

'Yeah well, Obama is a Washington outsider, which is exactly what we need right now'

Unfortunately, Obama has spent SO much time outside Washington, that we have absolutely no idea what he would do once he was inside. He was a "community organizer in Chicago, an Illinois state legislator, and a U.S. Senator since 2005. From that to President of the United States? Asked what Barack had accomplished to recommend him for the job, I was told recently that Barack Obama had "organized the Black people." Hmm. First, I hadn't realized the Black people were DISorganized? There's nothing worse than an entire minority group running around helter skelter, is there? So, thank you for that, Barack. That must have been during the "community organizer" days? But when pressed to name specifics on a legitimate accomplishment, Obama supporters are stumped. Even staunch Obama supporter, Texas state senator Kirk Watson, when asked by Chris Matthews on national television this past February 19th, to name just one thing Obama has ever accomplished, Watson couldn't come up with a single thing. Not one. This was of course, before Chris Matthews felt the "thrill going up his leg" for Obama, and pledged him his troth.

'Barack Obama is one of the great communicators of our time, he's a brilliant speaker who can fire up a crowd'

Adolph Hitler could fire up a crowd too. I'm not comparing the two, I'm just saying that's not necessarily the best recommendation for president. I went to a Barry Manilow concert once, he had the crowd (well, the WOMEN in it, anyway) pretty fired up. As for Obama's communication skills, I still like the fact that he communicated to us that we have 57 states, plus one he hasn't visited yet, plus Alaska and Hawaii...for a total of 60? Had he not communicated that information, I'd be under the mistaken impression we still had just the 50 states. Also the priceless tire inflation communication, just might save our nation, as well as the planet.

'He'll bring change, and anything is better than Bush, right?'

Uh, wrong. Karl Marx wouldn't be better than Bush. Neither would Vladimir Lenin. Let's not forget his quote from the front page of the Wall Street Journal a few months ago: "Globalization and technology and automation all weaken the position of workers," he said, and a strong government hand is needed to assure that wealth is distributed more equitably. Equitable distribution of wealth talk should frighten to the core all American citizens who love life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The one big bill to Barack Obama's credit right now is another of his proposals to redistribute wealth. It's called the World Poverty Act. If passed into law, it would take $845 billion from U.S. taxpayers, and redistribute that money to other nations through the UN. Sound good? If so, we'll see you in the cheese lines Comrade!

passions are certainly running high.........whoever wins they have a tough job ahead of them.............

fluffy

I think we should scrap the lot and see about some new candidates... I don't feel particularly fond of any of them.

make it, McCain - a war hero Palin - Regular woman with extraordinary abilities - being a mom of 5, and in politics is not easy task.

Washington should be a snap for Palin after the dinnertime party whips...
5 kids, whew!

lol..........why is it between only 2 parties??.........why don't you lot have the crazies standing for election like we do??.......lol....you miss loads of fun........

fluffy

Takes us only a few months,
not sure which is better,
but I do like to have the several people to choose from in Canada,
kinda miss the Reform Party though.
Sometimes though, it's not good to have too many parties, a little too much congestion, but I am glad we have a few more than
the US. Makes me feel like I have more of a choice.
I think 5-6 candidates would be good.
But we can have a minority government.
The States they have one or the other, no minority.

Geez.. I even got interested and started to read all that, but then i looked at the quantity and was like.. nope sorry, i am not in English enough to be able to enhance it without any mental lost..
But i agree with grinchy steve. I would be also surprised if they voted for the republicans again. That's the majority as i know, but i used to live in NY and used to know people who would always vote for democrats.
So, I don't know what will happen. That's the american people business. As for me, I don't know what's better for me. No one of them both likes Russians)) But I would be happier if the future president was Obama.

As long as the next one ain't corrupt like Bush...........'.what about your involvement with the Carlyle Group and Saudi Mr Bush????......corrupt git!!!!!......

fluffy

Well, there you go, Alyonushka. You proved a great point! Some people are just too lazy to really dig deep and find the facts. And they are the scariest ones to have out there voting. Obama and his running mate are making complete asses of themselves, what with all their racial slurs and the very poorly thought out attacks on McCain and Palin. Not to mention all the comparisons the democrats keep making in reference to Obama and Jesus....the community organizer? Ummm.....correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Jesus was a carpenter....? But I can understand why some might want him in office, because it would definitely be a better weak point for America. Obama would sell the U.S. out - but that's what a lot of people would like to see. Those who are not willing to put the real time into learning about both candidates are obviously a danger in my opinion. Did you know that Obama supports the death of babies that are born after a failed abortion? I'll save you the footwork of having to look it up by pasting an interview with the guy that's speaking out about it. In fact....there is a well known radio station in Chicago that has received threats from Obama's campaign if they put this man on air. And for those of you that might get bored because there's too much to read....let me sum it up for you.

In a nut shell Chicago wanted to pass the Born Alive Infants Protection Act and Senator Obama was the only one to speak out against it. Hmm.....this man is evil incarnate if you ask me. The more and more I dig about him to find out things.....the more and more I'm convinced NO ONE should compare this man to Jesus.....rather they should be comparing him to Satan's right hand man.

If you don't read all if this, at least read the 1st 4 exchanges.

Here's the transcript:
GLENN: We have David Freddoso on. He is the author of a book, The Case Against Barack Obama: The Unlikely Rise and Unexamined Agenda of the Media's Favorite Candidate. He is a reporter for the National Review Online. WGN in Chicago getting heat for having him on. The Obama campaign does not want this man on. There's another guest that they had on that they also went through the roof and just did everything they could to scare WGN into not having these guests on. Why? What is it that the Obama campaign doesn't want? They say smears. David Freddoso is somebody that, believe me, I have had on my program and on my program, to get it on CNN, it better be right. If you're a conservative, it better be right. David Freddoso is somebody that we have checked out ourself to make sure what he's saying is right, and let's go to the abortion thing. I played the ad. It's a 527 now against Barack Obama that says please, Barack Obama, please don't allow babies to die from botched abortions. That's a pretty outrageous claim.

David, where does that claim come from? What is this story?

FREDDOSO: Well, this is the story of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act and it goes back to a hospital in the southwest suburbs of Chicago called Christ Hospital where they were performing on a regular basis induced labor abortions and these are late second, early third trimester abortions in which the drugs are given to the mother to induce violent labor and the baby is usually killed in the contractions and comes out. But about 15 to 20% of the time this produces a a live baby is born, I should say. And sometimes the babies will live just for a few minutes, sometimes for several hours. But this hospital was not giving any thought to medical treatment for them when they survived and could have potentially lived on and saved in incubator under whatever sort of medical technology we have to keep premature babies alive. They were simply shelving them and

GLENN: Hang on just a second. I just, I don't care how you feel about abortion. If you think abortion is a right, you know, a woman's right to choose, et cetera, et cetera, fine. I disagree with you. We're going now to a step of partial birth abortion. Now people are not for partial birth abortion. The vast majority of people. They are pro choice but they are saying you can't take the baby and have them birthed all the way except for the head and then suck the brains out while the head is still in the mother. That is a that is a step way beyond. And Republicans and Democrats agree on that. This is something further than that. This is a baby that survives an abortion and is living outside of the mother, is now just neglected and dies from neglect. Right or wrong, David?

FREDDOSO: This is what yeah, that is exactly what was happening and, in fact, that fact isn't even in dispute. What is in dispute is exactly what condition that they were being left to die in. According to the nurse, Jill Stanek whom I interviewed for the kids against Barack Obama, they were one of the places they would put these babies to die while they were struggling is the utility closet where medical waste goes. According to the hospital they were putting them into comfort rooms where they would just simply leave them to die with a blanket or something. So that was the practice. And the attorney general of Illinois told Jill Stanek, this nurse, that this was not violating the law, that they couldn't do anything about it and, you know, all protestations to the contrary, there wasn't any law protecting these babies because the attorney general of Illinois wasn't you know, he absolutely said, you know, no, you would need a new law if you wanted to do this.

GLENN: David, why couldn't you, why couldn't the doctor just kill the baby once the baby was born?

FREDDOSO: Well, I mean, I would say that's murder. I mean, I'm also pro life.

GLENN: Got it. No, I'm not talking about your opinion. I'm talking about the law. It would indeed be murder if they would have killed the baby once the baby was born.

FREDDOSO: Well, of course, and even this practice itself strikes me as murder because you don't actually have to stab someone through the heart to commit murder.

GLENN: I understand that.

FREDDOSO: You can certainly leave them, there's such a thing as negligent homicide as well. But in any case, there wasn't a law protecting them and that was what they went to the Illinois legislature to do was to pass a law that would define anyone who is already born and alive as a person. And that would have made the laws of the State of Illinois apply to these premature babies.

GLENN: How did Barack Obama stop it?

FREDDOSO: Barack Obama was the only state senator to speak against this law and

GLENN: Sorry. Repeat that, please.

FREDDOSO: He was the only state senator to speak against this law on the floor of the Illinois Senate.

GLENN: Okay.

FREDDOSO: In all the times it came up, in fact, he was the only one to speak against it. And his speech that he gave is very interesting, and I've given it in full in Chapter 10 of The Case Against Barack Obama because the argument is basically this, that if we go and recognize premature babies born alive in what some people call a previable condition, although they were clearly living for a while, if we do this, then it might down the road affect the right to abortion. It might cause it might create some kind of

GLENN: Slippery slope that they always say doesn't exist.

FREDDOSO: I'm sorry?

GLENN: A slippery slope that liberals always say doesn't exist.

FREDDOSO: Exactly.

GLENN: He was using that argument.

FREDDOSO: And that was his argument was essentially a slippery slope argument. His argument on the floor, it had a few contradictions in it, didn't quite make sense. I mean, he used the word "Fetus" to describe a premature baby for a moment and then corrected himself.

GLENN: All right.

FREDDOSO: But, you know, by his argument you could also say that a premature baby who wasn't born in an abortion, who was just simply born premature. I have a friend who recently gave birth to a premature baby and by his argument you would have to question or deny their personhood as well, as though they are somehow less persons than babies carried nine months.

GLENN: So the first time did he sign the bill?

FREDDOSO: The first time he voted present on the bill, which is in the Illinois legislature is equivalent to no. And it was part of a strategy that he had devised with Planned Parenthood lobbyists.

GLENN: Stand by. Stand by. We're going to come get the rest of the story in just a second.

(OUT 11:42)

GLENN: I can tell you why Barack Obama did not want David Freddoso on WGN, because these are the most powerful arguments I have ever heard against Barack Obama. Well stated, well documented and so unbelievably damning. David, we are quickly running out of time. May I invite you for another hour tomorrow?

FREDDOSO: I would love to do it again tomorrow, absolutely.

GLENN: Okay. So let's finish the abortion story, please.

FREDDOSO: Yes. Senator Obama voted he voted present on that bill. It was part of a strategy that he devised, that he and some Planned Parenthood lobbyists had devised that basically everyone would vote present instead of voting no. And just to you know, it came up the following year; he did it again. The bill, by the way, it passed the state senate and died in the state house committee. In 2003, though, Democrats had taken over the state senate and Obama was now the chairman of the Senate health committee. And as chairman he presided as they made the reason that Obama has ever since said he voted against this bill in committee is that it didn't contain the same language that the federal board of live infants protection act contained. Sort of redundant protection against this law ever effecting the right to abortion. What he didn't realize, didn't or was misleading people about is that, in fact, in 2003 the bill that he voted against in his committee did contain that language, was exactly the same as the bill that had gone to the U.S. Senate floor, that Barbara Boxer had stood up and said, "I support this bill, everyone should vote for this bill." Obama voted against it and that puts him on the very fringes when it comes to issues of human life at its very beginning.

GLENN: So wait a minute. He is Barbara Boxer was on the other side of this issue?

FREDDOSO: Yes, that's right. Hillary Clinton was also on the other side. The vote was 98 0 and the two guys who weren't there to vote were pro life Republicans. So basically every abortion proponent in the United States Senate is more protective of human life in its early stages than Senator Obama.

GLENN: Say that again, please.

FREDDOSO: Every single abortion proponent in the United States Senate at the time they voted on this the roll call vote was in 2001 every single one is more protective of human life in its early stages and more respectful of human life in its early stages than is Senator Obama based on his voting record.

GLENN: Now, Barack Obama will say, no, that's not true, I wasn't I was of course for this. He seems to have an ever evolving but he does believe in evolution an ever evolving story on this.

FREDDOSO: Yes. Because at first his story for the next three years or actually four years was that it didn't contain the language if it had just contained the federal bill language, then he would have voted for it. In fact, it did contain that language and he voted against it. This year when National Right to Life found the records this is just a few weeks ago, found the records of the committee hearing and they found the bill was exactly the same and Obama voted against it in a party line vote in his committee, changed his explanation to say now the thing was there was already a law protecting these babies. And there is an old abortion statute on the books in Illinois and it's a bill that Obama has repeatedly argued that every element of it is unconstitutional. It was enjoined from in most of its aspects it was enjoined from enforcement precisely because of the Roe versus Wade decision. And the decision they clinged it to last as each part of it is being knocked down is a provision that would require a second doctor to be present when such an abortion is performed in order to save the baby that the first doctor is trying to kill. And that's something Obama has specifically argued is unconstitutional because it creates an undue burden on the woman and so that is basically, Senator Obama is grasping at straws when it comes to the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. He's making arguments now that don't make sense and arguments, by the way, that he was never making at the time when he voted against it.

GLENN: I would just like to point out to anybody who doesn't understand the rhetoric of politicians, I'm a recovering alcoholic. So I speak bullcrap for most of my life. So I speak it fluently. I can translate political speak into English. When anybody says that they are worried about that they want the condition of the mother's health, let's make sure that we have an exception for the mother's health, there has never once been a case where a doctor says, in the case of let's say partial birth abortion or where they are performing the abortion late term and they would birth the child, that it is better for the mother if they kill the baby. What they're talking about, there have been cases on mental health, yet her mental health matters if she has the baby, but they deny any kind of mental health stress if she has had the abortion. It doesn't make any sense. It is a game that they play. You cannot tell me that mainstream America you know, I'm not even going to say that. You cannot tell me that 98% of America, pro choice, pro life believe that we should leave a baby to die through neglect. There is no way to make the mental hurdles in your own head to say that this child should die from neglect, this fetus should die from neglect. There is no person within the sound of my voice of 98% of the population of this country that thinks that that is reasonable. This is the kind of guy that you have to understand you're dealing with. He's not somebody who's kind of on the left. He's not somebody who's kind of out of pace with the mainstream. This guy is as far left as you can get and this is just one example.

David, on tomorrow's program can you give us more examples of how incredibly out of step with the mainstream he is?

FREDDOSO: Oh, absolutely. Just about every issue you can find Obama taking stands during his career that are, you know, whether it's guns, babies, taxes and national security as well, stances that members of his own party think are completely wrong. He is the most liberal senator in the United States Senate for a reason, and I'm not the one saying it. That's National Journal, which is a highly respected $2,000 a year publication here in Washington.

GLENN: Tomorrow, tomorrow I would like to go a little bit into and I don't even know if you did this, David, but his mom, he always is saying "My mom from Kansas, my mom from Kansas, my mom." It's like I see Auntie Em every time he says "My mom from Kansas." His mom from Kansas was leftist as well. He's not coming from a background of people that are Auntie Em and, oh, quick, get into the root cellar. There is the roots of Barack Obama are from the left. Tomorrow can you go into a little bit of "Show me your friends and I'll show you your future" and just give me the absolutely best well documented cases that this guy's judgment on friends, if you take him at his word that, "Well, these guys aren't the people we know; well, I can't really answer for my friends or my family or whatever," that his judgment is off.

FREDDOSO: Oh, absolutely.

GLENN: And I don't believe it's his judgment. I believe he is choosing to surround himself with these people.

FREDDOSO: Well, right. And that's just the thing. You know, I have spoken with many people about this question of guilt by association. This isn't about guilt by association. This is about looking at the actual choices that Barack Obama has made in his life. And that's the best sort of gauge we can have. And if you give it the most charitable interpretation and we look at some of these relationships and that's the only conclusion you can come to is that his judgment in picking friends is rather suspect.

GLENN: Name of the book is The Case Against Barack Obama: The Unlikely Rise and Unexamined Agenda of the Media's Favorite Candidate . The author is David Freddoso. He will join us again tomorrow and all of this will be available online at GlennBeck.com soon.

These aren't late trimester abortions for a serious abnormality reason - other than they decide they don't want the child. And if it were done in a place that were doing it for safety of the mother/child purposes....then when the baby is born, why wouldn't they give it to the mother if they both survive it. Instead they put the babies in a utility closet to die. I just don't understand that if you are that close to delivering why not just have the child and give it up for adoption......there are plenty of good people out there trying to have children that can't.

I agree Fluffs..... it is very sad

These aren't late trimester abortions for a serious abnormality reason - other than they decide they don't want the child

Yea we can thank Clinton for that piece of crap law

Ahhh.........ok apologies Jess, i think my stats may be state specific......it seems that different states may interpret things differently..........sorry
lol..........i'll shut up now.........lol...................

fluffy