<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Barack Obama and Campaign Finance</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.differentslants.com/2008/06/20/barack-obama-and-campaign-finance/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.differentslants.com/2008/06/20/barack-obama-and-campaign-finance/</link>
	<description>Seeing the World from a New Angle</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2008 06:10:16 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Different Slants &#187; Cuba??? Si!!! Another View &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230; by Robert M. Katzman</title>
		<link>http://www.differentslants.com/2008/06/20/barack-obama-and-campaign-finance/#comment-5074</link>
		<dc:creator>Different Slants &#187; Cuba??? Si!!! Another View &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230; by Robert M. Katzman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Aug 2008 03:33:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.differentslants.com/?p=68#comment-5074</guid>
		<description>[...] and improvements I&#8217;d put into action, beside what I wrote in my earlier blog (6/12/08) : Obama! A Blueprint for America (Worth reading. Written a few months ago. Check it out.), I&#8217;d change America&#8217;s [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] and improvements I&#8217;d put into action, beside what I wrote in my earlier blog (6/12/08) : Obama! A Blueprint for America (Worth reading. Written a few months ago. Check it out.), I&#8217;d change America&#8217;s [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dwlarson</title>
		<link>http://www.differentslants.com/2008/06/20/barack-obama-and-campaign-finance/#comment-2589</link>
		<dc:creator>dwlarson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Jun 2008 03:06:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.differentslants.com/?p=68#comment-2589</guid>
		<description>Bob,

I don't take your comments personally. I know you're extremely upset by the way our government runs.

Keep in mind, for decades I was seething on the sidelines while Americans died at the hands of terrorists and the Presidents didn't fight back with war to stop the enemy. Not enough Americans killed all at one time to trigger the war reaction, I guess. They were worried about what the world might think. I say the Geneva Convention allowed those killings to take place without restitution.

Only by a horrendous act on 9/11 did a President finally say, "This means war." I'm still trying to find out if there is some kind of policy followed by all Presidents to say unless a certain number of Americans die at the same time, war is not warranted as a response.

I hate to think what a President Al Gore might have done, if anything. We might still be in "Peace Missions" or in "Committee Meetings" seeing what way the the political winds blow. He might even have appointed former President Carter to go on an "Appeasement Mission" to Al Queda looking for the "Peace In Our Time" document signed by Usama bin Laden.

Or maybe a President Kerry citing his ill-gotten Purple Heart and withdrawing all troops from Iraq and Afghanistan so that the previous French President and German counter-part would be our "buddies" again.

Thank God President Bush has natural testosterone generated by his body and went to war. I think the other alternatives I mentioned must give themselves the minimum dosage of artificial testosterone to keep them going each and every day.

I await the challenges the next President faces. Will people still be blaming Bush or will they be asking the really tough questions of the next President? At some point the next President has to differentiate himself from his predecessor, even if so many voters just can never let go of the past. He has to be his own man, or he will be nothing.

I hope we Americans stay out of Darfur and come home from Japan, Germany, and South Korea. Remaining there is an invitation to be involved in more wars where the Geneva Convention can keep getting our military people killed for nothing.

Lastly I think Attorney General Gonzalez was a fool and political hack. He said and did  a lot of stupid things. I think Don Rumsfeld was out-of-touch with fighting a war in an ineffective way. Two men in the wrong places at the wrong time.

But whatever damage they may have caused, they are minor characters in the light of history since the end of WWII. Presidents Truman, Johnson, and Carter did far more harm to our country when they could have chosen differently and kept us out of the Middle East and wars we need not have been involved with. Both President Bush's and even President Clinton likely would never have been Presidents had Truman, Johnson, and Carter either never have served as Presidents or had even a little more common sense.

So go ahead an be pissed-off at President Bush. From my perspective the real culprits lie further back in the past...

Don</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Bob,</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t take your comments personally. I know you&#8217;re extremely upset by the way our government runs.</p>
<p>Keep in mind, for decades I was seething on the sidelines while Americans died at the hands of terrorists and the Presidents didn&#8217;t fight back with war to stop the enemy. Not enough Americans killed all at one time to trigger the war reaction, I guess. They were worried about what the world might think. I say the Geneva Convention allowed those killings to take place without restitution.</p>
<p>Only by a horrendous act on 9/11 did a President finally say, &#8220;This means war.&#8221; I&#8217;m still trying to find out if there is some kind of policy followed by all Presidents to say unless a certain number of Americans die at the same time, war is not warranted as a response.</p>
<p>I hate to think what a President Al Gore might have done, if anything. We might still be in &#8220;Peace Missions&#8221; or in &#8220;Committee Meetings&#8221; seeing what way the the political winds blow. He might even have appointed former President Carter to go on an &#8220;Appeasement Mission&#8221; to Al Queda looking for the &#8220;Peace In Our Time&#8221; document signed by Usama bin Laden.</p>
<p>Or maybe a President Kerry citing his ill-gotten Purple Heart and withdrawing all troops from Iraq and Afghanistan so that the previous French President and German counter-part would be our &#8220;buddies&#8221; again.</p>
<p>Thank God President Bush has natural testosterone generated by his body and went to war. I think the other alternatives I mentioned must give themselves the minimum dosage of artificial testosterone to keep them going each and every day.</p>
<p>I await the challenges the next President faces. Will people still be blaming Bush or will they be asking the really tough questions of the next President? At some point the next President has to differentiate himself from his predecessor, even if so many voters just can never let go of the past. He has to be his own man, or he will be nothing.</p>
<p>I hope we Americans stay out of Darfur and come home from Japan, Germany, and South Korea. Remaining there is an invitation to be involved in more wars where the Geneva Convention can keep getting our military people killed for nothing.</p>
<p>Lastly I think Attorney General Gonzalez was a fool and political hack. He said and did  a lot of stupid things. I think Don Rumsfeld was out-of-touch with fighting a war in an ineffective way. Two men in the wrong places at the wrong time.</p>
<p>But whatever damage they may have caused, they are minor characters in the light of history since the end of WWII. Presidents Truman, Johnson, and Carter did far more harm to our country when they could have chosen differently and kept us out of the Middle East and wars we need not have been involved with. Both President Bush&#8217;s and even President Clinton likely would never have been Presidents had Truman, Johnson, and Carter either never have served as Presidents or had even a little more common sense.</p>
<p>So go ahead an be pissed-off at President Bush. From my perspective the real culprits lie further back in the past&#8230;</p>
<p>Don</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bob</title>
		<link>http://www.differentslants.com/2008/06/20/barack-obama-and-campaign-finance/#comment-2586</link>
		<dc:creator>Bob</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Jun 2008 20:55:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.differentslants.com/?p=68#comment-2586</guid>
		<description>Now Don, 
Only because it's you am I restraining myself in my view of Alberto Gonzales, an ignorant son-of-a-bitch in a job so far over his head he may as well have been standing in the Mariana Trenches (under the ocean).
For him to make his infamous "quaint" comment about the internationally agreed upon "Rules of War" and how captured soldiers are to be treated by all sides was such an abomination I am still angry with him.

In short, in his esteemed view, we can beat the hell out of our captives, torture them, humiliate them and any other evil act we feel like doing to them, but our own sacrosanct AMERICAN soldiers...well, nobody better touch OUR guys because,well...there's rules about that.  

Apparently 'only one-way' rules in Gonzalez view.  I am so pissed at him, Don. I had a nephew over there for two tours, someone I know his whole life and whom I love.

You can see his picture and read about him, (Jay)detail in my 4th book in the "Lincoln, Kansas" story.
If Jay had been captured and treated by his captors the way we treated our captives, I doubt I would share Gonzalez views of old "quaint" rules of war.

And no, it's not politics...it's personal.  To me, Gonzalez ignorant insensitivity to international symbolism and why it matters is a perfect example of why Bush is undeniably the WORST chief executive in United States history, if that man and so many other men he picked to run his administration are indicative of his values and judgment.

I'm not picking on you Don, so please don't defend.  This is a red flag subject with me. The best way to internalize this emotion yourself is to vizualize one of your own children or nephews, etc. in the situation I described.  It disgusts me. 

Bob Katzman</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Now Don,<br />
Only because it&#8217;s you am I restraining myself in my view of Alberto Gonzales, an ignorant son-of-a-bitch in a job so far over his head he may as well have been standing in the Mariana Trenches (under the ocean).<br />
For him to make his infamous &#8220;quaint&#8221; comment about the internationally agreed upon &#8220;Rules of War&#8221; and how captured soldiers are to be treated by all sides was such an abomination I am still angry with him.</p>
<p>In short, in his esteemed view, we can beat the hell out of our captives, torture them, humiliate them and any other evil act we feel like doing to them, but our own sacrosanct AMERICAN soldiers&#8230;well, nobody better touch OUR guys because,well&#8230;there&#8217;s rules about that.  </p>
<p>Apparently &#8216;only one-way&#8217; rules in Gonzalez view.  I am so pissed at him, Don. I had a nephew over there for two tours, someone I know his whole life and whom I love.</p>
<p>You can see his picture and read about him, (Jay)detail in my 4th book in the &#8220;Lincoln, Kansas&#8221; story.<br />
If Jay had been captured and treated by his captors the way we treated our captives, I doubt I would share Gonzalez views of old &#8220;quaint&#8221; rules of war.</p>
<p>And no, it&#8217;s not politics&#8230;it&#8217;s personal.  To me, Gonzalez ignorant insensitivity to international symbolism and why it matters is a perfect example of why Bush is undeniably the WORST chief executive in United States history, if that man and so many other men he picked to run his administration are indicative of his values and judgment.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m not picking on you Don, so please don&#8217;t defend.  This is a red flag subject with me. The best way to internalize this emotion yourself is to vizualize one of your own children or nephews, etc. in the situation I described.  It disgusts me. </p>
<p>Bob Katzman</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dwlarson</title>
		<link>http://www.differentslants.com/2008/06/20/barack-obama-and-campaign-finance/#comment-2583</link>
		<dc:creator>dwlarson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Jun 2008 23:02:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.differentslants.com/?p=68#comment-2583</guid>
		<description>Bob,

1) I'm not sure what the quaint Geneva Convention has to do with this topic.

2) Picking on President Bush is pretty lame here, he won't be in any more Presidential Debates.

It's time for America to look forward and not spend time looking backward, otherwise we won't make all the progress we need to do.

But just for the record, I'll vote for a person who acts over a person who is a wimp but speaks clearly any day.

Don</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Bob,</p>
<p>1) I&#8217;m not sure what the quaint Geneva Convention has to do with this topic.</p>
<p>2) Picking on President Bush is pretty lame here, he won&#8217;t be in any more Presidential Debates.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s time for America to look forward and not spend time looking backward, otherwise we won&#8217;t make all the progress we need to do.</p>
<p>But just for the record, I&#8217;ll vote for a person who acts over a person who is a wimp but speaks clearly any day.</p>
<p>Don</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bob</title>
		<link>http://www.differentslants.com/2008/06/20/barack-obama-and-campaign-finance/#comment-2582</link>
		<dc:creator>Bob</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Jun 2008 21:33:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.differentslants.com/?p=68#comment-2582</guid>
		<description>Richard...

I like your idea.

Period.

I am not sure about how much time is fair and to the benefit of both the candidates and the public and also which stations should be coerced into contributing time, but I'm pleased with the concept as you state it, Rick. 

I also think the debates should be debates and not "moderated."  What the hell is that?  Two guys believe they are each smart enough to lead the Free World, well, damn it, let them go at each other, civily, and let the watching public decide who can put more than one idea together at a time.  

Each person is given a set time to speak on each round and then their mike is cut off.  No cheating or stealing time.  That alone is a sign of what their character is really like.  A person accepts rules and then ignores them?  Well, that tells us something right there.  Maybe just like "The Geneva Convention is quaint" comment by the idiot attorney general (now disgraced) would not be such a surprise if people saw and heard how Bush conducted himself in a real debate.  

Let the debate tackle two specific questions and give each question 30 minutes to be discussed.  If one of the guys was bankrupt of ideas, it would soon be apparent that others were putting words in his mouth.  That would be useful in choosing who was the better candidate, in my opinion.

Bob Katzman</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Richard&#8230;</p>
<p>I like your idea.</p>
<p>Period.</p>
<p>I am not sure about how much time is fair and to the benefit of both the candidates and the public and also which stations should be coerced into contributing time, but I&#8217;m pleased with the concept as you state it, Rick. </p>
<p>I also think the debates should be debates and not &#8220;moderated.&#8221;  What the hell is that?  Two guys believe they are each smart enough to lead the Free World, well, damn it, let them go at each other, civily, and let the watching public decide who can put more than one idea together at a time.  </p>
<p>Each person is given a set time to speak on each round and then their mike is cut off.  No cheating or stealing time.  That alone is a sign of what their character is really like.  A person accepts rules and then ignores them?  Well, that tells us something right there.  Maybe just like &#8220;The Geneva Convention is quaint&#8221; comment by the idiot attorney general (now disgraced) would not be such a surprise if people saw and heard how Bush conducted himself in a real debate.  </p>
<p>Let the debate tackle two specific questions and give each question 30 minutes to be discussed.  If one of the guys was bankrupt of ideas, it would soon be apparent that others were putting words in his mouth.  That would be useful in choosing who was the better candidate, in my opinion.</p>
<p>Bob Katzman</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dwlarson</title>
		<link>http://www.differentslants.com/2008/06/20/barack-obama-and-campaign-finance/#comment-2581</link>
		<dc:creator>dwlarson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Jun 2008 21:26:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.differentslants.com/?p=68#comment-2581</guid>
		<description>Rick,

You wrote a thoughtful article and perspective.

I stopped contributing to the election funds some years ago because of corruption.

I hope your idea gets traction this time around.

Don</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Rick,</p>
<p>You wrote a thoughtful article and perspective.</p>
<p>I stopped contributing to the election funds some years ago because of corruption.</p>
<p>I hope your idea gets traction this time around.</p>
<p>Don</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
