scooterbob

One fact you can count on is that the population of the United States will decrease.

I heard on MSNBC five or six days ago that she, like many in her age bracket, has a broken hip. I also heard that she was home and not in the hospital. It is alarming that they would send one who is gravely ill home.

Why in the world would I look at statistics generated by groups who manipulate the data to meet their needs? I can just look around me and confirm my beliefs? Like many, if I need statistics, I will merely look at the results of my Form 1040 and Form 740 each year.

Putting aside the fact that one of my degrees is in economics, let me say that my concern with Obama is that I don't intend to have my estate diminished in order to provide a windfall to people who otherwise would not be the subject of my generosity. In other words, I will continue to assist the needy (as defined by me since it is my money) but not the ever-growing population of deadbeats who, generation after generation, lay around (unfortunately have a vote--or two) and live off the rest of us.

Although the tone of your post would not indicate a knowledge of the true findings of Bush v Gore, I am glad to hear that you are so informed. It is a shame that the media and the recent history books and related accounts seem to ignore these facts. But, then, I'm sure it is too much to expect honesty in reporting events. That has certainly been proven in recent months.

In stating that the country will be divided, I am not saying that there will be riots like those you mention although I do believe there will be significant unrest in large cities if Obama loses. I am saying that the country will be seriously split particularly if Obama tries to force his "wealth redistribution" agenda on the country. Those who have worked to accumulate some degree of wealth and comfort for themselves and their heirs will not passively go along with his socialistic plans. Also, those who have traditional Judeo-Christian values and beliefs will not passively accept his secular humanist agenda. And, therein is where we will find the split. Preservation of beliefs, ideals, and dreams that there are some absolutes in this life will be a strong incentive for those so inclined. I assure you that I am one of that group and will act accordingly. I'm sure many are of this same mindset.

Your "analysis" of what took place in 2000 is, to be nice, less than factual. Apparently, you are not aware that the vote in the Supreme Court in Bush v Gore was actually 7-2 that the procedure being used in Florida to "recount" votes was not constitutional. The 5-4 vote was in regard to the remedy. In the 7-2 vote, Justice Souter, an appointee of George H. W. Bush, voted with the minority (Gore). As for the 5-4 vote on the remedy, Souter and Stevens (a Ford appointee) voted with the minority (Gore). Try actually reading the case before giving an analysis. You can't depend on the media to give you the truth. I will stick by my statement concerning the division of the country. And, if Obama is successful in his "redistribution" efforts, it will get worse. You can bank on that.

Regardless of which way the election goes, the country will be more divided than at any time since the civil war. If Obama loses, there will be unrest in the streets of large cities. To think otherwise is naive. If McCain loses, many will never accept the liberal/ socialist/somewhat Carpathian Obama as president. And, although it will shock some BGP posters, all who vehemently oppose Obama are not racists- even though they will undoubtedly be so labeled by the liberal media and its lemming-resembling followers.

Don't you always attack the primary weakness of your opponent/enemy? An empty suit (I'm being kind) like Obama supported by a loose cannon of diminishing intelligence (Again, being kind) like Biden would obviously be a primary weakness.

Well, boys and, of course, girls, my thesis has been proven. I have always thought that you Obamaites were more concerned with political correctness and censorship than you were with the danger to the republic of socialism. Indeed, as expected, I was correct. Since the meaning of most all of these tags is in the eyes of the beholder and since the majority seems to be heck-bent (How's that for pc?) on seriously damaging individual initiative in favor of spreading the wealth, I will refrain from further postings on the subject and use my time and energies to accumulate some more hard-earned wealth for my heirs before the socialists take over and expect me to support those who tend to be allergic to work. I am not including the truly needy in this last group because they are entitled to our assistance. I am referring to the con artists who perpetuate themselves generation after generation and who will vote in mass (possibly several times each) and will determine the outcome of the election. How does the saying go? Oh yes, the inmates will run the asylum

Actually, I was using the "socialist card' because that should be the concern of those who actually financially support this country. You boys (or girls, if you prefer), chose to drag up the overused "race card". And, of course, your card trumps my card in present day political correctness. On a positive note, I would strongly recommend that those who actually have accumulated some financial security do some serious financial planning prior to January 20, 2009. Surely, you boys and girls cannot find fault with this suggestion.

Nice has nothing to do with it. I merely exposed the obvious hypocrisy of those who always look for an opportunity to cry "racism".

I got exactly what I expected. You boys are of a single mindset. At least be honest. You boys, as well as many other Obamaites, are always wearing, and using, race as your "trump card". I merely suckered you boys into your typical overreaction of false indignation. I'm not concerned with Obama's race. I'm much more concerned with his socialist agenda. I'm concerned with what he will do to the court system. I am concerned about the negative effect he will have on traditional Judeo-Christian practices. I am concerned about this "redistribution of the wealth" from those who contribute to society to those who do nothing but lay around, pay no taxes, live off of the rest of us, and, sadly, vote because this latter group will decide the election.

I'm not surprised that you boys choose to use the racial card in interpreting my post. After all, the Obama camp has used it repeatedly to accuse anyone not in line with their candidate of racism. Sadly, they have gotten by with it. The obvious comparison between Obama and Powell is that both are radically liberal in regard to social and economic issues. Powell is not an out and out socialist as is Obama but he is a kindred spirit. But, I don't want to deprive you boys of the chance to cry "racist" as you continually do. So go for it.

Surely no one is surprised that Powell endorsed Obama? If you are, I have an autograph of George Washington signed with a blue Sharpie that I will sell you. Some things should be obvious.

This video needs to be seen and its message heeded by all who claim to be Christians. In terms of the sacredness of life (as opposed to treating life as a commodity to be bought, sold, and discarded), this is clearly the most important election of the last century. To believe otherwise is to be naive. Regardless of how some may rationalize the issue, all will be held accountable. This is a deadly serious matter.

They have graduated. Finis est.

Although I would be the first to agree that many of our tort lawyers are parasites, it should be acknowledged that juries are often made up of fools. Some thieves steal with guns and many more do so with prescription pads and white coats. However, the top of the line is reserved for those who file class action law suits.

Of course, the relevant part of your post is "in a losing effort". Euton and Jackson, I'm sure contributed to the victory. As for who is "better", time will tell. Personally, I'll take Eutoin and Jackson and, from what I understand, Gillispie and the other coaches would do the same. Nonetheless, we wish your personal favorites well.

I certainly concur with the posts of Royal Uncle and Jay Bilas. I think it can be stated unequivocably that whatever "give and take" there may have been between Rose Hillers and Russellites, there was never any "animousity or bickering" in regard to Fortman or Okora. Both are talented young ladies both on and off the basketbal court and I believe I can state that everyone associated with Rose Hill had and has great respect for them as well as their teammates.

Britt Faulkner has been a much needed breath of fresh air at Rose Hill. She has excelled in the classroom as well as in athletics. She will be missed. I wish her well at U of L and thereafter. She will be successful in whatever pursuit she chooses. I am proud of her.

All causes seek attractive individuals who can be exploited for their purposes. Clay/Ali filled the bill better than do most such "selected" individuals.

According to the wording in your second sentence, you are concerned about the recruiting issues. What are your concerns?

Best wishes to Coach Hicks. Although he seems to have little or no support from the most easterly part of the county as well as the westerly part of the county, he does have many supporters among the rest of the area.

It is my belief that the anti-war element in this country needed a "hero" to symbolize their cause. Clay/Ali seemed to fill the bill particularly since he refused/dodged the draft. Thus, he was "drafted" into the cause. Through the years, his "importance" has been magnified far beyond any level of reality. He was a fine fighter. He was a marvelous "entertainer". However, pound for pound, he was no Sugar Ray Robinson. Nonetheless, as is often the case, hype has far surpassed reality and Clay/Ali has thrived on all the hype.