Guess that's, like, the end of the discussion then, eh Johnny?

make these fuckers pay

The reason why Obama doesn't want to appear on town hall meetings is because they are almost exclusively vetted to be favorable to Republicans.

Too bad McCain voters would love nothing more than overturning Roe v. Wade, returning to slavery, and fundamentalist Christianity as the country's official religion.

Stereotypes: fun AND educational.

The difference being of course that SOME of these "stereotypical" positions are in fact part of the GOP platform...

THE VIEW, for Chrissakes.

@3 - EXACTLY

Also, @ 10 said McCain voters, not GOP platform, and I'm fairly certain at least some Obama voters, especially those on Slog, are pro-godless and pro-Communist, regardless of the official Democratic Party platform.

And, for the record, I'm neither a Christian nor a Republican. I just think it's stupid and unnecessary that the Slog falls back on the easiest, stupidest stereotypes about Christians and Republicans, e.g., they're all racist mouth-breathers.

Especially when there will be plenty of McCain voters who don't have a strong or at least a strong, settled opinion on Roe v. Wade and aren't fundamentalist Christians.

But hey, what do I know? I'm just a contrarian asshole.

BAD MOTHERFUCKING ASS!!!!!

I'm a Christian who attends what many people on Slog would consider a "fundamentalist" church (even though I would disagree) and I'm a proud Obama supporter. I may be in the minority down here, especially since the Palin pick, but we do exist!

My second statement regarding Obama's reasons for not wanting to do the town hall meetings was something I had heard several times on the Cable news a few months ago. This reasoning did not come out of Obama's mouths, but from many of the Democratic talking heads that appear on such shows.

And do't call me buddy asshole.

I don't think this issue is getting enough exposure (though, I've seen it mentioned a few times here), but the number of Supreme Court nominees the next president may have is of enormous significance.

A strict constructionist interprets the Constitution to protect only those rights that are spelled out on the parchment, which means there is no constitutional right to an abortion, pro-creation, birth control, or sexual privacy, among other rights.

As of now, the seats most likely to open during the next 4-8 years are all on the liberal block. These justices are the ones who interpret the Constitution to protect rights not explicit in its text. If McCain starts nominating Scalia/Thomas clones (i.e., strict constructionists, as he intends), the balance tips and, pending the Court's opportunity to pass on them, those rights I mentioned above may no longer be constitutional rights.

Strike often.

And NEVER apologize!