2008 Post Presidential Election Thread

[Laworkerbee]

My job is a decision-making job, and as a result, I make a lot of decisions

http://img386.imageshack.us/img386/7581/thegreatdeciderjt5.jpg

[California Joe]

He's the Yogi Berra of politicians.

[Thor]

My job is a decision-making job, and as a result, I make a lot of decisions
Trying to make sentences like this into Bushisms is rater desperate.

Fairly normal stuff.

[Flagg]

He's the Yogi Berra of politicians.

Too funny! :)

[Hilbert]

Does everybody realize that the Supreme Court has never found an individual right to bear arms in the Constitution? Its widely viewed as being there by scholars but its never been expressly interpreted that way.

If the Supreme Court and the Judicial Branch which is tasked with Interpreting the Constitution, the basic of the land here in the United States, cannot even "find" an individual right to bear arms when it's so clearly written out for them in the Second Amendment of the Constitution, then I think we're all in trouble as this only begs the question of just what else they won't be able to "find." Madison proposed his drafting of the Bill of Rights as a means of helping with the public acceptance (as well as some of it's opponents) of the Constitution in that it outlined or more accurately, it acknowledged (...endowed by their Creator... [NOT by Government]) individual rights which the government would not tamper with (jesus, the founding fathers--both federalists and anti-federalists must be spinning in their graves right now with how much we've done just that).

To be truthful that's what scares me the most, if they can cast aside honor and sworn duty to be oblivious to one thing and turn a blind eye when it staring them in the face whose to say they can't or won't do it with another (as they already have, you even mentioned a few nice examples Mr. Hank).

-Hilde

P.S. My lord, this thread has nearly quadroupled in size with the merging of the other Obama and election topics. I'm still trying to read through all of the recent stuff

[Bia]

Actually, there's a story out there about a sort of training scenario for the senators. Basically they are tested on how they would react to certain disaster scenarios. Rumor is, Obama tanked big time. Some Republican blow hard tried to describe Obama's poor performance and ended up calling him "that boy." The typical media and liberal harpies took it out of context and hammered the guy.. but what do you expect? Some right wing good ol'boy refers to a young black senator as a "boy," he might as well have killed a hooker and stuffed her in his trunk. (no reference to CJ intended)
Actually.... killing a hooker and trunk stuffing her isnt as bad a fau pax as the boy comment in our current society.

:P

[Bia]

Here is a promotional poster for Oliver Stone's "W".

It is a list of Bush's gaffes. How come no one is making a film on all of the stupid things Obama has said? Bush has been around a decade and Obama only a few years and his list is almost as long. (I would of posted this in the gaffe thread if it did not go down the memory hole)

Huge diff... GW actually is.... a total retard.

[Snoshi]

Another supporter of Obama



Following is an interview with British MP George Galloway, which aired on Al-Aqsa TV on May 2, 2008:

George Galloway: I hope that the new presidency in the United States... I pray for the safety of Barack Obama, and I pray that he can shift the United States attitude to this question. But as you know, Palestine cannot free itself. It is a small country against a huge superpower. The real problem is not in Palestine. It's not even in London or Washington. The real problem is in the Arab world. From Marrakesh to Bahrain – 300 million Arabs, oil at 136 dollars per barrel... If the Arabs wanted to solve this Palestine problem, they could do so in six days.

[...]

The Americans are not in a position to intervene anywhere in the Arab world, because they have been defeated by the muqawama [resistance] in Iraq. And so, sunk in this swamp in Iraq and in Afghanistan, the U.S. is no longer able to assist its puppets in the Middle East. So as we come towards the November elections, and the real prospect of a significant victory for Obama, everyone will have to re-find their footing, and these puppet presidents and corrupt kings may discover that the ground has moved under their feet, Allah willing.
[...]

I think there are important changes coming in Israel also. Olmert may be in prison by the weekend. He may be replaced by the foreign minister or by Barak. He may be replaced, God forbid, by Netanyahu. I don't believe the key lies in Tel Aviv. Israel is not an independent country. It must act under the orders of the United States, which provides every bullet and every dollar. So we have to change the policy of the United States, through our work in Europe, through a change in the attitude, or a change of the leaders of the Arab world, to show the United States that it must change its policy in the region. After all, if the United States can take everything she wants from the Arabs, and still follow a policy of cutting throats of the Arabs – why to change? If you can have whatever you want, and do whatever you want – well, why to change?

http://www.memritv.org/clip_transcript/en/1785.htm

[AGE-Ranger]

Huge diff... GW actually is.... a total retard.

He actually isn't. You realize they used the exact same kind of propaganda to diminish Regan? Some of you crack me up, the way you're so certain Bush is an idiot. Yet, hes achieved more than any of you could ever hope to.

[Bombtrack]

So where's this Obama bombshell you guys were circle-jerking to?


He actually isn't. You realize they used the exact same kind of propaganda to diminish Regan? Some of you crack me up, the way you're so certain Bush is an idiot. Yet, hes achieved more than any of you could ever hope to.

But not you, right?

[Sanat-e-naft]

Ok, Bush is not a "retard" per se, but he is clearly one of the less intelligent presidents. As to his achievements... I would argue that he has "face-planted" America. Not an achievement in my book, but yay for being president i guess?

[AGE-Ranger]

Ok, Bush is not a "retard" per se, but he is clearly one of the less intelligent presidents. As to his achievements... I would argue that he has "face-planted" America. Not an achievement in my book, but yay for being president i guess?

Carter enjoys an aura of intelligence and he really jacked up the country. I still contend that much of the criticisms against Bush are way overblown by an angry, democrat controlled media.





But not you, right?

No, I definitely put myself in the average archiver group.

[Invisigoth]

I still contend that much of the criticisms against Bush are way overblown by an angry, democrat controlled media.


You really are priceless. rofl

[hell]

Anyone here care to hypothesize about the potential running mates for McCain and Obama? Please elaborate a bit on why you think that person is on the top of their list (this doesn't mean you have to make a case for why that person is the best choice, but why you think they would be chosen by said campaign).

[vryhpyammoadded]

Anyone here care to hypothesize about the potential running mates for McCain and Obama? Please elaborate a bit on why you think that person is on the top of their list (this doesn't mean you have to make a case for why that person is the best choice, but why you think they would be chosen by said campaign).

McCain/Clinton FTW! Just becasue I'd love the chaos. p-)

[MCWARPIG]

Carter enjoys an aura of intelligence and he really jacked up the country. I still contend that much of the criticisms against Bush are way overblown by an angry, democrat controlled media.



No, I definitely put myself in the average archiver group.


I agree. Dubya's taken heat for some pretty fouled up stuff he isn't to blame for. However, he's the guy in charge, so he get's to be to blame. It comes with the territory. Honestly a likeable guy with good intentions. He got in over his head. He was surrounded by Yes men and thought that would carry him. It didn't. I blame his own people for the foul ups, the liberals and media just turned into a witch hunt. There's something to be said about the anti Bush movement that took over our government. Shameful. But, in the end, the president controls his destiny. Dubya's "resolve" earned him nothing. The state of our country is our own fault. The president doesn't hold all the answers nor does he have all the responsiblity. We have the government we deserve. When we stop caring about the PC special interest bull****.. then they won't have leverage. We won't need ultra right nutjobs to counter the left any longer. Pipe dream. Easy to blame leftist media or the "evil W. Bush and his cronies" for the state of our country. But, we choose our governement, we are to blame. We keep this up.. and our ability to choose our government won't be there much longer.

[BloodDiamondPants]

That's pretty spot-on in my opinion WARPIG; even though you are a little man hiding behind a "ban stick." 3:00P.M. by the bike racks? Winner becomes President. p-)

[MCWARPIG]

Anyone here care to hypothesize about the potential running mates for McCain and Obama? Please elaborate a bit on why you think that person is on the top of their list (this doesn't mean you have to make a case for why that person is the best choice, but why you think they would be chosen by said campaign).


Been some MSM talk about Hillary for Obama. Numbers say it's a good deal.. but I think most of us know it'd be a match made in hell. They don't play well together, arleady have sniped each other. Not sure how the first black Pres and first woman VP would hold up on election day. To me that would really depend on the country voting emotinally.

[BloodDiamondPants]

If McCain is smart, he will pick Condoleezza. That way he can push the experience side of the equation, AND split the emotional vote. (I.e. Old, white, experienced, war hero, and the middle-aged, experienced, black, (lesbian) woman! ;) You've got all the bases covered that way.)

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/5/5/condi_conan.jpg

[hell]

I agree. Dubya's taken heat for some pretty fouled up stuff he isn't to blame for. However, he's the guy in charge, so he get's to be to blame. It comes with the territory. Honestly a likeable guy with good intentions. He got in over his head. He was surrounded by Yes men and thought that would carry him. It didn't.

I never thought of the very upper-echelon administration as Yes Men. I thought that W brought in some of his dad's political cronies (Cheney and Rumsfeld, to name a couple) because of his own lack of experience. I think hank touched on this yesterday; if Obama wins the election, he'll have to surround himself with experienced people, and that alone worries me. Who will he pick for all of these high-level positions? How do we know we won't get the Left's version of Cheney and Rove?

Dems/Liberals are chanting up anyone on their side of the aisle that runs for the presidency because they are appealing to everyone's desire to do things differently. How many people are thinking ahead, wondering "what happens if the Dems end up doing the same crap with different people over the next four years?"

[hell]

Been some MSM talk about Hillary for Obama. Numbers say it's a good deal.. but I think most of us know it'd be a match made in hell. They don't play well together, arleady have sniped each other. Not sure how the first black Pres and first woman VP would hold up on election day. To me that would really depend on the country voting emotinally.

I agree fully on the match made in hell aspect; it would be like McCain selecting Romney. One dislikes the other way too much for it to happen. If a campaign manager could talk one of them into selecting a running mate they would work closely with for the next four years, I don't want that gullible person being my president. Pick the person that's qualified, don't select whoever the Gallup poll says to.

[MCWARPIG]

I never thought of the very upper-echelon administration as Yes Men. I thought that W brought in some of his dad's political cronies (Cheney and Rumsfeld, to name a couple) because of his own lack of experience. I think hank touched on this yesterday; if Obama wins the election, he'll have to surround himself with experienced people, and that alone worries me. Who will he pick for all of these high-level positions? How do we know we won't get the Left's version of Cheney and Rove?

Dems/Liberals are chanting up anyone on their side of the aisle that runs for the presidency because they are appealing to everyone's desire to do things differently. How many people are thinking ahead, wondering "what happens if the Dems end up doing the same crap with different people over the next four years?"


One aside to that. Obama's (new) change platform seems to have the masses spun up. Just wondering what the hell we want to "change." Our biggest complaints are:
Tired of the war in Iraq
Expensive Gas
Weak economy
Immigration

Milllions of people still want to risk life and limb to be here. Our economy is weak yet we are still a powerhouse globally. Our military is stretched thin yet for all the rhetoric, we are still the most feared military on this planet. So, for a change, let's give up, and weaken our military. Unless Obama's talking about some historic movement to get our country running on french fry grease and wind power.. I'm sort of wondering what the hell we want to change?

[JKD]

Anyone here care to hypothesize about the potential running mates for McCain and Obama? Please elaborate a bit on why you think that person is on the top of their list (this doesn't mean you have to make a case for why that person is the best choice, but why you think they would be chosen by said campaign).

I think Obama's campaign will want somone who can bring in more moderate and conservative voters.

Richardson wouldn't be a bad choice. He helps with the Hispanic vote which I guess Obama had some trouble with in the primary, he's got an NRA endorsement under his belt, has done a good job as governor, and has an impressive resume at the federal level.

Jim Webb. Conservative democrat, Vietnam vet, and against the war in Iraq.

Chuck Hagel. He's a Republican which would certainly go a long way to the "changing the tone in Washington" message.

I'm not too familiar with a lot of the names being floated for McCain's running mate.

I guess his BFF Lieberman is a possibility. He's a hawk's hawk and McCain is certainly running as war fighting president. But I think McCain would want a sociall conservative since he's had problems winning support with that crowd. And he'll certainly want someone younger.

J.C. Watts maybe? Tom Ridge?

[AGE-Ranger]

I never thought of the very upper-echelon administration as Yes Men. I thought that W brought in some of his dad's political cronies (Cheney and Rumsfeld, to name a couple) because of his own lack of experience. I think hank touched on this yesterday; if Obama wins the election, he'll have to surround himself with experienced people, and that alone worries me. Who will he pick for all of these high-level positions? How do we know we won't get the Left's version of Cheney and Rove?


Its been well documented that Obama's messages are nothing but the same old class warfare, democrat play book stuff. Where are you seeing the "change"?

This is a good example of what I'm talking about.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=AYa8k09V7lI

[Invisigoth]

I think Obama's campaign will want somone who can bring in more moderate and conservative voters.

Richardson wouldn't be a bad choice. He helps with the Hispanic vote which I guess Obama had some trouble with in the primary, he's got an NRA endorsement under his belt, has done a good job as governor, and has an impressive resume at the federal level.

Jim Webb. Conservative democrat, Vietnam vet, and against the war in Iraq.

Chuck Hagel. He's a Republican which would certainly go a long way to the "changing the tone in Washington" message.

I'm not too familiar with a lot of the names being floated for McCain's running mate.

I guess his BFF Lieberman is a possibility. He's a hawk's hawk and McCain is certainly running as war fighting president. But I think McCain would want a sociall conservative since he's had problems winning support with that crowd. And he'll certainly want someone younger.

J.C. Watts maybe? Tom Ridge?

I don't think he can chose Hagel, simply because he's a Republican. Jim Webb could counter-balance McCain's Hero worship, but allegedly there's quite a bit of misogynist baggage in the past which would come up in the campaign; not good. Then there's also Wesley Clark, a Clintonite and his service record would certainly outshine that of McCain, but he's about as exciting as wet socks.

[hank]

I agree with Hell. Bush initially didn't choose yes men - see Colin Powell. But once he got started he began not to listen to those who didn't say yes. So it ended up that way. I remember being very happy with Bush's cabinet picks on the whole but over time the voices of reason left and Bush heard only what he wanted. So to the extent Bush is getting a raw deal its on him. When people in your own cabinet and the military are telling you that Rummie and Cheney are making bigtime mistakes and you quit inviting those voices to meetings then you suffer accordingly.

Bush is about as much an over-achiever as Kennedy was. He's a son in the most politcally important Republican family in this country. GHWB had more political capital to spend thant any other person in the US. He didn't over achieve - he simply parlayed fantastic wealth into the Presidency. Commendable but hardly an overachievment. Bill Clinton is an overachiever. I hate him but that's really beyond dispute.

hank

[BloodDiamondPants]

And what about Obama, hank? He's working the American Idol Presidency angle. I don't see so much over achievement in his life, so much as I see opportunistic pandering to the lowest common denominator; which is fine--I mean, lets be honest; Every politician does it--except for the fact that I feel that he really believes his own BS, and might actually try to do it (kind of like Kelly Clarkson actually thinks she's an "artist" instead of a fat whore.) I mean, he did marry a woman who has benefited immensely from this country, and yet thinks it's rotten to the core. If you're willing to have *** with that kind of mindset, then you can't be far off. American Idol is fine for the slobs who like their jollies fast and sloppy, but a decent President; it does not make.

[hank]

And what about Obama, hank? He's working the American Idol Presidency angle. I don't see so much over achievement in his life, so much as I see opportunistic pandering to the lowest common denominator; which is fine--I mean, lets be honest; Every politician does it--except for the fact that I feel that he really believes his own BS, and might actually try to do it. American Idol is fine for the slobs who like their jollies fast and sloppy, but a decent President; it does not make.

You see no difference in Obama's background and Bush's? Bush was born into extreme wealth and a family that has been politically influential for more than 100 years. Obama is the son of an African immigrant and a family of no political importance in the US. That isn't different to you? Maybe I am crazy but that is very different to me.

You have cognitive problems. Its obvious to me now.

hank

[BloodDiamondPants]

You were on my Johnson too fast again, and left out my deliciously funny "fat whore" comment. Could you please not be such a minute man? I love you too baby.

[hell]

One aside to that. Obama's (new) change platform seems to have the masses spun up. Just wondering what the hell we want to "change." Our biggest complaints are:
Tired of the war in Iraq
Expensive Gas
Weak economy
Immigration

Milllions of people still want to risk life and limb to be here. Our economy is weak yet we are still a powerhouse globally. Our military is stretched thin yet for all the rhetoric, we are still the most feared military on this planet. So, for a change, let's give up, and weaken our military. Unless Obama's talking about some historic movement to get our country running on french fry grease and wind power.. I'm sort of wondering what the hell we want to change?

That's the problem Obama has, the one that his critics are fast to point out, and his supporters, whether they will admit it or not, are scared of. Listen to any of his speeches that you want, the message of change is quite vague. It's that lack of clarification that have most everyone waiting for the debates between McCain and Obama. I'd throw down hard cash that's one of the first things McCain will jump on, and it's the response that Obama gives that everyone is curious about. I think that will really be the tipping point where the message of change and the way in which he plans to do it will have to be good. If his message of change is as hollow as some say, that's going to drag it into the daylight for pretty much everyone to see.


I think Obama's campaign will want somone who can bring in more moderate and conservative voters.

Richardson wouldn't be a bad choice. He helps with the Hispanic vote which I guess Obama had some trouble with in the primary, he's got an NRA endorsement under his belt, has done a good job as governor, and has an impressive resume at the federal level.

I guess his BFF Lieberman is a possibility. He's a hawk's hawk and McCain is certainly running as war fighting president. But I think McCain would want a sociall conservative since he's had problems winning support with that crowd. And he'll certainly want someone younger.

J.C. Watts maybe? Tom Ridge?

Yea, the "who brings in the most voters" argument is what I don't like. No matter who gets elected, two years from now, the pool of voters that the VP brought in won't mean squat if the VP's a dud. Yea, I get the idea that they're doing what they need to get the popular vote majority, it's just one of my complaints. Popularity contests didn't garner the best person for the job when I was a kid attending public school, and they don't yield the best person when it comes to politics either.

I don't know that much about Richardson, but from what I've read, he's a pretty sharp, likeable guy. I'm more worried that Obama will pick the next best thing to Hillary, and polls would dictate that it's John Edwards. He's a suave mofo, but even I can see that weasle is just pandering everytime he opens his mouth. You think Hillary is bad about saying whatever she needs to, Edwards makes her look like a Sunday School teacher.

You're probably correct in thinking that McCain will go for an "old school" conservative. He needs it badly, at least from what I've gathered from GOP analysts. I can't see him picking JC Watts, that guy is from my state. He's done some good things, but his name alone doesn't have that much star power.

There's been some talk of David Boren being a possible VP candidate for Obama as well, but the last statement I saw said he would be serving as a Nat'l Security Advisor. I'm waiting to see if his name pops up again.

[vryhpyammoadded]

I agree. Dubya's… The state of our country is our own fault. The president doesn't hold all the answers nor does he have all the responsiblity. We have the government we deserve. When we stop caring about the PC special interest bull****.. then they won't have leverage. We won't need ultra right nutjobs to counter the left any longer. Pipe dream. Easy to blame leftist media or the "evil W. Bush and his cronies" for the state of our country. But, we choose our governement, we are to blame. We keep this up.. and our ability to choose our government won't be there much longer.
That’s the spirit! Very well said sir.

How do we know we won't get the Left's version of Cheney and Rove?
How many people are thinking ahead, wondering "what happens if the Dems end up doing the same crap with different people over the next four years?"
I don’t think they will, I “know” they will. This is simply the normal left/right pendulum swing the fickle voters fall into that the two sides of the same party coin have always taken advantage of. What I keep harping on is the fact that the amplitude of the swings has increased markedly and that’s dangerous. I don’t want a 300 million population banana republic; very unhealthy.

I think Obama's campaign will want someone who can bring in more moderate and conservative voters.
The national philosophic dichotomy will not be addressed simply by putting up the moderate effigy; in fact that act, presented by the Democrat platform, ultimately only exacerbates the divide. Remember, it isn’t the party’s that’s polarized, it is the people and when two parties offer the SAME philosophy, you have a disenfranchised faction that views every slick act to slip them the bone of the counter philosophy by the government as hypocrisy.
As long as Obama and the Democrats ignore the needs of and strong arm an incompatible philosophy on 30ish percent of the voting public the US will increasingly polarize and not end well.
The best we should hope for, should an Obama executive and Democrat Hill take power is, that a good long, deep recession lance the corrupt, rotting federal revenue boil to prevent the left from accomplishing anything. Executive paralysis and a Congress with empty coffers will rob the left of any hope of its flash conversion of the US into a pussy whipped Brady Bunch version of it’s self. Dodging that bullet may just buy the nation time to come back to its senses. If not, then at least both sides will be better ready with the rights representative resurgence to duke it out proper.

Its been well documented that Obama's messages are nothing but the same old class warfare, democrat play book stuff. Where are you seeing the "change"?
Cool, someone else see’s Obama is SAME, not CHANGE.

[Flagg]

One aside to that. Obama's (new) change platform seems to have the masses spun up. Just wondering what the hell we want to "change." Our biggest complaints are:
Tired of the war in Iraq
Expensive Gas
Weak economy
Immigration

Milllions of people still want to risk life and limb to be here. Our economy is weak yet we are still a powerhouse globally. Our military is stretched thin yet for all the rhetoric, we are still the most feared military on this planet. So, for a change, let's give up, and weaken our military. Unless Obama's talking about some historic movement to get our country running on french fry grease and wind power.. I'm sort of wondering what the hell we want to change?

"Free" health care

more "free" stuff

Soak the rich

trade barriers

[I can't think of a name]

http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/5021/70489419cu8.jpg

There, now I expect Oliver Stone to make a movie about it NOW.

[I can't think of a name]

I don't think he can chose Hagel, simply because he's a Republican. Jim Webb could counter-balance McCain's Hero worship, but allegedly there's quite a bit of misogynist baggage in the past which would come up in the campaign; not good. Then there's also Wesley Clark, a Clintonite and his service record would certainly outshine that of McCain, but he's about as exciting as wet socks.

Almost attacking Russians at Pristina Airport?

He was also the Commander of the 1st Cav during Waco authorizing a mechanized assault on US citizens.

[I can't think of a name]

You see no difference in Obama's background and Bush's? Bush was born into extreme wealth and a family that has been politically influential for more than 100 years. Obama is the son of an African immigrant and a family of no political importance in the US. That isn't different to you? Maybe I am crazy but that is very different to me.

You have cognitive problems. Its obvious to me now.

hank

That "African-Immigrant" was a Harvard Educated Economist.

I like how people leave that fact out, it was not like BHO senior was poor and illiterate when he came here.

Obama's grand parents he lived with were well off and Obama went to the best private prep school in Hawaii.

[hank]

That "African-Immigrant" was a Harvard Educated Economist.

I like how people leave that fact out, it was not like BHO senior was poor and illiterate when he came here.

Obama's grand parents he lived with were well off and Obama went to the best private prep school in Hawaii.

Fine, but did he have the political clout to be named VP and then win the Presidency? The answer is hell no. Saying that Obama is similar to Bush in the overahcievement category is silly. Bush's immediate family has been elected governor in 2 states, VP of the USA and then 2x POTUS. That is very different from Obama's background.

hank

[BloodDiamondPants]

I'd just like to state for the record that I didn't even read hanks post; I was just wanting to "f*ck" with him. p-) At any rate, who cares, Obama is not going to win anyway. Relax. Listen to hank though, he's a L-A-W-Y-E-R!!!

P.S. I have it on good authority that all Lawyers look like this guy:

http://www.franksfilms.com/wp-content/uploads/blogger/blogger/7466/2357/1600/American_Psycho-1.3.jpg

[hank]

I swear to Learned Hand I'm going to bash you in the head with a keyboard and throw a monitor at you.

hank

[BloodDiamondPants]

Touche' LMAO!:)

[I can't think of a name]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0a9-l3l9WnY
Talk about Cocky.

[Invisigoth]

Almost attacking Russians at Pristina Airport?

He was also the Commander of the 1st Cav during Waco authorizing a mechanized assault on US citizens.

he was also SACEUR and has been awarded everything from a purple heart to a silver star, dsm and what not.

Wanna post some proof of him authorizing a U.S. military assault on the BD in Waco? Would love to see it.

[jaegerkommando]

That "African-Immigrant" was a Harvard Educated Economist.

I like how people leave that fact out, it was not like BHO senior was poor and illiterate when he came here.


Well, he certainly wasn't illiterate - but he was definitely not a wealthy man; he was a scholarship student:

Due to a program offering Western educational opportunities to outstanding Kenyan students that was organized by nationalist leader Tom Mboya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Mboya), Obama Sr. was awarded a scholarship in economics, and at the age of 23 he enrolled at the University of Hawaii (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Hawaii). He left behind a pregnant Kezia and their infant son. As his son Senator Obama has said, "The Kennedys (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy) decided: 'We're going to do an airlift. We're going to go to Africa and start bringing young Africans over to this country and give them scholarships to study so they can learn what a wonderful country America is. This young man named Barack Obama [Sr.] got one of those tickets and came over to this country." An article by Michael Dobbs in The Washington Post (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Post), however, states that the Kennedy family did not become associated with the educational airlift until 1960, a year after Obama Sr was already studying in the United States. Initial financial supporters of the program included Harry Belafonte (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Belafonte), Sidney Poitier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_Poitier), Jackie Robinson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackie_Robinson), and Elizabeth Mooney Kirk, a literacy advocate who provided most of the financial support for Obama Sr.'s early years in the United States, according to the Tom Mboya archives at Stanford University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_University).

According to Senator Obama, the elder Obama had already abandoned Islam and become an atheist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist) by the time he moved to the United States.

On February 2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_2), 1961 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1961), Obama Sr. married a fellow student, Ann Dunham (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Dunham) in Maui (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maui), Hawaii (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaii). She did not know that he already had a wife in Kenya. Their son, Barack Obama, Jr., was born on August 4, 1961. Two years later, Obama Sr. was accepted at Harvard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard) for graduate study. He moved to Massachusetts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts), unable to afford to take his wife and son with him. He and Dunham divorced in 1963, and he only saw his son again once, at age 10. He received the AM degree from Harvard in 1965.

At Harvard, he met an American-born teacher named Ruth Nidesand who would follow him to Kenya when he returned after completing a graduate degree. She eventually became his third wife. She and Obama Sr. had two children together before they divorced.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_Sr.

[Thor]

Fine, but did he have the political clout to be named VP and then win the Presidency? The answer is hell no. Saying that Obama is similar to Bush in the overahcievement category is silly. Bush's immediate family has been elected governor in 2 states, VP of the USA and then 2x POTUS. That is very different from Obama's background.

hank
So you're saying a naturalized citizen could become POTUS in the 1960's?

http://img234.imageshack.us/img234/2008/snobfq8.jpg

Hey, I approve of elitism but it's a good picture.

[I can't think of a name]

Well, he certainly wasn't illiterate - but he was definitely not a wealthy man; he was a scholarship student:


At Harvard you rub elbows with plenty of well connected people.

[BloodDiamondPants]

Well, he certainly wasn't illiterate - but he was definitely not a wealthy man; he was a scholarship student:

"Wealthy Man!" BISH! I had to eat Ramin Noodles, and rip off financial aid like food stamps at a crack addicts convention to get through school! They keep telling me that I have to pay it back, but since I became a crack addict after majoring in Political Science; huh; good luck Uncle Sam! I got this box, this laptop made out of old lawnmower parts, and some twinkies! That's how much of a leg-up I got for being white! That man has more than I ever had. He's "wealthy" to me!

[hank]

You guys aren't that smart. I'm saying Bush comes from one of the most influential political families this country has ever had and Obama doesn't. I should think that would be obvious. I guess not.

As a result - labeling Bush an overachiever is wrong. If anyone in recent political history is an overachiever it would be Clinton or Obama - NOT GWB.

How can I make that any clearer? What if I gathered you all in an office and proceeded to beat the sh*t out of all of you with keyboards and monitors while yelling "Bush is not an overachiever?" Would that do any good? Because I'm up for it if ya'll are. Then we'll all get to see BDP go all Rambo and start shooting with his .45 cuz he's not a pussy.

hank

[I can't think of a name]

he was also SACEUR and has been awarded everything from a purple heart to a silver star, dsm and what not.

Wanna post some proof of him authorizing a U.S. military assault on the BD in Waco? Would love to see it.

Well who did then? Gee wiz he was the commander of the division at Fort Hood.

[hank]

Well who did then? Gee wiz he was the commander of the division at Fort Hood.

Janet Reno. Clean out your head gear new guy.

hank

[BloodDiamondPants]

Then we'll all get to see BDP go all Rambo and start shooting with his .45 cuz he's not a pussy.

hank

Shee, I know dats right!

[Thor]

I think hank is borderline delirious.

Anyway, Barack Hussein Obama is where he is today because he's black. If he had achieved this in the 1960's you could say he had overcome adversity. In today's political landscape he has instead benefited from his heritage.

[seer]

GO Obama!! woot Kick that old political establishment farts in the ass and by all means make Billary part of your team ...........as a white house gardner or cheef advisor of the white house cleaning crew perhaps.

[I can't think of a name]

Janet Reno. Clean out your head gear new guy.

hank

Since when does the Attorney General have authority to command the Army?

[BloodDiamondPants]

Ok, the jig is up! I'm actually Obama. I'd like to thank you seer, and let you know that because of your unwavering support (how did you know where I hung out online?). I'm going to build you a new house when I become President. Crunk Baby! That's how I roll! Kill Whitey! and Peace Out to the future!



"All 57 states: Vote Obama on October 31st! Don't make me open a can! I've got a Colt .45 you know. It works every time!"
(hank, I'm lookin' at you son!):)

[beNder]

OK, I wanna see this bombshell. Any you peeps have an actual feed?

PM me if you are timid =]

[California Joe]

F*ck me, W may be one of the biggest underachievers that's ever been born. He was even a male cheerleader for f*ckssakes.

Obama on the other hand probably suffered from having some hippie Mom that liked to bang Muslim immigrants and drop off her kid at Moms house. But if you're going to get dumped by Mom, Hawaii is a pretty decent spot.

[noname]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifEg1aq6Emo&feature=user


How does the obama grape-juice drinkers respond to this?

[beNder]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifEg1aq6Emo&feature=user


How does the obama grape-juice drinkers respond to this?

Not and American in my book. This gets deeper by the day.

[California Joe]

I would assume that the true believers are Sarah Bradys wet dream anyway.

[Kilgor]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifEg1aq6Emo&feature=user


How does the obama grape-juice drinkers respond to this?

Saying a sizable amount of the American population clings to guns and the bible as a security blanket is a unpalatable fact.

[I can't think of a name]

So successful people are not religious?

[Flagg]

By NO means am I an Obama supporter...as stated before, in my opinion, I think both McCain and Obama are two similiar turds in different wrappers.

But I would be really interested to get a perspective on how Kennedy was perceived in 1960 compared to Obama today.

After all, he was a Catholic who was under total control of the Pope.........Sort of like how Obama is controlled by Mecca and Louis Farrakhan

My perception may be off, possibly by quite a bit...but in 1960 wouldn't the thought of a Catholic President only be slightly less horrible than a Jew or a Negro as President to 1960 Conservative America?

I'm loving the immediate comparison between JFK/RFK and Obama. I've only just started seeing the marketing machine rolling that out........Caroline Kennedy leading the search for VP short-list...whether real or for PR value only it's a great angle.

One thing Obama could do to win me over a bit would be stealing a page from JFK's playbook with his challenge to America to put a man on the moon by the end of the decade......Say a speech on July 4th with a real and achieveable stretch goal to achieve Energy Independence by XXXX year.....and putting every big brain NASA, DARPA, and federally funded University engineering program on notice.

[California Joe]

Seriously, what if Obama really could live up to the hype?

I'm very cynical about all politicians and I don't know if I'd ever get excited about any politician the way I see people that join campaigns etc. Maybe that's my own fault. But I'd feel sooooooooooo stupid if I drank the kool aid and then it turned out the guy was a scumbag. Do you know what I mean?

[I can't think of a name]

I know you want to believe CJ, give in. I did.

[California Joe]

That's just it. I really don't. I find it so much easier to sit back and snipe all of the discrepancies and idiocy. Like screaming at the TV when the coach pulls the starting pitcher too early. But in reality that coach is getting paid a bazillion dollars to make a decision and you're just some **** in a lounge chair with a beer.

[Flagg]

That's just it. I really don't. I find it so much easier to sit back and snipe all of the discrepancies and idiocy. Like screaming at the TV when the coach pulls the starting pitcher too early. But in reality that coach is getting paid a bazillion dollars to make a decision and you're just some **** in a lounge chair with a beer.

It's funny you mentioned Sports as an analogy.

I'm finding it bloody hard to get passionate about professional sports anymore.......mostly because of my expontentially increasing cynicism as I approach 40...which for me, must be the new 80......cause my wife says I'm about as cynical as an 80 year old.

The disappointment of following the Eagles has reached the limit........the Flyers have choked...again.

Way down here our mighty Crusaders have won the Super 14 Rugby season for the eleventeenth time......I should be feeling good.....sort of like how Cowboys fans have been all uppity since the 70's...but nah.....just a game...not worth the passion anymore...I'll save it for the next world cup.

As far as politics goes.......I'd love to get onboard the happy bus.......I nearly was with Ron Paul......I believe the man has more integrity, character, and honesty than the rest of Congress combined...including the current nominees for President.

My perception of Ron Paul is that he treats his fellow Americans with dignity and respect and assumes we are intelligent and mature enough to hear the bad news......because there is a LOT of big bad news coming our way.

In a way, I think that since the other candidates were unwilling to match his candor and blunt honesty...he was the messenger.......and he got shot.

Obama and McCain need to cowboy up and spill the beans to their fellow citizens instead of treating them like children and promising more free sh!t.

Problems can't be fixed by ignoring them and passing the hot potato to the next administration.

The first candidate to acknowledge the multiple and simultaneous systemic, financial, demographic, and strategic energy threats we face.....ON TOP OF existing security threats, gets 2 brownie points from me.

Until a candidate offers a harsh 12 Step Program AND the leadership to face it head on......they are wasting my time.

[BloodDiamondPants]

Flagg, just a quick clarification if you will: Are you a United States Citizen?

[California Joe]

It is funny that anytime a candidate even attempts to offer some kind of realistic truth he gets hammered. I think you're right about Ron Paul.

Mondale and his "yeah, I'd have to raise taxes" statement boned him in a magnificent way. It's as if the voting public is schizophrenic or at the very least some kind of needy broad in an abusive relationship. "Just tell me lies, I'll believe them."

[Hollis]

It is funny that anytime a candidate even attempts to offer some kind of realistic truth he gets hammered. I think you're right about Ron Paul.

Mondale and his "yeah, I'd have to raise taxes" statement boned him in a magnificent way. It's as if the voting public is schizophrenic or at the very least some kind of needy broad in an abusive relationship. "Just tell me lies, I'll believe them."


No kidding, They want someone who will fix the problems but won't vote them.

[BloodDiamondPants]

California Joe, and others if applicable, do you really care? That is to say, we are just peasants (I don't care if you earn half a million dollars a year, you are still just a well paid peasant in comparison to the people who truly wield power) and as such, we have few options available really. We can vote our conscience, re-enforce like minded individuals, put a "little something" back for a rainy day (be that what it may), work toward a dream, and try to enjoy our lives as much as possible in the meantime. So, aside from having a bit of fun with this; outside of making up your mind and putting down your mark, it's all really a lot of: "Passion and fury, signifying nothing" don't you think?

I don't like Obama. I won't vote for him. I will live my life. Obey the law. And blast "hank" in the foot with my Colt .45 if I ever meet him. I'm a simple man; as are we all really. You can't change people, and aside from age smoothing out the rough edges into weighty curves, people do not change even personally (barring a life changing experience like talking to "hank" and wanting to shoot him in the kneecaps mind you). One of them is going to win. You have few options, and very little hope personally. Ours are lives ones of quiet desperation. Lets just vote for McCain, and have a beer in the backyard; watching the sprinkler system do it's magic. eh?

[Flagg]

Flagg, just a quick clarification if you will: Are you a United States Citizen?


I'm an AmeriKiwi :)

[Flagg]

It is funny that anytime a candidate even attempts to offer some kind of realistic truth he gets hammered. I think you're right about Ron Paul.

Mondale and his "yeah, I'd have to raise taxes" statement boned him in a magnificent way. It's as if the voting public is schizophrenic or at the very least some kind of needy broad in an abusive relationship. "Just tell me lies, I'll believe them."

It's crazy....taxes are going to go way up, or spending/bennies has to come way down......or possibly both :( to sort this sh!t sandwich out.

Everyone with two brain cells to rub together knows we are a bunch of dangerously obese couch potatoes in need of Fat Camp.

A leader would be driving the bus to Parris Island, not giving us free Twinkies.

[BloodDiamondPants]

No twinkies, and I rebel; pure and simple; life's just not worth very much without them. It's a euphemism though, for: "I'm fat now, and I know I'm not going to make it, so I'll be going out in a blaze of glory (for 30 seconds or until I get winded; whichever comes first). Then again, it's a euphemism for more than that. America on a crash diet is gonna get ugly.

http://msp230.photobucket.com/albums/ee259/Cyruswolf23/FatAlbert.jpg

[Hollis]

Interesting in that all of this has been discussed in the past. People have not changed much nor will they. Some how when our country was constitution was framed all of this was taken in to consideration. Some sort of balance that will in the long run move us forward. If we give the power of our leaders to rescue us, they will enslave us. If we refuse them the power, they we will down in a sea of self indulgence. About the only thing that will put us on a exercise program and take the twinkies away is a catastrophe.

[BloodDiamondPants]

Interesting in that all of this has been discussed in the past. People have not changed much nor will they. Some how when our country was constitution was framed all of this was taken in to consideration. Some sort of balance that will in the long run move us forward. If we give the power of our leaders to rescue us, they will enslave us. If we refuse them the power, they we will down in a sea of self indulgence. About the only thing that will put us on a exercise program and take the twinkies away is a catastrophe.


Well said; hence; it don't mattah'. You better enjoy (and stock up)!

[Flagg]

California Joe, and others if applicable, do you really care? That is to say, we are just peasants (I don't care if you earn half a million dollars a year, you are still just a well paid peasant in comparison to the people who truly wield power) and as such, we have few options available really. We can vote our conscience, re-enforce like minded individuals, put a "little something" back for a rainy day (be that what it may), work toward a dream, and try to enjoy our lives as much as possible in the meantime. So, aside from having a bit of fun with this; outside of making up your mind and putting down your mark, it's all really a lot of: "Passion and fury, signifying nothing" don't you think?

I don't like Obama. I won't vote for him. I will live my life. Obey the law. And blast "hank" in the foot with my Colt .45 if I ever meet him. I'm a simple man; as are we all really. You can't change people, and aside from age smoothing out the rough edges into weighty curves, people do not change even personally (barring a life changing experience like talking to "hank" and wanting to shoot him in the kneecaps mind you). One of them is going to win. You have few options, and very little hope personally. Ours are lives ones of quiet desperation. Lets just vote for McCain, and have a beer in the backyard; watching the sprinkler system do it's magic. eh?

For the record........I like Hank.......even if he's a lawyer :)

Would you rather have someone agreeing with everything you say?

Or challenging your opinions/convictions to the point you change them or confirm them?

I'll take the latter any day.

-----------------

In terms of "why bother".......at least for me I find it hard NOT to get involved in sh!t if it matters to me.

People get the government they deserve....no more, no less...

[Hollis]

Well said; hence; it don't mattah'. You better enjoy (and stock up)!


I am like Flagg, I am just not gonna set there.

[BloodDiamondPants]

I am like Flagg, I am just not gonna set there.

One thing about Zombies; they are never scary until they are within arms reach. If you have say; a money fort, just to chill out, and watch the show from, it's always better to have "it" and not need it; than to need "it" and not have it. Then again, miracles do happen. In the movies.


P.S. I don't really hate "hank." I just didn't let his kind sit at my lunch table. He reminds me of the kid down at the beach that got sand kicked in his face. ;)


_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Edit: Wait, Wait, Wait, Wait! Let me play us out for the night: "This one goes out to you Obama!" (our way of life is dying fella's, and between what we got right, and what we got wrong; we were the ""Good Guys"" and our like shall not be seen again on this earth for a long, long, long time. We're out of time. I hope those that hate us enjoy what they are about to receive. Obama kool-aid-kids most [que: single, perfect, tear]).

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1032739532781389620&q=Push+and+Pull&ei=gQJKSOLNBYKKrQKj1tCzDA&hl=en

(http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1032739532781389620&q=Push+and+Pull&ei=gQJKSOLNBYKKrQKj1tCzDA&hl=en)

[Flagg]

Interesting in that all of this has been discussed in the past. People have not changed much nor will they. Some how when our country was constitution was framed all of this was taken in to consideration. Some sort of balance that will in the long run move us forward. If we give the power of our leaders to rescue us, they will enslave us. If we refuse them the power, they we will down in a sea of self indulgence. About the only thing that will put us on a exercise program and take the twinkies away is a catastrophe.

I agree.....and we have had several since September 10th, 2001...I'd like to focus on two:

1.)September 11, 2001.......horrible day........but the day and our national response to it could fit into a Jerry Bruckheimer movie(no disrespect intended).

Bad guys did bad things, we sent in the high speed pipehitters to get them....the only thing missing is a cool soundtrack(again no disrespect intended) and some video editing.

It's pretty simple to follow and understand for Joe Six Pack, we were attacked and we are hitting them back...........therefore easier for a leader to lead a country through such a crisis

2.)A convergence of long-term problems:

*Systemic rot..........in particular lobbying practices......it was supposed to be fixed...never was...forgotten, but no less critically important now because we can't do jack until addressed

*Demographic trends........unless a magic wand is waved to create both well paying jobs and enough legal workers/citizens to continue paying the social security bills we are going to have great difficulty in swallowing the "baby boomer bowling ball" gravy train as their contribution TO society drops and their support FROM society rapidly accelerates

*Energy.......without going into graphic detail this is the 1973-74 pain all over again.........possibly worse

*Incredibly dangerous financial and monetary stupidity...stemming both from systemic financial system problems as well as more recent insanity.......the rot and filth needs to be purged before it recovers.

Basically a long, slow, multifaceted crisis...slowly boiling Joe 6 Pack

This is where leadership is paramount.........someone who can put together the pieces of the puzzle...explain how it affects us now, how it will affect us in the future, and put some patriotic dressing on the double sh!t sandwich to make it sound tasty.

[Invisigoth]

Btw, I gotta give some credit to our man Hank. Definitely the most reasonable and pragmatic fellow on this board (for a lawyer) :)

[AOCBravo2004]

McCain doesnt have a chance, If he wins seriously im renouncing, I cant deal with any of this last 8 years anymore. Ill seriously dip to Canada, But 90% of the us feels the same way so if we loose its rigged for sure.

Wow, 90% huh, funny, I wasn't asked how I felt. Hey, what's the approval rating of Congress, you know, the Congress that Obama is a member of??? What happened to all that change the Democratically controlled Congress was supposed to institute??? It's ok, I think all politicians are FOS.

I hate election years, it's brings out all the rejects. Candidates bore me because they blow smoke up your a$$. They tell you they are going to do this and that, when in reality they have no power to do it on their own, such as this gem I found from Obama, "Obama will cut income taxes by $1,000 for working families to offset the payroll tax they pay"

What is sad is that a lot of people don't know how the government actually works and they believe this crap. From both the Dem's and Repub's

[Lt-Col A. Tack]

Angry Clinton Supporters Start Rallying for McCain Online

By Sarah Lai Stirland EmailJune 04, 2008 | 4:04:24 PMCategories: Election '08

They're mad as hell, and Hillary Clinton's supporters aren't going to take it anymore.

Some Clintonites are so mad about Barack Obama's Tuesday victory that they've launched a web site to build support to launch a lobbying group to support Republican John McCain.


"We're going to run campaign ads to defeat Obama," says Ed Hale, a 63-year-old rancher and a Clinton supporter from Wellington, Texas. "We have doctors, lawyers, CPAs, the blue bloods, and then we have rednecks like me. It's a very diversified organization."

The split illustrates the difficult task the Democratic party now faces in rallying the troops behind Obama. Open dissent within party ranks provides Republicans with openings to exploit.

Hale launched the "Hillary Clinton Supporters for John McCain" group last Saturday. The campaign claims to have 5,000 supporters, and its website visitor counter says that it has already attracted 37,807 visitors.

"Last night, when they crowned Obama king, that's when I sent my e-mails out to people, and since then, we've gotten thousands of hits," he says.

Hale, a Vietnam veteran and a long-time Democrat, says that many of the group's supporters are Reagan Democrats, and their primary concern is foreign policy and defense. A call to the Texas Democratic Party confirmed that he was supposed to have been a delegate to the state convention this week.

He says that he wouldn't vote for Obama even if Clinton were vice president.

In addition, he says that he will not sign an online petition that former Clinton White House special counsel Lanny Davis sent out on the web Tuesday night -- calling for Obama to choose Clinton as vice president.

Rickie Banning, president of "Hillary Clinton Supporters Count Too," a website, says that she's received hundreds of e-mails from Clinton supporters who are angry at the Democratic National Committee, and who are registering as independent. Some of them say that they will vote for John McCain.

A sampling of the e-mails that she sent along show that many of the supporters feel cheated.

"If you ask me, I feel sad in my heart, and I think a lot of people do, but some people are really angry," Banning says. "People feel upset, and not listened to, and a lot of people feel like they're being thrown under the bus. "

Statistics compiled by Real Clear Politics show that in terms of the popular vote, Democratic voters split evenly between Clinton and Obama, though Obama reached the delegate count necessary to win the nomination on Tuesday.

For its part, the Republican National Committee is capitalizing on Democratic party leaders' criticisms of Obama in a new web video posted to its site Wednesday.

And Matt Burns, a spokesman for the Republican National Convention, says that he's received voice mail from Clinton supporters offering to help him.

He says he sent them to McCain's website.

Wired Blog Network (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/06/angry-clinton-s.html)

[budgie]

He actually isn't. You realize they used the exact same kind of propaganda to diminish Regan? Some of you crack me up, the way you're so certain Bush is an idiot. Yet, hes achieved more than any of you could ever hope to.

Aaah, the old, "Well Could you do any better?" argument...

[Snoshi]

Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain on Friday said that he believes the American embassy in Israel should be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

"Jerusalem is undivided, Jerusalem is the capital and we should move the embassy to Jerusalem before anything happens," McCain said while campaigning in Miami.

McCain stressed, however, that the "subject of Jerusalem itself will be addressed in negotiations by the Israeli government and people."
http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/990903.html

[Hilbert]

Listening to Hillary's Admission of Defeat... err... I mean Honorable Endorsement of Obama and Withdrawl from the Presidential Race right now.

Goodbye Billary!

[BloodDiamondPants]

Maybe we could just go "leaderless" for awhile? You know, everybody adhere to the "Law of the Old West" for a little bit. (I.e. Be polite, work hard, be kind to those that you can help, and shoot those that break rules 1,2, & 3?)

[Invisigoth]

Listening to Hillary's Admission of Defeat... err... I mean Honorable Endorsement of Obama and Withdrawl from the Presidential Race right now.

Goodbye Billary!

And since she won't make the VP spot...Go Hillary for SCJ!!!!!!!!!!!!! rofl

[I can't think of a name]

Yep this guy is smoother than George Bush. Maybe when he has a teleprompter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbpWonUzlrc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxBX8sz3tO8


Wow, I am sure the Daily Show will make fun of him now.

[Hilbert]

And since she won't make the VP spot...Go Hillary for SCJ!!!!!!!!!!!!! rofl

Jesus, that would be a scary thought as well.

[Power_serj]

Yep this guy is smoother than George Bush. Maybe when he has a teleprompter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbpWonUzlrc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxBX8sz3tO8


Wow, I am sure the Daily Show will make fun of him now.

Apparently, (according to Obama) we bullied Britain into going into the Iraq War. It was in another one of those gaffe videos.

[Alexandr]

Hillary and Obama did enouth to destroy each other political images.Her windrawn was predictable,now its up to Obama to steal from his self points of credibility,and let McCain get crushing victory.McCain probably god man and great soldier,but he already acts like a Brezhnev in his pre-marasmatic years.4 years later you will have very - very Slooooowwwww President.
Looks like a Morgan-Rockefeller Empire doing some kind of ritual suicide....

[Mordecai]

Yep this guy is smoother than George Bush. Maybe when he has a teleprompter...

...Wow, I am sure the Daily Show will make fun of him now.

Now that funny I dont care who you are voting for.

He sounds like Mushmouth from fat Albert...

Crip

[Stonewall71]

Some Clintonites are so mad about Barack Obama's Tuesday victory that they've launched a web site to build support to launch a lobbying group to support Republican John McCain.


what a bunch of sad people :roll:

[I can't think of a name]

HE will be president Milli Vanilli without a teleprompter (lip syncing) he is not a talented orator at all.

[Hilbert]

Hillary and Obama did enouth to destroy each other political images.Her windrawn was predictable,now its up to Obama to steal from his self points of credibility,and let McCain get crushing victory.McCain probably god man and great soldier,but he already acts like a Brezhnev in his pre-marasmatic years.4 years later you will have very - very Slooooowwwww President.
Looks like a Morgan-Rockefeller Empire doing some kind of ritual suicide....

No, all three of them are unfit for office. What need is something new, something worth voting for... real change.

EDIT: To be truthful I'd probably cast my vote for Bob Barr, the evil libertarian candidate. Obviously, like Ron Paul, he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of becoming President but at least I can actually fvcking feel good about it in that I voted for someone actually worth voting for and not just trying to figure out the lesser of two idiots.

[JKD]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_sperling&sid=a.f5U.rij7vM

McCain Emerges as Master Economic Flip-Flopper: Gene Sperling

Commentary by Gene Sperling


June 6 (Bloomberg) -- Back in 2005, a friend asked if I should be careful about praising John McCain for his votes against George W. Bush's upper-income tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. After all, he warned, he might become the next Republican presidential nominee.

My reply was, suppose McCain maintained his position that, as he put it in 2001: ``I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle-class Americans who most need tax relief.''

Suppose he did hold to his 2003 opposition to increasing the deficit through tax cuts during a time of war. On what grounds could I criticize him?

In spite of the advice from my friends, I went ahead and applauded McCain for both stands in my 2005 book ``The Pro-Growth Progressive.''

This is now a non-issue. McCain, who would like us to see him as holding a consistent and principled stance on tax cuts and fiscal discipline, is engaging in the mother of all economic policy flip-flops.

If McCain's opposition to Bush's tax cuts was based on the unseemliness of letting deficits balloon for the benefit of top earners in a time of war, then his opposition should have grown stronger. Instead, it grew weaker and then collapsed. Since McCain's votes, we have witnessed budget surpluses turn into projected $400 billion annual deficits.

How do those intervening developments lead McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, to now support permanently extending more than $100 billion in high-income tax cuts he once opposed?

Just the Beginning

And that is only the beginning. With the public debt expanding, corporate profits near records, and family incomes down since 2001, McCain has made his signature economic proposal a corporate tax-relief package that will cost $2 trillion to $3 trillion over 10 years.

In the New York Times on June 1, former Bush economic adviser Greg Mankiw defended this indefensible fiscal policy by pointing to two purely theoretical studies to posit that lowering the corporate-tax rate by a third is really about helping typical workers.

He didn't mention that the Congressional Budget Office, Treasury Department, and Joint Committee on Taxation all assume that the owners of capital get the benefit of a corporate-tax cut. He also neglects to mention that the CBO estimates that a whopping 59 percent of the benefits of such a reduction would go to the top 1 percent of earners.

Distorted Picture

This is more regressive than the policies that led McCain in 2000 to blast Bush for having ``38 percent of his tax cut go to the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans.''

Mankiw paints an even more incomplete and distorted picture of the fiscal impact. He says McCain's plan to cut the corporate- tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent will cost only $100 billion a year in lost revenue, but benefits to the economy will cut that cost in half.

Yet, even the Bush Treasury Department suggested that the costs of a smaller corporate-rate cut -- from 35 percent to 28 percent -- would cost at least $130 billion annually.

Most profoundly, Mankiw ignores the explosive costs of McCain's proposal to have 100 percent immediate expensing -- instead of depreciation -- for business investment while maintaining the deductibility of interest. This would make it possible for companies to deduct far more than they invest and thus shelter income. Put another way, this amounts to a negative tax rate.

Do the Math

Bush's Advisory Panel on Tax Reform stated that this would ``result in economic distortions and adversely impact economic activity.''

While the Urban Institute's Len Burman estimates this would cost only $75 billion per year, University of Michigan economist Reuven Avi-Yonah figures that the rate cut and expensing together ``would open up almost unlimited opportunities for sheltering income'' and reduce corporate tax revenue by 75 percent. Jason Furman, head of the centrist Hamilton Project, calculates the combined costs of the rate cut and income sheltering at more than $300 billion a year.

So let's do a little math: Start with $100 billion for extending current tax cuts for the highest earners. Add to that an additional $50 billion it would cost to eliminate the alternative minimum tax for the highest earners, another McCain proposal. Throw in $200 billion to $300 billion in corporate-tax cuts and you have a cost of $350 billion to $450 billion a year. That works out to $3.5 trillion to $4.5 trillion over 10 years.

National Debt

This isn't even the full cost of the McCain tax agenda. Rather, these huge additions to our $5.3 trillion national debt are on top of the cost of extending the Bush tax cuts for families earning less than $250,000 -- a policy that McCain and Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton all support.

``Straight talk'' from McCain would acknowledge these proposals would swell the national debt or cause painful spending cuts to pay for them. The McCain camp instead offers vague and unrealistic promises to cut unspecified spending and eliminate earmarks. McCain makes a lot of this last point, even though banning earmarks would only pay for less than a half of 1 percent of his high-income tax-cut proposals.

Where have you gone, fiscally responsible John McCain?

(Gene Sperling, formerly President Bill Clinton's top economic adviser, is a Bloomberg News columnist. He is a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund and advised Hillary Clinton in her bid for the 2008 presidential nomination. The opinions expressed are his own.)

[noname]

HE will be president Milli Vanilli without a teleprompter (lip syncing) he is not a talented orator at all.


After watching his "debates" with the hildabeast -there is no other conclusion.

[SoSo]

I guess I'll hold my nose and vote for John McCain. I like the idea of legalizing marijuana, but the rest of Ron Paul's ideas are just nuts.
I'm afraid that if Barack Obama becomes our next president, he'll end support for allied regimes that don't meet his lofty moral standards, and this will cause these governments to fall, and be replaced by anti-American regimes. A lot of our Third World allies are led by politico-military elites, who have little popular support. The impoverished, illiterate masses in many of these countries hate us, and despise their leaders for their pro-Western policies. Without strong American support, these leaders won't survive. And that means more countries (with the sophisticated American-made weapons systems we sold them) will become our enemies. I don't think Barack Obama understands this danger.

[AOCBravo2004]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ap2Cg_FDRy4

[sir-chimp]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ap2Cg_FDRy4





I was at a ceremony a few years ago where President Bush, his wife, and other political figures were present. Obama was one of the speakers.

In his speech he proclaimed the usual leftist revisionist rhetoric that President Lincoln was not a mover and shaker in the freeing of the slaves and not worth the recognition he receives. Then in the same speech this piece of work Obama flipped flopped when it came to promoting himself and cast Lincoln in a favorable light and actually represented his "hardships" growing up to be comparable to Lincolns. It was everything I could do to not burst out laughing at the fool. As I was sitting almost directly in front of the stage with the press filming all around me my out burst of laughter during the silence would have made for interesting footage.

Since I have not seen a president in person since Regan - it was a pretty great experience on the whole. I even got some pretty decent photos.

[Calanen]

http://www.youtube.com/v/DfwKKxVC7_o

Obama's defence policy.

[Thor]

what a bunch of sad people :roll:
Que? Obama is not a regular nominee, he's a nightmare. Of course we will see things like this.

[AGE-Ranger]

http://www.youtube.com/v/DfwKKxVC7_o

Obama's defence policy.


All McCain needs to do is play this video at every rally and he'll be a shoe in.

[Macs.]

"I will slow our development of future combat systems".

What ? LOL.

[Snoshi]

No wonder that almost every US enemy wants to see Obama as president..

[Calanen]

All McCain needs to do is play this video at every rally and he'll be a shoe in

Seems reasonable.

The naive policies of the guy are scary. Just negotiate with the Russians and we can get rid of all ICBMs...like its gonna be as simple as deciding what to have for dinner when you invite guests.

[AGE-Ranger]

Seems reasonable.

The naive policies of the guy are scary. Just negotiate with the Russians and we can get rid of all ICBMs...like its gonna be as simple as deciding what to have for dinner when you invite guests.


...and with our slow down of weapons development, their guaranteed to strike a deal! :|


"I will slow our development of future combat systems".

What ? LOL.

It reminds me of what their doing with US oil drilling and exploration. Its as if they think limiting the US's growth, will somehow bring about a liberal utopia.

[vryhpyammoadded]

"I will slow our development of future combat systems".

Just negotiate with the Russians and we can get rid of all ICBMs...
That sort of simple, wishful thinking reminds me of those people in the Road Warrior saying “This humongous character seems like a reasonable man…” as the circling barbarians shout “Just walk away from all that gas and we promise you can live”.

Wow, this really will be Carter all over again.

[JKD]

Obama's defence policy.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/#21st-century-military


Building a 21st Century Military

* The Problem: The excellence of our military is unmatched. But as a result of a misguided war in Iraq, our forces are under pressure as never before. Obama will make the investments we need so that the finest military in the world is best-prepared to meet 21st-century threats.

* Rebuild Trust: Obama will rebuild trust with those who serve by ensuring that soldiers and Marines have sufficient training time before they are sent into battle.

* Expand the Military: We have learned from Iraq that our military needs more men and women in uniform to reduce the strain on our active force. Obama will increase the size of ground forces, adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines.

* New Capabilities: Obama will give our troops new equipment, armor, training, and skills like language training. He will also strengthen our civilian capacity, so that our civilian agencies have the critical skills and equipment they need to integrate their efforts with our military.

* Strengthen Guard and Reserve: Obama will restore the readiness of the National Guard and Reserves. He will permit them adequate time to train and rest between deployments, and provide the National Guard with the equipment they need for foreign and domestic emergencies. He will also give the Guard a seat at the table by making the Chief of the National Guard a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The nuke stuff is pie in the sky for sure but it's a nice sentiment I guess. Not gonna happen. Harmless.

I'm not at all worried about Al Quaeda ICBMs.

And FCS is a money hog. Slowing development of it doesn't seem to be a huge deal...it's already been slowed under the current administration. Even McCain has been no huge fan of the program.

[AGE-Ranger]

Check out the article that was posted on his site today. They pulled it, but it was saved.

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/juancarloscruz/gG5BSr&ie=UTF-8

NO LOBBY IS FEARED MORE or catered to by politicians than the Jewish Lobby. If a politician does not play ball with the Jewish Lobby, he will not get elected, or re-elected, and he will either be smeared or ignored by the Jewish-owned major media.

All Jewish lobbies and organizations are interconnected and there are hundreds upon hundreds of them. The leaders of the numerous Jewish Lobby Groups go to the same synagogues, country clubs, and share the same Jewish investment bankers. And this inter-connectedness extends to the Jews who run the Federal Reserve Bank, US Homeland Security, and the US State Department.

In other words, “Jews stick together.” Americans must know how extremely powerful the Jewish Lobby is and how it operates to undermine America’s interests both at home and abroad. At home - by corrupting America’s political system, and abroad - by dictating American Foreign Policy against America’s best interests.

[JKD]

That "Juan Carlos from Knoxville, TN" sounds like a real moonbat. Good thing he's not running for office.

[usm2b]

No wonder that almost every US enemy wants to see Obama as president..

touche......................

[AGE-Ranger]

That "Juan Carlos from Knoxville, TN" sounds like a real moonbat. Good thing he's not running for office.

Its yet another example of the people he surrounds himself with. Why would they post this on his campaign site? Why does this man still have a blog on the site? Why do we have to keep asking these sorts of questions when its comes to Obama?

[Skutatos]

http://www.youtube.com/v/DfwKKxVC7_o

Obama's defence policy.


So Obama's defense policy is to make us more vulnerable to missile threats, more vulnerable to future threats, make the military less flexible etc.... where is the DEFENCE part in all this?

Does anyone have the video of Obama saying he thinks higher gas prices are good because it will change people's driving habits and is good for the environment...some of us have to drive a rather long distance to get to work and school, @sshole. Im trying to pay for school, bills etc, with a rather low paying job and now with gas being about 4.22 a Gallon here... Its getting real hard to stay afloat.

[JKD]

Its yet another example of the people he surrounds himself with. Why would they post this on his campaign site?
They didn't post it. Juan Carlos did.

I'm not really familiar with the site or how one goes about getting a blog but I'll go out on a limb and say it's probably a stretch to say Obama has 'surrounded' himself with Juan Carlos. I doubt the guy's in his entourage or something.

The only official move by the Obama site here seems to be deleting the post in question.


Why does this man still have a blog on the site?
Wondering that myself.


Why do we have to keep asking these sorts of questions when its comes to Obama?
Because it's easier than discussing and debating the issues?

[JKD]

So Obama's defense policy is to make us more vulnerable to missile threats,
What missile threats?


more vulnerable to future threats
How?


make the military less flexible etc....
How?


where is the DEFENCE part in all this?
Well, he wants to increase the size of the military...something Dubya should have started doing on 9/12/01 but waited five years to do.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/#21st-century-military

[noname]

Taken from link to obamas site above:

Bring Our Troops Home: Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

Wait, I thought he would pull them all out in 16 months. Oh I see what he did here.

[Hollis]

Taken from link to obamas site above:

Bring Our Troops Home: Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

Wait, I thought he would pull them all out in 16 months. Oh I see what he did here.


It is those damn "IFs" that get everybody in trouble. (He probably had his finger crossed too, just in case)

[Power_serj]

That is such a stupid policy. That would just reverse all the good. We clearly need permanent bases there. Leaving the area and going back to bombing tents thinking it's going to stop terrorist attacks in Iraq or US eventually is naive. It didn't work for Clinton, it won't work for Obama. Talk about failed policies.

[Hilbert]

That is such a stupid policy. That would just reverse all the good. We clearly need permanent bases there. Leaving the area and going back to bombing tents thinking it's going to stop terrorist attacks in Iraq or US eventually is naive. [b]It didn't work for Clinton, it won't work for Obama. Talk about failed policies.[b]

Ah, but my friend, this is where the viper strikes with that oh so sweet poison "If only I had been in charge... I could've done so much better... I could've made it work."

-Hilde

[Hilbert]

What is that old saying that goes something like "Those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it."

Mr. Obama and indeed so many of our "betters" could learn from the message of this saying.

[sir-chimp]

Wow, this really will be Carter all over again.


I have been wondering if Obamacarter wins does that mean some where deep in the republican party is another Regan? I guess one could only hope.

Of course that's all we need is another one term ex president like Carter. A clueless vindictive semi senile bitter old man naively doing his best to give credibility to America's enemies while undermining the policy of the United States every chance he gets. But hey Carter is a great guy, just close your eyes, click your heals, and repeat three times Habitat for Humanity - Habitat for Humanity - Habitat for Humanity .

[Calanen]

How?


Well, he wants to increase the size of the military...something Dubya should have started doing on 9/12/01 but waited five years to do.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/#21st-century-military

Did you watch the video? He said he wants to slow down the development of combat systems. Yeah thats gonna help. More guys but with worse stuff.

[JKD]

Did you watch the video?
Yes. Did you read my earlier post where I addressed that?
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showpost.php?p=3304077&postcount=1358

And FCS is a money hog. Slowing development of it doesn't seem to be a huge deal...it's already been slowed under the current administration. Even McCain has been no huge fan of the program.



He said he wants to slow down the development of combat systems. Yeah thats gonna help. More guys but with worse stuff.

"I will slow our development of Future Combat Systems"

Future Combat Systems:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Combat_Systems

[noname]

Did you watch the video? He said he wants to slow down the development of combat systems. Yeah thats gonna help. More guys but with worse stuff.


He is clueless about having a technological advantage over opponents. Sure we can debate all day long about technology vs. insurgency, but alot of the things not talked about are geared to fighting a war 20 years from now. He wants to get rid of that, and the nukes.

I guess he wants the US to be on a level playing field with potential adversaries.

Should we talke about his flip-flopping on taxing the middle-class, and taxing more of our retirement savings?

[JKD]

He is clueless about having a technological advantage over opponents.
I guess Bush is too since he's reduced funding to that program as well.


Should we talke about his flip-flopping on taxing the middle-class, and taxing more of our retirement savings?
Cut spending and we can cut taxes. I don't think either party's in any hurry to to that though.

Given the sh*tty choice between tax and spend or borrow and spend I think it's more responsible to go with the former.

[szr]

if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.I bet he thinks AQ's next "base" will show up on satellite and all he'll have to do is aim the TLAM's at the obstacle course. :roll:

[Zoomie]

And here's a sneak peek at what Obama's going to be talking about in the fall:
http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/1926/20080608obamawarcrimespys9.jpg

Gotta love how quickly Obama's stance on Iraq has changed in 4 years:


In July of 2004, the day after his speech at the Democratic convention catapulted him into the national spotlight, Barack Obama told a group of reporters in Boston that the United States had an "absolute obligation" to remain in Iraq long enough to make it a success.
"The failure of the Iraqi state would be a disaster," he said at a lunch sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor, according to an audiotape of the session. "It would dishonor the 900-plus men and women who have already died. . . . It would be a betrayal of the promise that we made to the Iraqi people, and it would be hugely destabilizing from a national security perspective."
Source (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/03/08/obama_stance_on_iraq_shows_evolving_view/)

Ahh yes, the UN will help make things better in Iraq, just like they did last time! Funny how he calls Iraq a humanitarian disaster, but he won't address other, real disasters around the world as they're not key to his campaign. And that last bit about war criminals is interesting. Sounds like he might be borrowing talking points from Murtha.

[Calanen]

Who here thinks that Step 4 is about going after Al Quada?...not me..

[AGE-Ranger]

Because it's easier than discussing and debating the issues?

There is tons of discussion on the "issues". Telling yourself his many questionable associations aren't an issue, doesn't make it so. There are a few million people who might disagree. If I was Jewish I think an anti-semitic blogger on Obamma's campaign site matters.

[Mackie]

Absolutly funny. I thought it's a "Presidential Election thread" and not "Bahsing Obama".
What's about the "Bomb bomb Iran" and "know nothing about economy" McCain?

What's his plan to win in Iraq? 4000 more dead soldiers?

Can someone link to the complete program of both candidates?
About economy I only found this about McCain.
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/4dbd2cc7-890e-47f1-882f-b8fc4cfecc78.htm

and Obama
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/

Where I can find detailed versions?

[AGE-Ranger]

Ok, the issues.

Please explain how Obama's anti-oil, anti-drilling, anti-exploration is going to help gas prices? How in the world in hindering America's progress going to help the economy?

I just got done watching Morning Joe and their interviews with McCain's and Obama's people. McCain's spokesperson was grilled on economy, Iraq and gas prices. Obama's on the other hand, was asked about Hillary, Bill and the evils. I think the question is if Obama will EVER be taken to task on the issues, from the very people who carry his water?


The only official move by the Obama site here seems to be deleting the post in question.

LOL, he better get to work than. It seems his site is a meeting place for anti-semitics.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/blog/jemaahislamiyahforobama

Furthermore, Senator Obama will take a much more rational approach in the Middle East. No longer will that zionist entity, whose name I hate to even write be able to oppress our Palestinian brothers and sisters with impunity. If anyone can stop the illegal occupation of Palestinian lands, I know it is Barack Obama!

In fact , a search of "jewish lobby" on Obama's site brings up all kinds of racial hated!
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/search?q=jewish+lobby



Keep defending him though. Its very interesting.

[Mackie]

Ok, the issues.

Please explain how Obama's anti-oil, anti-drilling, anti-exploration is going to help gas prices? How in the world in hindering America's progress going to help the economy?

I just got done watching Morning Joe and their interviews with McCain's and Obama's people. McCain's spokesperson was grilled on economy, Iraq and gas prices. Obama's on the other hand, was asked about Hillary, Bill and the evils. I think the question is if Obama will EVER be taken to task on the issues, from the very people who carry his water?

Senseless!

I want a detailed list of McCain and Obamas program.
Actually you cannot evaluate the better candidate.
Talking about tax cuts and patriotism is for morons who doesn't know anything. I am missing facts in this election.

Every buck invested in the military is based on depts. Bush increased the whole depts 60% on 9 Trillion dollars. 700 bn trade deficit every year.

The scandal is that both candidates talk about tax cuts and more spending.
But where they want to take the money?


BTW: How to help gas prices? Fuel efficiency!
The most houses today build in the US would be illegal in Germany because of the bad isolation. $18.000 for a new pick up truck with outofdate technology? With modern Diesel technology you could abstain from Saudi oil. The problem is made by the US governments in the last 30 years and the powerful US oil lobby.

[vryhpyammoadded]

Well, the reason I keep harping on Obama is that I see him as just another political wolf in sheep’s clothing and I want to throw the biggest wet blanket I can possibly muster on all this CHANGE mismo beam glory the Christ child is shining on his minions since he won the votes for the Dim nomination.

I know that an Obama executive combined with a possible Dim supermajority will saddle the US with even worse big government economic problems down the road than we have now or even remotely could with McCain. A republican executive, even RINO, will ensure at least a little adversarial relationship between the White House and the Hill staving off Obama and the lefts CHANGE™ a little longer for proper CHANGE to come from the people at a later date.

To dump another big budget, centralized federal grift machine on the US economy would be a disaster. We need to get working on fixing what we’ve got before proceeding on with another grandiose, egalitarian white elephant nor do we need an artificial recession designed to distract the people, make them more frightened and dependant, brought on through massive tax increases.

Yeh, I know. McCain is a black hat RINO libtard who will most likely cave into Pelosi and her ilk but at least he’s not promising to blow our national brains out with CHANGE. I will not endorse or give my mandate to that platform and would rather see McCain potentially crash the whole system with a continuation of the Clinton/Bush era big corrupt government.

I know the following concepts are unrealistic. There are just no real leaders left in the US government willing to take on the people anymore but…

I say freeze taxes where they are.
Gradually shrink government in stages, eventually by a whole lot.
Fire the Hill and replace all incumbents.
Sack both party elite and rebuild.
Refresh the federal bureaucracy management.
Break up as many centralized federal departments as possible and give their power to the states.
Deregulate, deregulate, deregulate…

In other words, shrink federal costs and decentralize much of its power gained since WWII to the states.

[hell]

Ok, the issues.

Please explain how Obama's anti-oil, anti-drilling, anti-exploration is going to help gas prices? How in the world in hindering America's progress going to help the economy?

Because drilling in protected areas is 1) a temporary fix, and 2) won't bring about results for several years. It's already been discussed, but it's nice to see you still have an appetite to destroy a preserved piece of natural wonder simply because you don't live there. What's your next argument for, the wonderous benefits of liquified coal?



I just got done watching Morning Joe and their interviews with McCain's and Obama's people. McCain's spokesperson was grilled on economy, Iraq and gas prices. Obama's on the other hand, was asked about Hillary, Bill and the evils. I think the question is if Obama will EVER be taken to task on the issues, from the very people who carry his water?

I would have thought you of all people would be happy about that. McCain is getting the questions concerning actual problems, and Obama is fielding bs about the Clintons. Why is he not getting asked about the difficult stuff? Is it a liberal media plot? Nope, it's ratings, and nothing more. Think I'm joking or misguided? Go to google news, and click on the "Most Popular" button. What comes up 98% of the time? Some Britany Spears/Hanna Montana/American Idol crap. It would be great if the public at large was interested in real issues like some of the folks here, but guess what, they aren't. They're perfectly content being queued into mass-sales pitches and gossip. Too many people don't want to face the facts of real news everyday, it's depressing, and often complicated. So they bury their head in the sand and focus on what clothes some cocaine-laden anorexic teenager is endorsing.


It seems his site is a meeting place for anti-semitics.

In fact , a search of "jewish lobby" on Obama's site brings up all kinds of racial hated!


I honestly didn't go to the links you provided, I just don't feel like wasting time sorting through troll posts, I already do that here. And if his forum isn't moderated with an overly-heavy hand, it will have posts from all kinds of fringe nutjobs, just like this forum. Go ahead and accuse any of the operators of this site of anti-sematic beliefs if you want to as well, you can find that same type of crap here, it doesn't mean the people operating the site endorse it, it means that almost anyone can register and post a given amount of stuff before they are caught/penalized.

You can get upset about anyone here "defending" Obama all you want, but for the most part, they wouldn't have to constantly defend him if you weren't constantly attacking him.

[Mackie]

@vryhpyammoadded

I agree that deregulation can give the economy a boost an brings competition between the states. But this is one point. Health care, military, pensions and the most taxes are country issues.

I am still missing facts about the candidates programs but I am sure the US needs a independent and good educated president who is focused on the economy.
The Vietnam-Hero argument is nice and deserves respect. But in a presidential election it is useless. Political influence is the worst what could happen to military. The budget is high enough and it depends on the Pentagon what they do with the buck.


@all
My intention is to post real critics about the candidates here and not to quote the poor media.


BTW:
I am wondering how many mistakes a US presidential candidate can make and isn't out of the race. Obamas pastor, McCain and Goodyear, .......

[AGE-Ranger]

@vryhpyammoadded

I agree that deregulation can give the economy a boost an brings competition between the states. But this is one point. Health care, military, pensions and the most taxes are country issues.

I am still missing facts about the candidates programs but I am sure the US needs a independent and good educated president who is focused on the economy.
The Vietnam-Hero argument is nice and deserves respect. But in a presidential election it is useless. Political influence is the worst what could happen to military. The budget is high enough and it depends on the Pentagon what they do with the buck.


@all
My intention is to post real critics about the candidates here and not to quote the poor media.


BTW:
I am wondering how many mistakes a US presidential candidate can make and isn't out of the race. Obamas pastor, McCain and Goodyear, .......


No offense, but what do you know about life in America? Do you live here? Do you understand the dynamics of the politics of each state? I ask because certain things you say, show a misunderstanding about what power the president has, what the American people want, how state politics works, ect. I just don't understand how the non-Americans have so much to say about our election.

To your last question, it depends on the party of the candidate. Since most of the media is democrat and will be voting Obama, don't expect to see Obama called on much of anything. Thats part of the reason people like me are so animated when it comes to Obama.

[Createdeemcee]

BTW: How to help gas prices? Fuel efficiency!
The most houses today build in the US would be illegal in Germany because of the bad isolation. $18.000 for a new pick up truck with outofdate technology? With modern Diesel technology you could abstain from Saudi oil. The problem is made by the US governments in the last 30 years and the powerful US oil lobby.

Nail on the head!!!

[Createdeemcee]

Absolutly funny. I thought it's a "Presidential Election thread" and not "Bahsing Obama".
What's about the "Bomb bomb Iran" and "know nothing about economy" McCain?

What's his plan to win in Iraq? 4000 more dead soldiers?


You cant expect much different from a US mil Discussion forum could you?? Who wants to see their comrads Die in Vein. No one does but when it starts effecting the lively hoods of those loved ones here then enough is enough. Their (Extremmist) fire started burning 5000+ years ago during the crusades, Hasnt blown out since then, what makes most of you think its will majicly after we syat a 20 year tenure. Will never happen folks. Aslong as we are a non muslim army on their lans will never happen.

[BloodDiamondPants]

Note to self: Don't...play...crappy...Billy Joel song! Nooooooooo!

[JKD]

Ok, the issues.

Please explain how Obama's anti-oil, anti-drilling, anti-exploration is going to help gas prices? How in the world in hindering America's progress going to help the economy?
You and I have discussed that before.


I just got done watching Morning Joe and their interviews with McCain's and Obama's people. McCain's spokesperson was grilled on economy, Iraq and gas prices. Obama's on the other hand, was asked about Hillary, Bill and the evils. I think the question is if Obama will EVER be taken to task on the issues, from the very people who carry his water?
....aaand then you just slide right back into whining about the media.


LOL, he better get to work than. It seems his site is a meeting place for anti-semitics.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/blog/jemaahislamiyahforobama


In fact , a search of "jewish lobby" on Obama's site brings up all kinds of racial hated!
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/search?q=jewish+lobby
The blog thing on that site certainly seems to be a bad idea. It's wide open. I just checked and the only thing required to post over there is a very quick and easy registration. Every nut job with an internet connection who happens to support Obama or just likes pushing buttons on a keyboard is free to make trouble on there. There wouldn't really even be anything stopping a mischievous McCain supporter from going over there and posting a bunch of anti-jewish stuff to try and make Obama look bad if they wanted.

I know right-wing bloggers and talk radio eat this sort of stuff up by the shovel load but this is just not the sort of thing my vote is based on. Obama's webmaster is not running for office.



Keep defending him though. Its very interesting.
Okey dokey, Dronetek.

[AGE-Ranger]

I know right-wing bloggers and talk radio eat this sort of stuff up by the shovel load but this is just not the sort of thing my vote is based on. Obama's webmaster is not running for office.



Bush isn't running for president, but thats not stopping Obama/media from talking about McCain's campaign like Bush is his running mate.

[ronnieraygun]

Okey dokey, Dronetek.

RUH ROH.....

[ronnieraygun]

Bush isn't running for president, but thats not stopping Obama/media from talking about McCain's campaign like Bush is his running mate.

It's sound strategy. Link McCain to his party's lame duck with the lowest approval rating since Grant, arguably. McCain didn't help matters to differ himself when he made the offhand remark about staying in Iraq for 100 years if need be.

[AGE-Ranger]

RUH ROH.....

I don't get it. What a dronetek?



It's sound strategy. Link McCain to his party's lame duck with the lowest approval rating since Grant, arguably. McCain didn't help matters to differ himself when he made the offhand remark about staying in Iraq for 100 years if need be.

So, its "sound strategy" when democrats do it? Seems like another case of, "Its ok when democrats do it" to me.

[ronnieraygun]

So, its "sound strategy" when democrats do it? Seems like another case of, "Its ok when democrats do it" to me.


Who said that? It's just politics. It's just strategy. Just like planting a story about a non-existent video tape where some black chick goes off.

[JKD]

I don't get it. What a dronetek?
http://forums.liveleak.com/showpost.php?p=199637&postcount=8
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showpost.php?p=3282061&postcount=8

http://forums.liveleak.com/showpost.php?p=166211&postcount=13



So, its "sound strategy" when democrats do it? Seems like another case of, "Its ok when democrats do it" to me.

If McCain's positions line up with Bush, a massively unpopular president, I don't see the problem in pointing it out. Unlike Obama's webmaster, McCain is running for office.

[AGE-Ranger]

http://forums.liveleak.com/showpost.php?p=199637&postcount=8
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showpost.php?p=3282061&postcount=8

http://forums.liveleak.com/showpost.php?p=166211&postcount=13




If McCain's positions line up with Bush, a massively unpopular president, I don't see the problem in pointing it out. Unlike Obama's webmaster, McCain is running for office.

Well, we don't know much about Obama's policies which is why we are all so interested in the people surrounding him.

On the other note, yeah I'm dronetek. So, you've found a way out of this debate by getting me banned.

[JKD]

Well, we don't know much about Obama's policies which is why we are all so interested in the people surrounding him.
His policy proposals are out there. In fact they are on his website. Go take a look. Educate yourself on where the candidates stand.


On the other note, yeah I'm dronetek. So, you've found a way out of this debate by getting me banned.
No, I've known for weeks, ever since I noticed your obsession with the media, and have been debating you the whole time. And we're still debating.

[AGE-Ranger]

His policy proposals are out there. In fact they are on his website. Go take a look. Educate yourself on where the candidates stand.

From what I do know of his policies, it makes me want to know more about the people that surround him. If Obama is going to claim McCain is Bush, than hes got to be ready to explain his policies in relation to the people hes close to. What I don't understand is how McCain was a "Maverick" to the media and democrats before he was the nominee, becoming popular for opposing Bush. Now that hes our nominee he practically IS Bush.



No, I've known for weeks, ever since I noticed your obsession with the media, and have been debating you the whole time. And we're still debating.Until a certain someone sees it. Plus, I already PM'd one of them to beg for clemency. :cantbeli: :(

[JKD]

From what I do know of his policies, it makes me want to know more about the people that surround him.
And this is where the discussion becomes pointless. You're locked into your talking points.



Until a certain someone sees it. Plus, I already PM'd one of them to beg for clemency. :cantbeli:
I hope you get it.

[AGE-Ranger]

And this is where the discussion becomes pointless. You're locked into your talking points.

.

JKD, I'm afraid we may never see eye to eye on this. You think McCain's associations mean something, for whatever the reasons are, but dismiss any of Obama's associations for any reason. I cant tell you how many examples of this I've run in to over the years. I'm not calling you a democrat, but it just seems like Democrats operate under a set of rules, that they believe is only legitimate when they do it.

How in the world you can dismiss Obama's extreme supporters, endorsements, and life long mentors is beyond me. If you can somehow attribute Bush's policies to McCain, than I should be able to attribute Obama's polices to the people who have befriended, donated to or mentored him.


I hope you get it.Thanks man. I've never understood why I was originally banned in the first place. Something about "getting too big for my britches".

[JKD]

JKD, I'm afraid we may never see eye to eye on this. You think McCain's associations mean something, for whatever the reasons are, but dismiss any of Obama's associations for any reason.
I don't recall ever bringing up any of McCain's associations.


I cant tell you how many examples of this I've run in to over the years. I'm not calling you a democrat, but it just seems like Democrats operate under a set of rules, that they believe is only legitimate when they do it.
Dude, all sides do that.


How in the world you can dismiss Obama's extreme supporters, endorsements, and life long mentors is beyond me.
Other's bear more scrutiny and rightfully raise more eyebrows than others but none of them are running for office. And some random schmoe who happens to post a blog on a site where anyone at all can post a blog just doesn't doesn't set off any of my alarm bells. I could go over there right now, register, and post a blog about how McCain is controlled by Martians. It's not at all good way to run a campaign website but it doesn't mean Obama thinks McCain is controlled by Martians.



If you can somehow attribute Bush's policies to McCain, than I should be able to attribute Obama's polices to the people who have befriended, donated to or mentored him.
For one McCain has said he'll continue Bush's tax cuts. Whether a person agrees with that position or not, it's a direct link to the policies of Bush.

Where is a direct link to Obama's positions with those people try and tie him to?

[noname]

And this is where the discussion becomes pointless. You're locked into your talking points.


The pot calling the kettle black. Not meant to be deragatory in anyway to barak hussein.

[Mackie]

For one McCain has said he'll continue Bush's tax cuts. Whether a person agrees with that position or not, it's a direct link to the policies of Bush.

Where is a direct link to Obama's positions with those people try and tie him to?

Both want to continue tax cuts. But nobody explain where the money should come from.

[Calanen]

http://www.youtube.com/v/ZxBX8sz3tO8

Obama has a bad lack of teleprompter moment.

[Zoomie]

Obama has a bad lack of teleprompter moment.
Who needs speeches when you have Hope and Change! p-)

[Cactuar]

Who needs speeches when you have Hope and Change! p-)

Honestly, I think that's what America needs right now. I consider myself a moderate liberal, and I think the country needs a change in direction after 8 years of conservative policy. I'm not saying that all the problems with this country are the Republican Party's fault, I just think that it would be fair to see how much would improve/decline when liberal policies are put into place.

I really don't get all the Obama hate here either. I could conjure up a dozen McCain 'gaffe' videos or what have you, but in the end, do they really mean anything? (Well, actually, the Katrina 'gaffe' is pretty damning, but I doubt that it will change minds here) Both of these candidates give many speeches a day, and because they mess up one part of a single speech, it somehow becomes a weapon to prove why they shouldn't be President? Or is it just the "HAR HAR LOOK HE MESSED UP HAR HAR" factor? Whatever.

[Hilbert]

Honestly, I think that's what America needs right now. I consider myself a moderate liberal, and I think the country needs a change in direction after 8 years of conservative policy. I'm not saying that all the problems with this country are the Republican Party's fault, I just think that it would be fair to see how much would improve/decline when liberal policies are put into place.

I really don't get all the Obama hate here either. I could conjure up a dozen McCain 'gaffe' videos or what have you, but in the end, do they really mean anything? (Well, actually, the Katrina 'gaffe' is pretty damning, but I doubt that it will change minds here) Both of these candidates give many speeches a day, and because they mess up one part of a single speech, it somehow becomes a weapon to prove why they shouldn't be President? Or is it just the "HAR HAR LOOK HE MESSED UP HAR HAR" factor? Whatever.

I agree on the change part, we need a change of direction away from BOTH parties, the Democrats and the Republicans; they're both responsible for the sinking of this country. I used to side with the Republicans/Conservatives but they seem to be abandoning the stuff I side with them on and the Democrats just want to chart another direction we've been to and seen before. If the people screaming for "change" really want to see a change, how about electing an independent for once in our country's history and seeing how it goes. Best case we get that change we want and find ourselves on a new course, worst case we get more of the same old crap just like we would've with the Democrats or Republicans. Personally, I'm voting Bob Barr the Libertarian candidate, as it stands he doesn't have a chance in hell but at least I can say I actually wanted and voted for change.

-Hilde

[Zoomie]

Honestly, I think that's what America needs right now. I consider myself a moderate liberal, and I think the country needs a change in direction after 8 years of conservative policy. I'm not saying that all the problems with this country are the Republican Party's fault, I just think that it would be fair to see how much would improve/decline when liberal policies are put into place.
Obama's not bringing anything really new to the table, just more of the same old stuff.

it somehow becomes a weapon to prove why they shouldn't be President? Or is it just the "HAR HAR LOOK HE MESSED UP HAR HAR" factor? Whatever.
The Anti-Bush people have no problem using it as for both those reasons.

[Hilbert]

Obama's not bringing anything really new to the table, just more of the same old stuff.

The problem is McCain is also more of the same old stuff, just like Obama.


The Anti-Bush people have no problem using it as for both those reasons.

Yeah, pretty much everyone in politics does it.

[Mackie]

Personally, I'm voting Bob Barr the Libertarian candidate, as it stands he doesn't have a chance in hell but at least I can say I actually wanted and voted for change.

-Hilde

^^
http://www.alternet.org/election08/86514/

I doubt that Barr is more Change.

[AGE-Ranger]

^^
http://www.alternet.org/election08/86514/

I doubt that Barr is more Change.

Nobody has explained how Obama is change! Can you explain what change is?


Change would be not bringing up Obama from a quote that has nothing to do with Obama !

Its implied.

[Clayton Gold]

Nobody has explained how Obama is change! Can you explain what change is?

Change would be not bringing up Obama from a quote that has nothing to do with Obama !


It's implied.Ahh yes, While he was talking about "Barr", and posted an article about "Barr" - what he really meant, or was 'implying' was "Obama". Thanks for clearing that up for us.

[budgie]

Nobody has explained how Obama is change! Can you explain what change is?

Change? I guess change is good for any of us...whatever it takes for y'all to get up outta the hood...I'm witcha, I ain't mad at cha...Got nuttin' but love for ya...

Obama plans to pull out of Iraq, whereas the current administration wants to stay. He wants to overhaul education and healthcare and move towards a broader public coverage. He says he will talk to America's so-called 'enemies' rather than firing unfriendly rhetoric as seems to be the current trend, he wants close Guantanamo's prison and end torture committed by the CIA. He may attempt to roll back tax cuts put in place by the current administration. And a lot of people here seem to think he's after their guns too.

Now some may not agree with these proposals or that they are change for the better, but regardless, they are proposed changes. So let's put to rest the silly argument that Obama is all talk and no change. He does have plans and the difference between these and his opponent's are what smart voters will pay attention to when deciding whether or not to vote for Obama or MCcain, not Jeremiah Wright or or a foreign-sounding surname.

Do your thing....

[Laworkerbee]

Budgie, getting down with his bad self rofl

*that was jive*

[budgie]

Budgie, getting down with his bad self rofl

*that was jive*

Why thank you...ummm..."G"

[hank]

Change? I guess change is good for any of us...whatever it takes for y'all to get up outta the hood...I'm witcha, I ain't mad at cha...Got nuttin' but love for ya...

Obama plans to pull out of Iraq, whereas the current administration wants to stay. He wants to overhaul education and healthcare and move towards a broader public coverage. He says he will talk to America's so-called 'enemies' rather than firing unfriendly rhetoric as seems to be the current trend, he wants close Guantanamo's prison and end torture committed by the CIA. He may attempt to roll back tax cuts put in place by the current administration. And a lot of people here seem to think he's after their guns too.

Now some may not agree with these proposals or that they are change for the better, but regardless, they are proposed changes. So let's put to rest the silly argument that Obama is all talk and no change. He does have plans and the difference between these and his opponent's are what smart voters will pay attention to when deciding whether or not to vote for Obama or MCcain, not Jeremiah Wright or or a foreign-sounding surname.

Do your thing....

Budgie, in the future please refrain from this type of intellectual thought and analysis. It really doesn't add anything to the discussion. And when I say discussion i mean the repeated repeating of the statements Hannity, Rush, and the new conservative crew repeat repeatedly on Fox news and the radio over and over repeatedly.

Instead of wasting precious braincells on thought related to the election if you'd simply drink from this cup. Thanks a lot.

hank

[Mordecai]

Obama's Not Exactly's

1.) Selma Got Me Born - NOT EXACTLY, your parents felt safe enough to have you in 1961 - Selma had no effect on your birth, as Selma was in 1965. (Google 'Obama Selma' for his full March 4, 2007 speech and articles about its various untruths.)

2.) My Father Was A Goat Herder - NOT EXACTLY, he was a privileged, well educated youth, who went on to work with the Kenyan Government.

3.) Father Was A Proud Freedom Fighter - NOT EXACTLY, he was part of one of the most corrupt and violent governments Kenya has ever had.

4.) My Family Has Strong Ties To African Freedom - NOT EXACTLY, your cousin Raila Odinga has created mass violence in attempting to overturn a legitimate election in 2007, in Kenya. It is the first widespread violence in decades. The current government is pro-American but Odinga wants to overthrow it and establish Muslim Sharia law. Your half-brother, Abongo Oba ma, is Odinga's follower. You interrupted your New Hampshire campaigning to speak to Odinga on the phone.

Obama's cousin Odinga in Kenya ran for president and tried to get Sharia muslim law in place there. When Odinga lost the elections, his followers have burned Christians' homes and then burned men, women and children alive in a Christian church where they took shelter.. Obama SUPPORTED his cousin before the election process here started.

Google Obama and Odinga and see what you get. No one wants to know the truth.

5.) My Grandmother Has Always Been A Christian - NOT EXACTLY, she does her daily Salat prayers at 5am according to her own interviews. Not to mention, Christianity wouldn't allow her to have been one of 14 wives to 1 man.

6.) My Name is African Swahili - NOT EXACTLY, your name is Arabic and 'Baraka' (from which Barack came) means 'blessed' in that language. Hussein is also Arabic and so is Obama.

Barack Hussein Obama is not half black. If elected, he would be the first Arab-American President, not the first black President. Barack Hussein Obama is 50% Caucasian from his mother's side and 43.75% Arabic and 6.25% African Negro from his father's side. While Barack Hussein Obama's father was from Kenya, his father's family was mainly Arabs.. Barack Hussein Obama's father was only 12.5% African Negro and 87.5% Arab (his father's birth certificate even states he's Arab, not African Negro). From....and for more....go to.....

http://www.arcadeathome.com/newsboy.....25%25_African (http://www.arcadeathome.com/newsboy.phtml?Barack_Hussein_Obama_-_Arab-American,_only_6.25%25_African)

7.) I Never Practiced Islam - NOT EXACTLY, you practiced it daily at school, where you were registered as a Muslim and kept that faith for 31 years, until your wife made you change, so you could run for office.
4-3-08 Article "Obama was 'quite religious in islam'" http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=60559

8.) My School In Indonesia Was Christian - NOT EXACTLY, you were registered as Muslim there and got in trouble in Koranic Studies for making faces (check your own book).

February 28, 2008. Kristoff from the New York Times a year ago: Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated (it'll give Alabama voters heart attacks), Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset." This is just one example of what Pamela is talking about when she says "Obama's narrative is being altered, enhanced and manipulated to whitewash troubling facts."

9.) I Was Fluent In Indonesian - NOT EXACTLY, not one teacher says you could speak the language.

10.) Because I Lived In Indonesia, I Have More Foreign Experience - NOT EXACTLY, you were there from the ages of
6 to 10, and couldn't even speak the language. What did you learn, how to study the Koran and watch cartoons?

11.) I Am Stronger On Foreign Affairs - NOT EXACTLY, except for Africa (surprise) and the Middle East (bigger surprise), you have never been anywhere else on the planet and thus have NO experience with our closest allies.

12.) I Blame My Early Drug Use On Ethnic Confusion - NOT EXACTLY, you were quite content in high school to be Barry Obama, no mention of Kenya and no mention of struggle to identify - your classmates said you were just fine.

13.)An Ebony Article Moved Me To Run For Office - NOT EXACTLY, Ebony has yet to find the article you mention in your book. It doesn't, and never did, exist.

14.) A Life Magazine Article Changed My Outlook On Life - NOT EXACTLY, Life has yet to find the article you mention in your book. It doesn't, and never did, exist.

15.) I Won't Run On A National Ticket In '08 - NOT EXACTLY, here you are, despite saying, live on TV, that you would not have enough experience by then, and you are all about having experience first.

16.) Voting "Present" is Common In Illinois Senate - NOT EXACTLY, they are common for YOU, but not many others have 130 NO VOTES.

17.) Oops, I Misvoted - NOT EXACTLY, only when caught by church groups and Democrats, did you beg to change your misvote.

18.) I Was A Professor Of Law - NOT EXACTLY, you were a senior lecturer ON LEAVE.

19.) I Was A Constitutional Lawyer - NOT EXACTLY, you were a senior lecturer ON LEAVE.

20.) Without Me, There Would Be No Ethics Bill - NOT EXACTLY, you didn't write it, introduce it, change it, or create it.

21.) The Ethics Bill Was Hard To Pass - NOT EXACTLY, it took just 14 days from start to finish.

22.) I Wrote A Tough Nuclear Bill - NOT EXACTLY, your bill was rejected by your own party for its pandering and lack of all regulation - mainly because of your Nuclear donor, Exelon, from which David Axelrod came.

23.) I Have Released My State Records - NOT EXACTLY, as of March, 2008, state bills you sponsored or voted for have yet to be released, exposing all the special interests pork are still closed.

24.) I Took On The Asbestos Altgeld Gardens Mess - NOT EXACTLY, you were part of a large group of people who remedied Altgeld Gardens. You failed to mention anyone else but yourself, in your books.

25.) My Economics Bill Will Help America - NOT EXACTLY, your 111 economic policies were just combined into a proposal which lost 99-0, and even YOU voted against your own bill.

26.) I Have Been A Bold Leader In Illinois - NOT EXACTLY, even your own supporters claim to have not seen BOLD action on your part.

27.) I Passed 26 Of My Own Bills In One Year - NOT EXACTLY, they were not YOUR bills, but rather handed to you, after their creation by a fellow Senator, to assist you in a future bid for higher office.

28.) No One on my campaign contacted Canada about NAFTA - NOT EXACTLY, the Candian Government issued the names and a memo of the conversation your campaign had with them.

29.) I Am Tough On Terrorism - NOT EXACTLY, you missed the Iran Resolution vote on terrorism and your good friend Ali Abunimah supports the destruction of Israel.

30.) I Want All Votes To Count - NOT EXACTLY, you said let the delegates decide.

31.) I Want Americans To Decide - NOT EXACTLY, you prefer caucuses that limit the vote, confuse the voters, force a public vote, and only operate during small windows of time.

32.) I passed 900 Bills in the State Senate - NOT EXACTLY, you passed 26, most of which you didn't write yourself.

33.) I Believe In Fairness, Not Tactics - NOT EXACTLY, you used tactics to eliminate Alice Palmer from running against you.

34.) I Don't Take PAC Money - NOT EXACTLY, you take LOADS of it.

35.) I don't Have Lobbyist - NOT EXACTLY, you have over 47 lobbyists and counting.

36.) My Campaign Had Nothing To Do With The 1984 Ad - NOT EXACTLY, your own campaign worker made the ad on his Apple in one afternoon.

37.) I Have Always Been Against Iraq - NOT EXACTLY, you weren't in office to vote against it AND you have voted to fund it every single time.

38.) I Have Always Supported Universal Health Care - NOT EXACTLY, your plan leaves us all to pay for the 15,000,000 who don't have to buy it "Qui non intelligit aut discat aut taceat". Who does not understand should either learn, or be silent

Not that I agree with everything but some of it is pretty interesting... Stole this from another site.

Crip

[AGE-Ranger]

Change? I guess change is good for any of us...whatever it takes for y'all to get up outta the hood...I'm witcha, I ain't mad at cha...Got nuttin' but love for ya...

Obama plans to pull out of Iraq, whereas the current administration wants to stay.

First of all, thats nothing but wishful thinking. The democrats said the same thing in the 2006 elections and they didnt do anything of the sort. The reason is, we simply cant just leave and everyone knows it. Secondly, Its not a matter of wanting to stay. Its a matter of responsibility. Obama has gone back and forth on the question of leaving Iraq anyway.

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=6001af15-399f-4b11-b7fb-6f52baca6bcc

Iraq: He wants us out of Iraq; but he's not willing to do it at any cost--even if it means dashing the hopes of some of his more fervent and naïve supporters.http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/03/08/obama_stance_on_iraq_shows_evolving_view/?page=2

Page 2 of 2 --"We have to manage our exit in a responsible way," he told the council, "at the very least taking care not to plunge the country into an even deeper and perhaps irreparable crisis."
He wants to overhaul education and healthcare and move towards a broader public coverage.Now we're getting somewhere. A move to a more socialist health care? We'll see how popular that is. As far as I know, most presidents do what they can for education. A real change would be to stop throwing money at the problem and get back to the basics.


He says he will talk to America's so-called 'enemies' rather than firing unfriendly rhetoric as seems to be the current trend,We already talk to our enemies. What Obama wants to do is have high level, status giving talks with people want to destroy both us and Israel. They will use them exactly like Kim Jong and Saddam did Madeline Albright. There is no change there, simply repeating failed policy.


he wants close Guantanamo's prison and end torture committed by the CIA.More wishful thinking. Where are you going to put all the prisoners? Their home countries don't want them. We don't want them launching attacks, so how is he going to close it? I'm all for prosecution of those people, but simply closing the prison seems short sighted.

The CIA admitted to water boarding 3 people, all connected to 9/11. Just because you guys have overblown it for years, doesn't make it widespread. Will Obama water board to save American lives? Back to the good ol' days of letting Americans die without response? Wheres the change?


He may attempt to roll back tax cuts put in place by the current administration. And a lot of people here seem to think he's after their guns too.So, we're going to roll back tax cuts in a down turned economy, which will create unemployment and and less spent on goods and services. Which would mean we're back to good ol' Tax and spend! Where is the change?

Gee, I wonder why people think hes after their guns (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/06/AR2008040601652.html)?



You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them...And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.
And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

[hank]

AGE, your post is typical. You make the essentially procedural attack that Obama doesn't specify the change he wants. Then Budgie gives concrete examples of changes proposed by Obama. In response you attack them on the merits. By doing so, you implicitly take notice of the very changes Obama wants to make. Its very circular and typical.

Look, we all get it. You don't like obama. OK. But if you don't see the logical inconsistency in your positions then I'm sorry. If you don't like Obama's proposals for change then you must at least admit that they are proposals for change.

But I imagine you'll tell me that I'm spouting the party liberal line. Despite the fact that I'm neither liberal nor spouting anything other than the logical fallacy in your position.

hank

[Zoomie]

But I imagine you'll tell me that I'm spouting the party liberal line. Despite the fact that I'm neither liberal nor spouting anything other than the logical fallacy in your position.

hank
Hank,
Quit spouting the liberal party line!
Sorry, just had to beat Dronetek to it. p-)

[hank]

Hank,
Quit spouting the liberal party line!
Sorry, just had to beat Dronetek to it. p-)

How the hell is AGE getting away with that crap? If I pulled some sh*t like that CJ would cut my nuts off methinks.

hank

[AGE-Ranger]

AGE, your post is typical. You make the essentially procedural attack that Obama doesn't specify the change he wants. Then Budgie gives concrete examples of changes proposed by Obama. In response you attack them on the merits. By doing so, you implicitly take notice of the very changes Obama wants to make. Its very circular and typical.

What you're doing is reading and seeing what you want to and not comprehending it very well. Obama's so called "change" is really just recycled left wing policies. I simply don't accept your premise that these policies are different from the past.

Am I supposed to just nod my head and agree? This is a debate forum!


Look, we all get it. You don't like obama. OK. But if you don't see the logical inconsistency in your positions then I'm sorry. If you don't like Obama's proposals for change then you must at least admit that they are proposals for change.Hank, why do you always single me out? There are plenty of other people, echoing my concerns about Obama. If you cant deal with it, go to a forum where everyone agrees Obama is great.


But I imagine you'll tell me that I'm spouting the party liberal line. Despite the fact that I'm neither liberal nor spouting anything other than the logical fallacy in your position.

hankYes, you've said that many, many times. :roll:

Now do what you usually do and attack me, instead of ever actually replying with something of substance. Simply throwing around the term "logical fallacy" wont cut it. Whats the fallacy and wheres the proof? Post some articles and links to back up your argument.

[hank]

Hank, why do you always single me out? There are plenty of other people, echoing my concerns about Obama. If you cant deal with it, go to a forum where everyone agrees Obama is great. You'll be right at home agree with everyone.


Because you have a severe case of insipid oral diarrhea. You just post and post the same tired Obama attacks over and over. Ask blooddiamondpants about insipid oral diarrhea. He'll be able to tell you what it means and where it comes from.

I'd gladly talk substance with you but that doesn't work with you. Just like with Budgie's post you'll just switch and start attacking Obama. Your comments are the quintessential moving target. And if in response to your attacks on Obama I say that McCain is a terrible candidate, you'll then say you're tired of everyone attacking republicans and the democratic media conspiracy to attack republicans. Its a great little flip flop you've got going.

Just like your comment about rolling back tax cuts. If we got here with tax cuts then why do you think tax increases will make it worse? You statement is illogical. Thus, methinks you lack the acumen to talk about this issue intelligently. But Rush and Hannity say that so you do as well. And if I tried to discuss that issue with you intelligently, then you'd just turn it into an attack on Obama's inexperience, faux pas, etc. The fact is an economist (or someone like Flagg who knows) would tell you that tax cuts or increases are long term and not short term. You need to look more than 4 or 8 years out to see the real effect of tax cuts. But that won't interest you bc you see that as an opportunity to attack Obama.

hank

[hank]

Now do what you usually do and attack me, instead of ever actually replying with something of substance. Simply throwing around the term "logical fallacy" wont cut it. Whats the fallacy and wheres the proof? Post some articles and links to back up your argument.

This is the nature of your logical problem. I don't need an article to see your statements aren't logical. logic is an intellectual framework and set of rules to guide independent thought. Since you apparently don't do a lot of it I don't think you get it.

Look up syllogism when you get a minute. It might be a revelation for you.

As I said in my previous post, I don't want to debate with you. I'm content to simply point out that you don't make sense. The times that I've tried to debate with you you've just labelled me a liberal and party-line spouter.

hank

[California Joe]

How the hell is AGE getting away with that crap? If I pulled some sh*t like that CJ would cut my nuts off methinks.

hank

hank, I just don't care enough to post anymore. I don't see the point. It's like arguing with a mental patient that thinks he's William F. Buckley. The hilarious part is that he actually identifies himself with the "critical thinking" that 2Sheds was speaking of before, as opposed to a "lack thereof".

I don't have an IP match to a banned user but I'm pretty sure he is that guy and I suppose I could just ban him but then Obama might have it too easy and just cruise into the Whitehouse.

[hank]

hank, I just don't care enough to post anymore. I don't see the point. It's like arguing with a mental patient that thinks he's William F. Buckley. The hilarious part is that he actually identifies himself with the "critical thinking" that 2Sheds was speaking of before, as opposed to a "lack thereof".

I don't have an IP match to a banned user but I'm pretty sure he is that guy and I suppose I could just ban him but then Obama might have it too easy and just cruise into the Whitehouse.

I know what you mean. I lose interest then I read something egregious and feel compelled to post. Then I lost interest again. Its cyclical like the economy. Oh wait that is a democrat conspircacy.

The thinking that goes on in here cannot be properly characterized as "critical."

hank

[ronnieraygun]

Yeah, Dronetek kind of showed up and became a bit of a threadkiller.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png

[Zoomie]

I don't have an IP match to a banned user but I'm pretty sure he is that guy and I suppose I could just ban him but then Obama might have it too easy and just cruise into the Whitehouse.

Or CJ, you could just look at his own confession (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?p=3305987&highlight=Dronetek#post3305987).

[California Joe]

I don't read everything around here you know.

I suppose I could leave it up to you guys that post in this thread...

[Power_serj]

You guys debate like politicians....that is not a good thing.

[hank]

You guys debate like politicians....that is not a good thing.

How's the smuggling going there genius?

hank

[Power_serj]

point proven.

[hank]

point proven.

Don't get your fellings hurt serj. You earned that title and we only kid those we love or who we think have something hidden in their anal cavity.

hank

[T3ngu]

How's the smuggling going there genius?

hank


point proven.


Don't get your fellings hurt serj. You earned that title and we only kid those we love or who we think have something hidden in their anal cavity.

hank

Quoted for posterity of the posterior

[beNder]

I'm still waiting for that bombshell.

[AGE-Ranger]

Because you have a severe case of insipid oral diarrhea. You just post and post the same tired Obama attacks over and over. Ask blooddiamondpants about insipid oral diarrhea. He'll be able to tell you what it means and where it comes from.

What are you doing? Every time I disagree with one of your premises, you get angry and start name calling. I do not agree that Obama's policies are changes and I provided Obama's own quotes to show that. Why cant you address Obama's stance, rather than lobbing insults?


I'd gladly talk substance with you but that doesn't work with you. Just like with Budgie's post you'll just switch and start attacking Obama. Your comments are the quintessential moving target. And if in response to your attacks on Obama I say that McCain is a terrible candidate, you'll then say you're tired of everyone attacking republicans and the democratic media conspiracy to attack republicans. Its a great little flip flop you've got going.I responded with Obama's own quotes and compared his policies to past democrats. How in the world is that an attack? Also, talk about Logical fallacies and straw man arguments. You're full of them!

"I say that Mccain is a terrible candidate, you'll than say"

Practically everything you post is an Ad_hominem attack. I've never supported McCain for president and I've never attacked Obama for his race. Yet, you and Joe were throwing those accusations around. Go ahead and attack McCain. I can promise I wont complain and lob insults about it like you're doing.


Dont worry, I'll show myself out.

[ronnieraygun]

I'm still waiting for that bombshell.

^^Not happening because there isn't one.


Anal smuggling, butthurt, sore, posterior...I see there is a lot of buttplay in this thread all of the sudden.

Speaking off asses, who do you guys think will be the VPs for these guys?

[hank]

I'm still waiting for that bombshell.

Serj has it in his can right now. As soon as he gets some astro-lube he's going to "drop" it methinks.

And when I say can I do mean ****.

hank

[hank]

Speaking off asses, who do you guys think will be the VPs for these guys?

ATL paper said this morning that Bobby Jindal (LA gov) might be McCain's choice. I like that but probably still can't vote for McCain.

hank

[ronnieraygun]

http://www.authorsden.com/ShortStoryImage/21113.jpg
I don't read everything around here you know.

I suppose I could leave it up to you guys that post in this thread...

[Zoomie]

ATL paper said this morning that Bobby Jindal (LA gov) might be McCain's choice. I like that but probably still can't vote for McCain.

hank
I hope not. If he does that, he'll be picking someone who's more of a rookie than Obama, and he'd be doing a disservice to Louisiana.

[ronnieraygun]

ATL paper said this morning that Bobby Jindal (LA gov) might be McCain's choice. I like that but probably still can't vote for McCain.

hank

His is a good story and I'm pretty sure he would give McCain more conservative street cred. Not to mention, it balances out any demographic criticisms were there to be two white guys running on the Republican side.

[hank]

I hope not. If he does that, he'll be picking someone who's more of a rookie than Obama, and he'd be doing a disservice to Louisiana.

Jindal is a clean slate. Can't hurt and might help. He could certainly energize the young Republican vote. But he's certainly a rookie. I thought it might be a compelling choice.

Plus, Jindal's wife is hot.

hank

[ronnieraygun]

Plus, Jindal's wife is hot.




Seconded. But South Asian women - the back hair. The back hair.

McCain/Jindal would produced the most MILFY cougary ticket EVAR.

[Zoomie]

Jindal is a clean slate. Can't hurt and might help. He could certainly energize the young Republican vote. But he's certainly a rookie. I thought it might be a compelling choice.

Plus, Jindal's wife is hot.

hank
One person I seriously hope McCain considers is Alaska's governor, Sarah Palin. She's got an extremely high approval rating up there (in the 90's I think), she's cut frivolous budget expenses by a billion and a half, and has balanced the budged. Not to mention she's got strong conservative values as well.

[hank]

Seconded. But South Asian women - the back hair. The back hair.

McCain/Jindal would produced the most MILFY cougary ticket EVAR.

Agreed. I prefer the term "fuzzy."

I can't dig on McCain's wife. She looks plastic.

hank

[ronnieraygun]

One person I seriously hope McCain considers is Alaska's governor, Sarah Palin. She's got an extremely high approval rating up there (in the 90's I think), she's cut frivolous budget expenses by a billion and a half, and has balanced the budged. Not to mention she's got strong conservative values as well.

Not to mention she's h...yeah, never mind.

That's a good choice, Zoomie. I don't know if she has enough influence among party stalwarts. They could choose her but other more ambitious types more entrenched in the party would be butthurt. That's how I'd call it, anyway.

[ronnieraygun]

Hey, check this out.

It's a Barack Obama doll in Germany.

http://www.deutsche-klassiker.de/beruehmtheiten/042f0b9ab30b8d901.php

[Laworkerbee]

Agreed. I prefer the term "fuzzy."

I can't dig on McCain's wife. She looks plastic.

hank

She is a hot beer baroness, it doesn't get better.

[Thor]

Serj has it in his can right now. As soon as he gets some astro-lube he's going to "drop" it methinks.

And when I say can I do mean ****.

hank
I may be mistaking, but I seem to recall that sodomy constitute a ground for disbarment in some U.S. states. Just a little heads up.

[hank]

I may be mistaking, but I seem to recall that sodomy constitute a ground for disbarment in some U.S. states. Just a little heads up.

Serj would have to join the bar before he could be disbarred. In order to join the bar he'd need to understand ad hoc ergo propter hoc and syllogism. Never happen.

hank

[hank]

She is a hot beer baroness, it doesn't get better.

That is true and normally that would carry the day. But something about her gives me the willies. I feel like if I touched the back of her head a compartment would open up and circuits might fall out like a Stepford Wife or something. I know its irrantional but I can't shake it.

hank

[Zoomie]

So Hank,
What's your take on Sarah Palin?

[Power_serj]

^^Not happening because there isn't one.


Anal smuggling, butthurt, sore, posterior...I see there is a lot of buttplay in this thread all of the sudden.

Speaking off asses, who do you guys think will be the VPs for these guys?

I'm widely known for smuggling collector weapons in my bunghole. Insertion is easy, getting them out is the hard part.


Serj made fun of me. =(

hank

Don't cry. I didn't mean to hurt your feelings. :hug:

By the way, proper nouns are supposed to be capitalized....guess they never taught that to you in law school, Hank (note the capital 'h' in your name).

Alright, enough teasing Hank.

As a resident of Florida, I'd like to see Crist on the ticket with McCain. He's already proven himself as an effective leader who is fiscally conservative.

[budgie]

First of all, thats nothing but wishful thinking. The democrats said the same thing in the 2006 elections and they didnt do anything of the sort. The reason is, we simply cant just leave and everyone knows it. Secondly, Its not a matter of wanting to stay. Its a matter of responsibility. Obama has gone back and forth on the question of leaving Iraq anyway.

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=6001af15-399f-4b11-b7fb-6f52baca6bcc
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/03/08/obama_stance_on_iraq_shows_evolving_view/?page=2
Now we're getting somewhere. A move to a more socialist health care? We'll see how popular that is. As far as I know, most presidents do what they can for education. A real change would be to stop throwing money at the problem and get back to the basics.

We already talk to our enemies. What Obama wants to do is have high level, status giving talks with people want to destroy both us and Israel. They will use them exactly like Kim Jong and Saddam did Madeline Albright. There is no change there, simply repeating failed policy.

More wishful thinking. Where are you going to put all the prisoners? Their home countries don't want them. We don't want them launching attacks, so how is he going to close it? I'm all for prosecution of those people, but simply closing the prison seems short sighted.

The CIA admitted to water boarding 3 people, all connected to 9/11. Just because you guys have overblown it for years, doesn't make it widespread. Will Obama water board to save American lives? Back to the good ol' days of letting Americans die without response? Wheres the change?

So, we're going to roll back tax cuts in a down turned economy, which will create unemployment and and less spent on goods and services. Which would mean we're back to good ol' Tax and spend! Where is the change?

Gee, I wonder why people think hes after their guns (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/06/AR2008040601652.html)?

Well at least we got people arguing on the issues now rather than refusing to even acknowledge Obama has proposed change. Thank you.

[hank]

So Hank,
What's your take on Sarah Palin?

Don't know her. Need to read some. I'll get back to you.

hank

[hank]

Well at least we got people arguing on the issues now rather than refusing to even acknowledge Obama has proposed change. Thank you.

Subtle how that happens, isn't it? First - no change. Second - I don't like the change he proposes.

hank

[AGE-Ranger]

Subtle how that happens, isn't it? First - no change. Second - I don't like the change he proposes.

hank

Over and over again, I have explained to you that I don't accept the notion that Obama's policies are new. From what I've seen so far, its nothing more than recycled democrat ideas from the past. Which in my opinion are complete and utter failures. Simply saying "its different from what we have now, so its change" is a cop out.

I've seen you compare McCain's policies to Bush's and conclude thats a legitimate issue, which I agree with. So, whats wrong with comparing Obama's policies to say, Jimmy Carter?

[budgie]

Over and over again, I have explained to you that I don't accept the notion that Obama's policies are new. From what I've seen so far, its nothing more than recycled democrat ideas from the past. Which in my opinion are complete and utter failures. Simply saying "its different from what we have now, so its change" is a cop out.

I've seen you compare McCain's policies to Bush's and conclude thats a legitimate issue, which I agree with. So, whats wrong with comparing Obama's policies to say, Jimmy Carter?

Oh it's a fair cop to say they're not all new ideas. But when Obama talks about change he means a change from the recent direction the country has taken. Again, a lot of people may not agree with the proposals but they will certainly be a change if implemented.

[szr]

Seconded. But South Asian women - the back hair. The back hair.

McCain/Jindal would produced the most MILFY cougary ticket EVAR.My interest in this Presidential race just spiked.
Not to mention she's h...yeah, never mind.http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/8956/93f2c8c75854882cabbd961va0.jpg

She's rockin' the hot librarian look. I could digg it.

[hank]

Over and over again, I have explained to you that I don't accept the notion that Obama's policies are new. From what I've seen so far, its nothing more than recycled democrat ideas from the past. Which in my opinion are complete and utter failures. Simply saying "its different from what we have now, so its change" is a cop out.

I've seen you compare McCain's policies to Bush's and conclude thats a legitimate issue, which I agree with. So, whats wrong with comparing Obama's policies to say, Jimmy Carter?

And over and over we have explained to you that in regards to W's policies what Obama wants to do is new. Frankly, I understand your point but its not worth discussing. There is nothing new under the sun in politics. W's policies weren't new and he talked about change during his first campaign. The last guy to try something truly "new" as President was FDR.

What about this confuses you?

There is nothing wrong with comparing Obama to Carter - when do you do that? You continue to be a moving target. Frankly, Carter was such a terrible President I don't think the comparison is fair or worthwhile. Nobody can be as bad as Carter. He was a perficet storm for bad policies. I think Obama is likley to be more like Clinton on some issues (talks with NK for example) but OK. Please point out all the ways Obama will be like Carter.

I also think you are missing my point about McCain. I'm not saying he won't be a good President because he's like Bush. I'm saying a lot of the policies McCain endorses will fail because they are bad policies. Its just a coincidence that W followed them as well. Again, necessity v sufficiency eludes you as does the concept of causation.

hank

[hank]

Oops, just noticed AGE is gone. Oh well. Serj the anal smuggler and BDP can pick up the slack.

I feel like we might see AGE again though. Don't know why.

hank

[BloodDiamondPants]

I remember back in my High School days; during football practice we had this exercise called "Bull Pen", and it was my favorite. One guy would stand in the center of a ring of his team mates. The coach would assign a random number to each person in the ring by whispering it in their ear. Then he would call out random numbers at about half second intervals. Upon hearing your number called, you were expected to run at, and hit, as hard as possible, the man in the center of the ring. If the guy in the center didn't keep his head on a swivel, and wasn't facing you when you came, well, that was his fault, and you hit him anyway, even harder for being weak. It was awesome. If you were the guy in the center of the ring, then by the time it was over, you had snot running down your face and were ready to eat rocks, and ask for seconds. It really made you want to kill. It was a rush. Obama, and hank, played for my High School as well, and enjoyed this exercise as also; with the exception that Obama and hank were on the swim team, and my High School didn't have a pool. p-)

[Power_serj]

Out of curiousty, who would you, Hank, like to see as the next President of the United States, out of any American politician?

[ronnieraygun]

Dronetek, we hardly knew 'ye. He'll be back under username number 3.

Apparently, the Clintons have a **** list and they've taken names.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/11/us/politics/11clinton.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1213203861-YfcK5mMM2xhAw7ZN3yx5eQ

[Winger]

I'm widely known for smuggling collector weapons in my bunghole. Insertion is easy, getting them out is the hard part.



Don't cry. I didn't mean to hurt your feelings. :hug:

By the way, proper nouns are supposed to be capitalized....guess they never taught that to you in law school, Hank (note the capital 'h' in your name).

Alright, enough teasing Hank.

As a resident of Florida, I'd like to see Crist on the ticket with McCain. He's already proven himself as an effective leader who is fiscally conservative.

Agreed. Tampa here. McCain should just let Crist make all the decisions and just be a mouth-piece.

[hank]

Out of curiousty, who would you, Hank, like to see as the next President of the United States, out of any American politician?

If we also had a constitutional convention to amend the con and fix many of the parts that cause trouble (i.e. the commerce clause's ridiculous overbreadth, firm up the 2nd A, the 4th A, etc.) then I'd like Ron Paul or another true constitutional libertarian proxy. The current platforms of Rep and Dem parties are equally flawed and don't comport with the original intent of the constitution. As I have said many times there are no candidates I really like right now because all the viable candidates are as flawed as their party platforms.

The reasons I can't support Paul have been stated many times and I'll not do it again. The simple fact is our constitution cannot deal with our current reality. Global ecconomy and political polarization over its interpretation have made it unworkable. Thus the concepts Paul supports cannot be fixed solely bby the Chief Executive. It will take a revamping of the con, the legislative process, and maybe even the judiciary. Until that happens, the Pres is important as a figurehead but largley ineffective to change that which truly troubles this country.

That being said, the areas in which a President truly can effect change - i.e. monetary policy, law enforcement, foreign policy, etc. - have been bungled so badly in the last 8 years that W has found a way to screw things up. I do believe that Obama can make some change in those areas that may right the ship. I'm at least willing to give him a chance. Fact is that McCain will not make many of those changes and so I can't support him. That's a personal decision. Doesn mean McCain is dumb or bad or evil or racist. Just means I want to give new policies a chance to work (as I believe they did under Clinton even though I despise him personally).

So, with the current system locked in place I dislike Obama the least. I don't like him, I just dislike him the least.

hank

[BloodDiamondPants]

hank previously said that he was not really interested in voting for Obama, but that he just wanted to run down some talking points on him, since it seemed that few were for him on this board. hank is a flip-flopper. hank, therefore is John Kerry. Please buy his ketchup.:)

[hank]

hank previously said that he was not really interested in voting for Obama, but that he just wanted to run down some talking points on him, since it seemed that few were for him on this board. hank is a flip-flopper. hank, therefore is John Kerry. Please buy his ketchup.:)

Your genius is attaining legendary status. As is your reading comprehension. There is nothing inconsistent about my position. I don't "like" obama. We aren't "going" together. I dislike many of his positions as much or more than I dislike McCain's. I view him as the lesser of evils between the only 2 viable candidates up for election. Acknowleding that some of the changes he promotes essentially can't be worse than the status quo is hardly a ringing endorsement. If you think I'm flip-flopping then please stick your head through the interwebz so I can hit it with my keyboard and slam a monitor on it. Thanks.

I'll say it again. I may not vote for him. I don't have to decide today. If I did I would vote for him. But there is a lot of campaigning left and I'm keeping an open mind and using it to think about my choice. You might give that a try.

Will you please admit to being a formerly banned user so you can get banned like AGE? Please.

hank

[ronnieraygun]

Will you please admit to being a formerly banned user so you can get banned like AGE? Please.

hank

-BongoPete? BetaVodka? Evan?

[hank]

-BongoPete? BetaVodka? Evan?

We can only hope. Evan wasn't interested in politics that much and I always pretty much liked him. The others I can't speak for. Maybe you started a rumor that will stick.

hank

[BloodDiamondPants]

And hank has MOUNTED his High Horse ladies and gentlemen! LOL. You crack me up man. Do go on...

http://www.1stclassholidays.com/canada/images/mountie.jpg

[budgie]

Budgie, in the future please refrain from this type of intellectual thought and analysis. It really doesn't add anything to the discussion. And when I say discussion i mean the repeated repeating of the statements Hannity, Rush, and the new conservative crew repeat repeatedly on Fox news and the radio over and over repeatedly.

Instead of wasting precious braincells on thought related to the election if you'd simply drink from this cup. Thanks a lot.

hank


Will do in future.



hank, I just don't care enough to post anymore. I don't see the point. It's like arguing with a mental patient that thinks he's William F. Buckley. The hilarious part is that he actually identifies himself with the "critical thinking" that 2Sheds was speaking of before, as opposed to a "lack thereof".

I don't have an IP match to a banned user but I'm pretty sure he is that guy and I suppose I could just ban him but then Obama might have it too easy and just cruise into the Whitehouse.

God forbid a previously-banned member of mp.net should thwart Obama's presidential ambitions...he...must...be...stopped!

[Snoshi]

Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi lashed out at Barack Obama on Wednesday, accusing the US presidential candidate of not living up to his campaign slogan because of recent comments on Israel.
Though Gaddafi referred to Obama as, "Our brother, the Kenyan with American nationality," he also said he expected more from the Illinois Democrat. (AP)
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3554607,00.html

[hank]

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3554607,00.html

If AGE was here he'd point to this and say that Obama is backed Islamic terrorists and that they are "brothers."

hank

[Power_serj]

If we also had a constitutional convention to amend the con and fix many of the parts that cause trouble (i.e. the commerce clause's ridiculous overbreadth, firm up the 2nd A, the 4th A, etc.) then I'd like Ron Paul or another true constitutional libertarian proxy. The current platforms of Rep and Dem parties are equally flawed and don't comport with the original intent of the constitution. As I have said many times there are no candidates I really like right now because all the viable candidates are as flawed as their party platforms.

I am the same way. Naturally, I think that most Americans are libertarian in essence: fiscally Conservative, socially liberal. People do not want to be taxed to the back of their teeth, and don't want the government telling them what they can and cannot do in their personal lives (I am personally slightly conservative on the social scale and conservative on the economic scale). The only reason I would never vote for Ron Paul, however, is the fact that he is too extreme in his socially liberal point of views, such as legalizing drugs, eliminating FBI, etc...
The reasons I can't support Paul have been stated many times and I'll not do it again. The simple fact is our constitution cannot deal with our current reality. Global ecconomy and political polarization over its interpretation have made it unworkable. Thus the concepts Paul supports cannot be fixed solely bby the Chief Executive. It will take a revamping of the con, the legislative process, and maybe even the judiciary. Until that happens, the Pres is important as a figurehead but largley ineffective to change that which truly troubles this country.

This is the reason I support Senator McCain. Although Congress basically says what going down in domestic policy, John McCain is known for hopping over party lines and making compromises. Right now, our government as a whole, not just the Bush Administration, is largely ineffective is because they don't want to talk to each other and compromise. In my opinion, John McCain's willingness to talk and negotiation should leave us with a more effective government.

That being said, the areas in which a President truly can effect change - i.e. monetary policy, law enforcement, foreign policy, etc. - have been bungled so badly in the last 8 years that W has found a way to screw things up. I do believe that Obama can make some change in those areas that may right the ship. I'm at least willing to give him a chance. Fact is that McCain will not make many of those changes and so I can't support him. That's a personal decision. Doesn mean McCain is dumb or bad or evil or racist. Just means I want to give new policies a chance to work (as I believe they did under Clinton even though I despise him personally).

Whoever wins the Presidency, I doubt much will change. The economy is too slippery a slope right now for anyone to make any major changes to the country. The only thing that can be done to change the economy would be to enlargen the government further and create more social programs. In the short term, social programs might seem nice, but as seen in the past, a larger government for the long term just leads to either higher taxes, a larger deficit, unneeded bureaucracy, failed solution or all of the above. The reason I'm afraid of Obama is because of his change. His change requires the United States to have a larger government by raising taxes, adding more government healthcare, giving free rides with government money to irresponsible speculators and sub-prime loan borrowers, and irresponsible environment regulations.

So, with the current system locked in place I dislike Obama the least. I don't like him, I just dislike him the least.

I'm the same way, just as you dislike Obama the least, I dislike McCain the least.

hank

........................................

[Snoshi]

If AGE was here he'd point to this and say that Obama is backed Islamic terrorists and that they are "brothers."

hank

But Qaddafi is a "friend" of the West right now.. How fast things change. :)

[budgie]

Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi lashed out at Barack Obama on Wednesday, accusing the US presidential candidate of not living up to his campaign slogan because of recent comments on Israel.
Though Gaddafi referred to Obama as, "Our brother, the Kenyan with American nationality," he also said he expected more from the Illinois Democrat. (AP)

Does this mean he won't get the coveted Libyan 'endorsement' that the Right are all drooling in anticipation over?

[Hollis]

Should have posted this sooner.

http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k226/Hollis6475/candidates.jpg

.

[beNder]

Still no bombshell. I an disappointed with you Hank and others. :|

[Bia]

Acknowleding that some of the changes he promotes essentially can't be worse than the status quo is hardly a ringing endorsement.

Exactly.
Simply an observation.

:)

[hank]

Still no bombshell. I an disappointed with you Hank and others. :|

Why me? I don't follow. I have said all along that there was no bombshell. perhaps my sarcasm meter is out of whack this morning?

hank

[BloodDiamondPants]

I'm curious; hank, what is your take on George Stephanopoulos' recent gaff on Meet The Press the other week; where he said--and I'm paraphrasing here do to it being more than a week in the past--"Obama's lack of experience plays into what ""they"" want, which is someone with no ties to what the historic majority (I.e. read "white people") have done in the past. I think that could be potentially dangerous for us as a country?" Here is a big-time Democrat Talking Head who essentially in a moment of stressed debate, put put on a Rush Limbaugh mask, and tried to validate some real unspoken fears; and yet nobody called him on it, and nobody wanted to "talk about it." That should have been big news. George Stephanopoulos, is not an idiot. He's a longtime political insider. Where is the "thinking man" on this?

[hank]

My cousin used to be Step's personal assistant when he first started. She swears he's actually a nice guy. I can't imagine.

And George Stepanopoulos is undeniably a big time idiot and always has been IMHO.

What on earth would make you think that I listen to or even like Step? How many times and how many ways do I have to tell you that I don't spend a lot of time listening to guys like Step and Rush? Why not? Because they are interested in selling ads not in informing me. I read a few blogs that are impartial IMO and I read the news. Then I make up my mind. I don't go listen to Step or Rush to tell me what the news means.

Why would anything Step says be news to be reported by other news programs? The guy is a talking head on a network. What he says is not news. Its a major annoyance.

hank

[BloodDiamondPants]

My cousin used to be Step's personal assistant when he first started. She swears he's actually a nice guy. I can't imagine.

And George Stepanopoulos is undeniably a big time idiot and always has been IMHO.

What on earth would make you think that I listen to or even like Step? How many times and how many ways do I have to tell you that I don't spend a lot of time listening to guys like Step and Rush? Why not? Because they are interested in selling ads not in informing me. I read a few blogs that are impartial IMO and I read the news. Then I make up my mind. I don't go listen to Step or Rush to tell me what the news means.

Why would anything Step says be news to be reported by other news programs? The guy is a talking head on a network. What he says is not news. Its a major annoyance.

hank

The request was for you to comment on the words that he spoke, as a long-time Democrat, Obama supporter, and former Political Insider, not the man himself; but thanks anyway.

[hank]

Ok then, I think it was a stupid thing to say and I think you are right to assume that the "they" was conservative white people. It was indeed a gaffe and he shouldn't have said it. The better choice would have been for him to have said "conservatives" will do x or use x against Obama. Is that what you wanted me to say?

But all that being said a gaffe by Step is not news. Or at least it shouldn't be IMHO.

hank

[BloodDiamondPants]

Well, hank, I think the real underlying subtext is that if a die-hard like George Stephanopoulos is thinking it, and lets it slip, then it's a fair bet that some (read: very many) other Obama-kids are of a similar ilk. You add that, plus the pissed-off Hillary feminats, plus ignorant white guys, the smart "they", and the Latino vote, well... It will only be shown to be true or false during the General Election of course; but as a harbinger of things to come, you don't think it's significant at all? This entire discussion is sheer speculation, and I was trying to get you to speculate a little more, based on this (in addition to the other things).

I understand that you are a "thinking man" and a "super attorney" and all, but if I know anything about lawyers; it's that they like to win, or at least be on the winning side; more than anything else in the world. Statements such as the previously discussed don't even make you second guess your support for Obama as "the lesser of two evils?" Wouldn't you rather get on board with the turd and try to shine it, rather than wave the other one around in your hand to diminishing applause?

You're dead-set on supporting this guy, even while a significant amount of his former support silently crumbles beneath his feet? (and no, this is not the only example that I am basing all of this on. I'm sure you are aware of many other indicators as well) You're an Obama zealot after all?

An honest councilor, wow! I'll remember not to put you on retainer; I'd rather win.


P.S. Sorry for misspelling "gaffe." I'm just a peasant after all.

[hank]

BDP you seriously do have issues with logic. Are you saying that is Step said it then that is indicative that a lot of Dems are thinking it? I don't see that. But assuming you are correct what makes you think I'm thinking that. I'm not being funny you need to stop the association game until you understand the difference between necessity and sufficieny. I know of no rule or guide that say Step speaks for Dems or for anyone else except Step and the network he works for. Do you?

I refuse to attribute Step's gaffe to Obama bc I've never seen that Step is authorized to speak for Obama. Are you aware of something different?

I'm not trying to "win." I'm choosing a candidate. What the hell are you doing? Subscribing to crazy conspiracy theories?

Grow up.

hank

[BloodDiamondPants]

BDP you seriously do have issues with logic. Are you saying that is Step said it then that is indicative that a lot of Dems are thinking it? I don't see that. But assuming you are correct what makes you think I'm thinking that. I'm not being funny you need to stop the association game until you understand the difference between necessity and sufficieny. I know of no rule or guide that say Step speaks for Dems or for anyone else except Step and the network he works for. Do you?

I refuse to attribute Step's gaffe to Obama bc I've never seen that Step is authorized to speak for Obama. Are you aware of something different?

I'm not trying to "win." I'm choosing a candidate. What the hell are you doing? Subscribing to crazy conspiracy theories?

Grow up.

hank


That's just the point hank. People of voting age don't have to "grow up." They just have to vote. Now, either you're in this discussion to change minds, or you're in this discussion to verbally flop all over people, and hear yourself talk. I know you like the attention; all attorneys do, but this isn't the way to get it. You deal with the cards of reality in an election; this is not a court room, or a golf course filled with "thinking men." Your rules are valid hank, but your forum (in this case the General Election) is mismatched. Accepting reality is a sign of being a "grown up." Do you really have the juice, maturity, and patience, to apply your viewpoints, or are you just riding the stationary bike here? Said with as much respect as possible hank; but you're barking up trees here, looking for validation only in my opinion; not trying to do any "good" in the world. Obama's ship is full of holes; It's not getting the proper press; that's canted at best. Why is that?


Like I said earlier: "I can't remember the last time that I had a disagreement with someone, and they punched me in the face, and I decided that they were right after all."

[hell]

Man, BloodDiamondPants' inferiority complex is making huge swings today, lol.

[MCWARPIG]

That's just the point hank. People of voting age don't have to "grow up." They just have to vote. Now, either you're in this discussion to change minds, or you're in this discussion to verbally flop all over people, and hear yourself talk. I know you like the attention; all attorneys do, but this isn't the way to get it. You deal with the cards of reality in an election; this is not a court room, or a golf course filled with "thinking men." Your rules are valid hank, but your forum (in this case the General Election) is mismatched. Accepting reality is a sign of being a "grown up." Do you really have the juice, maturity, and patience, to apply your viewpoints, or are you just riding the stationary bike here? Said with as much respect as possible hank; but you're barking up trees here, looking for validation only in my opinion; not trying to do any "good" in the world. Obama's ship is full of holes; It's not getting the proper press; that's canted at best. Why is that?



BDP you're done arguing in here. Step away from this discussion or I will give you a vacation. You are pushing this debate past arguement and becoming counterproductive and a nuisance.

I'll say this for the rest of you. (Hank pay attention.) Remove the personal passive aggressive insult from your arguements. We all tend to dig in and stick to our opinions. If you find yourself dug in, don't expect others to simply see your way. Argue your point, avoid taking this crap personal.

[BloodDiamondPants]

Roger that WARPIG!

[budgie]

I'm curious; hank, what is your take on George Stephanopoulos' recent gaff on Meet The Press the other week; where he said--and I'm paraphrasing here do to it being more than a week in the past--"Obama's lack of experience plays into what ""they"" want, which is someone with no ties to what the historic majority (I.e. read "white people") have done in the past. I think that could be potentially dangerous for us as a country?" Here is a big-time Democrat Talking Head who essentially in a moment of stressed debate, put put on a Rush Limbaugh mask, and tried to validate some real unspoken fears; and yet nobody called him on it, and nobody wanted to "talk about it." That should have been big news. George Stephanopoulos, is not an idiot. He's a longtime political insider. Where is the "thinking man" on this?

What's the issue here? Is Stephanopolous working for the Obama campaign? Is he the running mate? What has he got to do with Obama other than that they're in the same party? What meat is there for the 'thinking man' here?

[hank]

What's the issue here? Is Stephanopolous working for the Obama campaign? Is he the running mate? What has he got to do with Obama other than that they're in the same party? What meat is there for the 'thinking man' here?

You've got to thnk big piture Budgie. Its part of the liberal media conspiracy.

hank

[ronnieraygun]

You've got to thnk big piture Budgie. Its part of the liberal media conspiracy.

hank

^^LOL

I think it's unethical for that former Clinton guy to pretend to be an objective commentator, but I have not seen him do anything really out of the ordinary. Didn't THEY (the librul media) used to wheel out Kissinger for commentary from time to time?

[hank]

^^LOL

I think it's unethical for that former Clinton guy to pretend to be an objective commentator, but I have not seen him do anything really out of the ordinary. Didn't THEY (the librul media) used to wheel out Kissinger for commentary from time to time?

As I said I don't watch him on purpose. I've seen Kissinger on TV in the last 10 years commenting for sure. Can't remember exactly where.

I used to love the impersonation of Kissinger that Al Franken would do on Saturday Night Live. He played Al as a gay guy with a realy feminie lover who whispered in Henry's ear and Henry would groan in a super-low voice "ohhhhhhhh." It was awesome. Looked ofr it on Youtube but didn't find it.

hank

[ronnieraygun]

As I said I don't watch him on purpose. I've seen Kissinger on TV in the last 10 years commenting for sure. Can't remember exactly where.

I used to love the impersonation of Kissinger that Al Franken would do on Saturday Night Live. He played Al as a gay guy with a realy feminie lover who whispered in Henry's ear and Henry would groan in a super-low voice "ohhhhhhhh." It was awesome. Looked ofr it on Youtube but didn't find it.

hank

Yeah, that about sums it up. I heard Kissinger was actually a huge horndogger and loves him the Asian massage ladies.

[hank]

I can't believe it. Despite the unending support of literally hundreds of Americans, Ron Paul has decided to suspend his campaing. And he was oh so close to the nomination. I guess he decided that the devisiveness of him and McCain running neck and neck this late in the primary season was just not good in the long run. Perhaps he'll parlay the unmitigated success he had into the nom next time around. We can only hope and wait patiently.


Paul suspends presidential campaign; forms new organization
Posted: 05:07 PM ET

From CNN Political Editor Mark Preston


Ron Paul is suspending his presidential campaign.
WASHINGTON (CNN) – Texas Rep. Ron Paul announced Thursday he is suspending his bid for the Republican presidential nomination to focus his time on building an organization to help recruit and elect “limited government Republicans.”

“We want to elect constitutionalists, limited government Republicans across the country at the state and federal level,” said Paul spokesman Jesse Benton.

The congressman will speak about his political plans at the Texas Republican State Convention being held in Houston. Late Thursday afternoon, Paul launched a Web site for his new organization where he explained the decision to suspend his presidential campaign and form “Ron Paul Campaign for Liberty.”

“With the primary season now over, the presidential campaign is at an end,” Paul said in the letter. “But the larger campaign for freedom is just getting started.”

Arizona Sen. John McCain locked up the GOP nomination back in March, but unlike his fellow Republicans running for president, Paul never abandoned his White House bid.

Paul’s decision to leave the race is an acknowledgment he had no chance of winning the GOP nomination. But even in loss, Paul is one of a handful of candidates who walked away from this presidential contest a winner. His presidential campaign had a broad base of support that included traditionally fiscal and socially conservative Republicans to young people who were angry about the U.S. decision to wage war against Iraq.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

I totally can't wait to see shocker's head explode.

hank

[California Joe]

You miss AGE don't you.