Offical Obama/Biden discussion Thread........

[Seiran]

http://ad.doubleclick.net/activity;src=1260678;met=1;v=1;pid=24633776;aid=189558412;ko=0;cid=25332735;rid=25350592;rv=2;&timestamp=3686477;eid1=9;ecn1=1;etm1=0; http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/ http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/http://us.bc.yahoo.com/b?P=RL.LoEWTVvqgr_7mSC9t1gbBR3aTCkhZeTMAANHk&T=1esdgkq15%2fX%3d1213823283%2fE%3d8903521%2fR%3dnews%2fK%3d5%2fV%3d2.1%2fW%3dH%2fY%3dYAHOO%2fF%3d3934475566%2fH%3dY2FjaGVoaW50PSJuZXdzIiBjb250ZW50PSJEZW1vY3JhdGljO3RlcnJvcmlzdDtnb3Zlcm5tZW50O2l0O3RlcnJvcmlzbTtzZWN1cml0eTtjcmltaW5hbDtJcmFxO0FtZXJpY2FuO1Bha2lzdGFuO1doaXRlO0hvdXNlO3RyaWFsO0FtZXJpY2E7S XQ7bWlsaXRhcnk7cmVmdXJsX3VzX21jNTM5X21haWxfeWFob29fY29tIiByZWZ1cmw9InJlZnVybF91c19tYzUzOV9tYWlsX3lhaG9vX2NvbSIgdG9waWNzPSJyZWZ1cmxfdXNfbWM1MzlfbWFpbF95YWhvb19jb20i%2fQ%3d-1%2fS%3d1%2fJ%3dD0519345&U=13f22hsrf%2fN%3dvDk0NNj8elE-%2fC%3d640461.12772987.13062672.1414694%2fD%3dLREC%2fB%3d5384474%2fV%3d1

WASHINGTON - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Wednesday he would bring Osama bin Laden to justice in a way that wouldn't allow the terrorist mastermind to become a martyr, but he may be killed if the U.S. government finds him.


"First of all, I think there is an executive order out on Osama bin Laden's head," Obama said at a news conference. "And if I'm president, and we have the opportunity to capture him, we may not be able to capture him alive."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080618/ap_on_el_pr/obama_national_security

[Invisigoth]

Do the same thing that Turkey did to Oecalan, catch him, try him, and then bury him in a deep dark hole and he will be forgotten sooner rather than later.

[Alpheus]

I doubt the ol' bastard will be caught alive. Would not surprise me if the fellas out looking for him have an "understanding" that OBL will snuff it as soon as they find his smelly hide.

[Ulytau]

Do the same thing that Turkey did to Oecalan, catch him, try him, and then bury him in a deep dark hole and he will be forgotten sooner rather than later.

I prefer givin him to soldier families..

Honestly about terrorist leaders like that they must beg for dying..

But true when you pwnin them you mustnt make em hero..

[noname]

Wow obama. How insightful.

[TR1]

^x2.....................................

[Laworkerbee]

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Wednesday he would bring Osama bin Laden to justice in a way that wouldn't allow the terrorist mastermind to become a martyr

I don't want OBL sitting in maximum security, I want him dead! Idiots want to capture him why? so his comrades can seize a school or two and execute children until he is released.

Learn from Beslan. Interrogate and execute terrorists, there is nothing to gain from keeping hard core Jihadi's in prison for life.

[Hilbert]

I don't want OBL sitting in maximum security, I want him dead! Idiots want to capture him why? so his comrades can seize a school or two and execute children until he is released.

Learn from Beslan. Interrogate and execute terrorists, there is nothing to gain from keeping hard core Jihadi's in prison for life.

Ditto.

-Hilde

[Lefty]

If he dies or lives, he will be considered a martyr either way. Best case, he dies of something lame, like whooping cough or organ failure, nothing even involving his enemies.

[vinny_121_ND]

If he dies or lives, he will be considered a martyr either way. Best case, he dies of something lame, like whooping cough or organ failure, nothing even involving his enemies.

True. If Obama takes office, I wonder what will he do about afghanistan. Invade tribal areas of Pakistan?

[jasonblaster]

I doubt the ol' bastard will be caught alive. Would not surprise me if the fellas out looking for him have an "understanding" that OBL will snuff it as soon as they find his smelly hide.

Especially since the supreme court ruling last week, which gives habeus corpus to terrorists. UBL is under a U.S. Federal Indictment, which would mean that if he were captured, he would be presumed INNOCENT until proved guilty. And given the way some of the recent court decisions have gone, there is more than a reasonable chance he could be found not guilty by reason of insanity, so I think in military circles it is understood that he will not be captured at all, but shot down unceremoniously like the dog that he is.

[Laworkerbee]

Especially since the supreme court ruling last week, which gives habeus corpus to terrorists. UBL is under a U.S. Federal Indictment, which would mean that if he were captured, he would be presumed INNOCENT until proved guilty. And given the way some of the recent court decisions have gone, there is more than a reasonable chance he could be found not guilty by reason of insanity, so I think in military circles it is understood that he will not be captured at all, but shot down unceremoniously like the dog that he is.

Thats all a bit of stretch don't you think?

[deagle]

wait, so are they implying that he's still alive ??

[MG 3]

Catch that Egyptian (cant believe Ive forgotten his name) and try keeping Onsma's situation as it is. A few more years of this and he will die behind some rock without anyone knowing about it.

[ronnieraygun]

This guy can't possibly be alive. I'm sure he's a good campaign issue, though. I heard he died of kidney failure in a cave.

[BonesBrigade]

I don't want OBL sitting in maximum security, I want him dead! Idiots want to capture him why? so his comrades can seize a school or two and execute children until he is released.

Learn from Beslan. Interrogate and execute terrorists, there is nothing to gain from keeping hard core Jihadi's in prison for life.

How would that make us any better then the terrorists?

[Laworkerbee]

How would that make us any better then the terrorists?

Your ****ing kidding me right. I take it you have no idea what Beslan is or what occurred there?

[jasonblaster]

Thats all a bit of stretch don't you think?

It's a little bit of a stretch, but according to the supreme courts ruling, and the fact that he is under a U.S. indictment, as opposed to most other enemy combatants, I don't think it's completely out of the realm of possibility. It all hinges on if he is captured, where he is kept, how soon we find out, and what his status turns out to be (POW or Unlawful Combatant, or simply Criminal).

[Adux]

I don't want OBL sitting in maximum security, I want him dead! Idiots want to capture him why? so his comrades can seize a school or two and execute children until he is released.

Learn from Beslan. Interrogate and execute terrorists, there is nothing to gain from keeping hard core Jihadi's in prison for life.

x2..... We learnt that from IC-814 Kandhar Hijacking and the subsquent release of Azhar Mohammed of Jaish E Mohammed; now a wanted Al-Qaeda operative

[loganinkosovo]

According to the Leftists Bush already captured him years ago and is not letting the public know so he can keep killing for oil.......in fact he's not really guilty since Bush did the whole 9/11 thing.........:roll:

Do you really think we would be able to execute this sorry scumbag after The ACLU, The Looney Left, The Ninth Circus Court of Appeals, The New Pravda Times, Code Pink and the John Edwards Trial Lawyer's Association get ahold of him?


The best thing to do is just wax this piece of **** and spread photos by Air of him taking it up the ass from barnyard animals. Try to make a martyr of him after that!

[Hilbert]

How would that make us any better then the terrorists?

We're not taking hostages, beheading captives with dull knives, slowly sawing off their heads, playing games with victim's half decapitated heads, taking an entire school filled with innocent children and rigging it to blow sky high now are we, indiscriminately killing (and in many cases deliberately killing noncombatants and innocent civilians), using civilian men, women, and children as human shields now are we? I'd certainely call the abscence of said acts quite an improvement over the terrorists.

If you can't see a difference between us and the terrorists and think we're operating on the same level as they are... then may God help you because I sure as hell can't.

-Hilde

[budgie]

If he dies or lives, he will be considered a martyr either way. Best case, he dies of something lame, like whooping cough or organ failure, nothing even involving his enemies.

Sad but true

[MG 3]

If he dies or lives, he will be considered a martyr either way. Best case, he dies of something lame, like whooping cough or organ failure, nothing even involving his enemies.

DUDE!!! Its AQ we'r talkin about here, they'll say that it was the Amrikans that used some special ray gun to infect their head chopping **** face leader.

[vinny_121_ND]

DUDE!!! Its AQ we'r talkin about here, they'll say that it was the Amrikans that used some special ray gun to infect their head chopping **** face leader.

AQ are awesome deceptionists. Or, they'll say he was fighting gloriously in the heat of the battle with two ak47's firing in each hand, and was hit by a lucky shot.

[MG 3]

AQ are awesome deceptionists. Or, they'll say he was fighting gloriously in the heat of the battle with two ak47's firing in each hand, and was hit by a lucky shot.

Lucky poisoned shot!! rofl

[Zoomie]

Obama Got Discount on Home Loan
Campaign Defends Lower Rate as Lender Competition for Business
By Joe Stephens
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 2, 2008; A03

Shortly after joining the U.S. Senate (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/U.S.+Senate?tid=informline) and while enjoying a surge in income, Barack Obama (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/o000167/) bought a $1.65 million restored Georgian mansion in an upscale Chicago neighborhood. To finance the purchase, he secured a $1.32 million loan from Northern Trust (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Northern+Trust+Corporation?tid=informline) in Illinois.
The freshman Democratic senator received a discount. He locked in an interest rate of 5.625 percent on the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage, below the average for such loans at the time in Chicago. The loan was unusually large, known in banker lingo as a "super super jumbo." Obama paid no origination fee or discount points, as some consumers do to reduce their interest rates.
Compared with the average terms offered at the time in Chicago, Obama's rate could have saved him more than $300 per month.
Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt said the rate was adjusted to account for a competing offer from another lender and other factors. "The Obamas have since had as much as $3 million invested through Northern Trust," he said in a statement.
Modest adjustments in mortgage rates are common among financial institutions as they compete for business or develop relationships with wealthy families. But amid a national housing crisis, news of discounts offered to Sens. Christopher J. Dodd (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/d000388/) (D-Conn.), chairman of the banking committee, and Kent Conrad (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/c000705/) (D-N.D) by another lender, Countrywide Financial (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Countrywide+Financial+Corporation?tid=informline), has brought new scrutiny to the practice and has resulted in a preliminary Senate ethics committee inquiry into the Dodd and Conrad loans.
Within Obama's presidential campaign organization, former Fannie Mae (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Fannie+Mae?tid=informline) chief executive James A. Johnson (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/James+A.+Johnson?tid=informline) resigned abruptly as head of the vice presidential search committee after his favorable Countrywide loan became public.
Driving the recent debate is concern that public officials, knowingly or unknowingly, may receive special treatment from lenders and that the discounts could constitute gifts that are prohibited by law.
"The real question is: Were congressmen getting unique treatment that others weren't getting?" associate law professor Adam J. Levitin, a credit specialist at Georgetown University Law Center (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Georgetown+University+Law+Center?tid=informline), said about the Countrywide loans. "Do they do business like that for people who are not congressmen? If they don't, that's a problem."
Under financial disclosure rules, members of Congress are not obliged to disclose debts owed to financial institutions for personal residences. Names of lenders and rates paid on mortgages sometimes can be determined by scrutinizing property transaction records. In March, in response to media questions, Obama posted on his campaign Web site records related to his house purchase.
Last week, during debate on a bill to help homeowners caught in the foreclosure crisis, some members of the Senate ethics committee proposed an amendment to require that lawmakers disclose their mortgage lenders and loan terms in annual financial forms starting next year.
In Obama's case, he received a lower rate than the average offered at the time in Chicago for similarly structured jumbo loans. He secured his final mortgage commitment on June 8, 2005, and during that week, rates on similar loans for which information is available averaged 5.93 percent, according to HSH Associates, which surveys lenders. Another survey firm, Bankrate.com (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Bankrate+Inc.?tid=informline), placed the average at 6 percent.
"It's certainly safe to say that this borrower did better than average," said Keith Gumbinger (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Keith+Gumbinger?tid=informline), an HSH vice president, noting that consumer rates vary widely. "It's a good deal."
The Obama campaign called the rate "consistent with Northern Trust policies, and it reflected the base rate set for that period discounted to address the competition for the account and other opportunities, such as personal financial services, that the relationship would bring to Northern Trust."
When the Obamas secured the loan, their income had risen dramatically. Obama assumed his Senate seat in January 2005, with an annual salary of $162,100. That same month, Random House (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Random+House+Inc.?tid=informline) agreed to reissue an Obama memoir, for which it originally paid $40,000, as part of a $2.27 million deal that included two future nonfiction books and a children's book.
Around the same time, the University of Chicago Hospitals promoted Michelle Obama (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Michelle+Obama?tid=informline) to a vice president and more than doubled her pay, to $317,000.
The couple wanted to step up from their $415,000 condo. They chose a house with six bedrooms, four fireplaces, a four-car garage and 5 1/2 baths, including a double steam shower and a marble powder room. It had a wine cellar, a music room, a library, a solarium, beveled glass doors and a granite-floored kitchen.
The Obamas had no prior relationship with Northern Trust when they applied for the loan. They received an oral commitment on Feb. 4, 2005, and locked in the rate of 5.625 percent, the campaign said. On that date, HSH data show, the average rate in Chicago for a 30-year fixed-rate jumbo loan with no points was about 5.94 percent.
Jumbo loans are for amounts up to $650,000, but the Obamas' $1.32 million loan was so large that few comparables are available. Mortgage specialists say that many high-end buyers pay cash.
Obama's Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/m000303/), has no mortgages on properties he owns with his wife, Cindy, who is a multimillionaire.
Unlike Countrywide, where leaked internal e-mails documented a special discount program for friends of chief executive Angelo Mozilo (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Angelo+Mozilo?tid=informline), Northern Trust says it has no formal program to provide discounts to public officials. Loan officers may consider a borrower's occupation when establishing an interest rate, the bank said.
"A person's occupation and salary are two factors; I would expect those are two things we would take into consideration," said Northern Trust Vice President John O'Connell. "That would apply to anyone seeking to get a mortgage at Northern Trust." He added that the rates offered to Obama were "consistent with internal Northern Trust rates at that time."
"The bottom line is, this was a business proposition for us," he said. "Our business model is to service and pursue successful individuals, families and institutions."
O'Connell referred additional questions to the campaign.
Since 1990, Northern Trust employees have donated more than $739,000 to federal campaigns, including $71,000 to Obama, according to the Center for Responsive Politics (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Center+for+Responsive+Politics?tid=informline).
Obama's house purchase has been a source of controversy. In 2006, the Chicago Tribune (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Tribune+Company?tid=informline) reported that on the day of the closing, the wife of Obama's longtime friend and fundraiser Antoin "Tony" Rezko closed on an adjoining lot that had been the estate's side yard.
The Obamas bought the house for $300,000 less than the asking price of $1.95 million, while Rezko's wife, Rita, bought the neighboring lot for the full asking price of $625,000. Rita Rezko later sold a portion of the undeveloped lot to the Obamas, enlarging the senator's yard.
Tony Rezko (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Tony+Rezko?tid=informline) already had been linked to a grand jury investigation involving public corruption. Last month, he was convicted of 16 counts in an influence-peddling scheme that reached the highest levels of Illinois state government.
source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/01/AR2008070103008.html?hpid=topnews)

More hope and change from the most ethical congress ever! :roll:

[noname]

I wouldn't expect any less, of any smarmy politican from the Chicago political machine to actually have done something ethical. Barry hussein obama is one hell of a magician to be able to fool people the way he has. A guy from a privelaged background selling himself as the common man.

[budgie]

I'd say Obama doesn't hold that much truck with 'the common man'. That comment about rural people and religion and guns cost him a lot of votes, created a brief surge in Clinton's flagging campaign and in the general election may send a lot of working class Dems into McCain's camp.

[ronnieraygun]

Oh.Please.God.No.More.Obama.Threads.


http://www.jwz.org/images/asstattoo015.jpg

[budgie]

Oh.Please.God.No.More.Obama.Threads.



Oh, They'll keep coming. Every time he so much as farts. I heard he even got a tax rebate! Can you believe that? It was only supposed to be for Republicans!!!! It'll be 2004 all over again bt this time they'll find it harder to make the poo stick.

[Createdeemcee]

Oh, They'll keep coming. Every time he so much as farts. I heard he even got a tax rebate! Can you believe that? It was only supposed to be for Republicans!!!! It'll be 2004 all over again bt this time they'll find it harder to make the poo stick.


Here we go!!

Ok howabout Mccain's wife getting a discount on A$$, Tit$, and Oxy's. Cmon man so what if he got a break, even if im sure he didnt ask for it, then attack the lender then. Man you fellas stabb low.



More hope and change from the most ethical congress ever! :roll:


Thats right, if true will be way more mild than a halliburton, or KBR gain, aint that right?

http://images.meez.com/user/5/5/2/1/8/4/2/5521842_bodyshot_300x400.gif (http://www.meez.com/createdeemcee)

[Zoomie]

Cmon man so what if he got a break, even if im sure he didnt ask for it, then attack the lender then. Man you fellas stabb low/
Stab low? Yeah right, I think it's an issue due to the fact that Obama, Dodd, and Conrad (amongst many others) are playing the blame game with the housing market, but yet they'll without a second thought ask for and/or accept special treatment. I do say go after the lenders as well, but remember, it takes two to tango, and the politicians weren't forced to accept a sweeter deal either.

[packetloss]

1.32m loan against 3m assets while he had a competing offer from another bank. *gasp*

Dual lawyer income, assets and multiple banks wanting to make the interest money - and people think its a sweetheart deal for about .3% on 1.32m? What is .3% on 1.32m? 3500 a year? Please, non issue.

[packetloss]

Stab low? Yeah right, I think it's an issue due to the fact that Obama, Dodd, and Conrad (amongst many others) are playing the blame game with the housing market, but yet they'll without a second thought ask for and/or accept special treatment. I do say go after the lenders as well, but remember, it takes two to tango, and the politicians weren't forced to accept a sweeter deal either.

You're comparing apples and oranges. Dodd and Conrad were given their mortgages via a Countrywide spinoff program specifically created to massage the ********s of senators.

Barack negotiated a ~.3% discount on his loan. You'd think a lawyer and presidential candidate should be capable of that.

[annihilation]

Hey he is just doing what senator dodd did in CT. So he is just like the rest of them. We are in for no better with this guy as we are with mccain.

[packetloss]

Hey he is just doing what senator dodd did in CT. So he is just like the rest of them. We are in for no better with this guy as we are with mccain.

lol. stop assuming stuff, like i said, apples and oranges. Let me make it simple for you:

Mr. Obama went to see a few bankers to get a loan for 1.32 million. He showed these bankers that he had 3m in assets and he and his wife are both lawyers with above average salaries. Both banks approved him for this loan, he then picked the bank who offered the lower of the two interest rates (by all accounts, a market average of 0.3% was saved)

Now, the other side of the coin:

Dodd and Conrad recieved “VIP” treatment from Countrywide financial - A company that is HEAVILY involved in the 'sub prime' crisis. Now, while Dodd and Conrad are crusading against all the companies that do sub prime loans, They were getting their homes completely refinanced with these special VIP package deals only available to senators - no one else.

Now, Mr. Dodd and Mr. Conrad are spearheading a $300 billion dollar bail out of all these lenders who got everyone into the sub prime mess. This is obviously the biggest issue - Because countrywide obviously stands to gain a LOT from any government bailout.

[ronnieraygun]

Washington (AP) - In a bold move today, Democratic presidential frontrunner Barack Obama announced that he had taken yet another dump. Campaign insiders confirmed reports of the absolute ferocity of the ****, citing a campaign stop last night at a Mexican restaurant outside of Butte, Montana.
"Clearly, we are tracking Obama's movements and we can see that they are all good, excepting reports of some blood on Tuesday," stated one advisor on condition of anonymity from a men's room stall at the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport.
Sources say that further dumps are planned, and their moves will be tracked and reported exclusively to the internet website militaryphotos.net, the All Obama, All The Time Channel.
In closing his comments, Obama had this to say.
"We honor and respect John McCain's service to his country, but the fierce assblast of today was the phonky **** that America needs."

[Winger]

"We honor and respect John McCain's service to his country, but the fierce assblast of today was the phonky **** that America needs."

roflroflrofl

[Mofreaka]

The loan was unusually large, known in banker lingo as a "super super jumbo."

Also known as really really big.

[budgie]

1.32m loan against 3m assets while he had a competing offer from another bank. *gasp*

Dual lawyer income, assets and multiple banks wanting to make the interest money - and people think its a sweetheart deal for about .3% on 1.32m? What is .3% on 1.32m? 3500 a year? Please, non issue.


It will be an "issue" - along with Obama's wife and Rev. Wright - for as long as people prefer ad-hominem attacks to a sensible discussion of the issues.

[Hollis]

It will be an "issue" - along with Obama's wife and Rev. Wright - for as long as people prefer ad-hominem attacks to a sensible discussion of the issues.



IMHO, Ad hominem attacks will be the big attraction until after the election. That goes for both candidates. It is the popular but dark side of partisan politics.

[noname]

It will be an "issue" - along with Obama's wife and Rev. Wright - for as long as people prefer ad-hominem attacks to a sensible discussion of the issues.


Please start sensible discussion of the issues. The ad-hominem attacks are starting to bore me

[Hellfish]

What irritates me is that partisanism wouldn't exist without mass media. If people stopped listening to all these goddamn CNN/Fox/MSNBC sound bites and talking heads and started listening to what the canidates actually said there'd be far less rancour.

So much of the complaining I hear about either candidate is just people parroting what they hear from their preferred news outlet.

[Hollis]

Please start sensible discussion of the issues. The ad-hominem attacks are starting to bore me


It is just going to worse as we approach November.

[budgie]

So much of the complaining I hear about either candidate is just people parroting what they hear from their preferred news outlet.

Or worse, some silly blog, because someone has convinced them you can't believe what you hear on the news anymore.

[noname]

Or worse, some silly blog, because someone has convinced them you can't believe what you hear on the news anymore.

I heard Dan Rather was a non-biased news reporter during his final years.

[Hollis]

I heard Dan Rather was a non-biased news reporter during his final years.


I don't think so, he produced fraudulent "letters" about Bush, near the election. It back fired on him. The bloggers took him down.

[noname]

I don't think so, he produced fraudulent "letters" about Bush, near the election. It back fired on him. The bloggers took him down.


Sorry, I meant to put one of these p-) after my message. That was my point I was trying to make though.

[Hollis]

Sorry, I meant to put one of these p-) after my message. That was my point I was trying to make though.



ooopps Mia coupa

[Hellfish]

Or worse, some silly blog, because someone has convinced them you can't believe what you hear on the news anymore.

Ugh, yeah. And what always amuses the **** out of me is that you'll see some mainstream media outlet use a blog as a reference (i.e. "Anonymous internet tool X says that Obama MIGHT be gay") and then three or four weeks later you'll often hear a blurb saying that the blog, in fact, had been wrong - but the MSM outlet was in the clear because they just said "might", and three weeks after the fact the damage was already done.

[JKD]

http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2008/06/11/hillary/index.html
Read this opinion piece a few while back. Found this bit hilarious as this was the when PD&R was waist deep in 'Obama can't speak without a teleprompter' threads. It's fun to spot the new talking points talk radio and the bloggers are pushing.


Meanwhile, conservative talk radio, which I have been following with interest for almost 20 years, has become a tornado alley of hallucinatory holograms of Obama. He's a Marxist! A radical leftist! A hater of America! He's "not that bright"; he can't talk without a teleprompter. He knows nothing and has done less. His wife is a raging mass of anti-white racism. It's gotten to the point that I can hardly listen to my favorite shows, which were once both informative and entertaining. The hackneyed repetition is numbing and tedious....

[D-gin]

So much of the complaining I hear about either candidate is just people parroting what they hear from their preferred news outlet.

Food for the mindless masses. I've gotten into so many arguments with people that state this candidates position is this or that only because they herd it on Fox, CNN, ABC, MSNBC, etc.

[budgie]

Sorry, I meant to put one of these p-) after my message. That was my point I was trying to make though.

Oh there'll always be cases of newspeople getting it wrong and being caught out. I don't give the bloggers all the credit on Dan rather - there are plenty of other ways to fact-check. My problem with 'news' blogs, is that they are not checked or held to any standards (save by scrupulous authors themselves) and they are more and more becoming people's first point of contact with the daily information they seek. The old addage goes that a lie will travel around the world before the truth has even got its boots on.

[Zoomie]

Grim proving ground for Obama's housing policy

The candidate endorsed subsidies for private entrepreneurs to build low-income units. But, while he garnered support from developers, many projects in his former district have fallen into disrepair.


CHICAGO - The squat brick buildings of Grove Parc Plaza, in a dense neighborhood that Barack Obama represented for eight years as a state senator, hold 504 apartments subsidized by the federal government for people who can't afford to live anywhere else.


But it's not safe to live here.
About 99 of the units are vacant, many rendered uninhabitable by unfixed problems, such as collapsed roofs and fire damage. Mice scamper through the halls. Battered mailboxes hang open. Sewage backs up into kitchen sinks. In 2006, federal inspectors graded the condition of the complex an 11 on a 100-point scale - a score so bad the buildings now face demolition.
Grove Parc has become a symbol for some in Chicago of the broader failures of giving public subsidies to private companies to build and manage affordable housing - an approach strongly backed by Obama as the best replacement for public housing.
As a state senator, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee coauthored an Illinois law creating a new pool of tax credits for developers. As a US senator, he pressed for increased federal subsidies. And as a presidential candidate, he has campaigned on a promise to create an Affordable Housing Trust Fund that could give developers an estimated $500 million a year.
But a Globe review found that thousands of apartments across Chicago that had been built with local, state, and federal subsidies - including several hundred in Obama's former district - deteriorated so completely that they were no longer habitable.
Grove Parc and several other prominent failures were developed and managed by Obama's close friends and political supporters. Those people profited from the subsidies even as many of Obama's constituents suffered. Tenants lost their homes; surrounding neighborhoods were blighted.
Some of the residents of Grove Parc say they are angry that Obama did not notice their plight. The development straddles the boundary of Obama's state Senate district. Many of the tenants have been his constituents for more than a decade.
"No one should have to live like this, and no one did anything about it," said Cynthia Ashley, who has lived at Grove Parc since 1994.
Obama's campaign, in a written response to Globe questions, affirmed the candidate's support of public-private partnerships as an alternative to public housing, saying that Obama has "consistently fought to make livable, affordable housing in mixed-income neighborhoods available to all."
The campaign did not respond to questions about whether Obama was aware of the problems with buildings in his district during his time as a state senator, nor did it comment on the roles played by people connected to the senator.
Among those tied to Obama politically, personally, or professionally are:
Valerie Jarrett, a senior adviser to Obama's presidential campaign and a member of his finance committee. Jarrett is the chief executive of Habitat Co., which managed Grove Parc Plaza from 2001 until this winter and co-managed an even larger subsidized complex in Chicago that was seized by the federal government in 2006, after city inspectors found widespread problems.

Allison Davis, a major fund-raiser for Obama's US Senate campaign and a former lead partner at Obama's former law firm. Davis, a developer, was involved in the creation of Grove Parc and has used government subsidies to rehabilitate more than 1,500 units in Chicago, including a North Side building cited by city inspectors last year after chronic plumbing failures resulted in raw sewage spilling into several apartments.
Antoin "Tony" Rezko, perhaps the most important fund-raiser for Obama's early political campaigns and a friend who helped the Obamas buy a home in 2005. Rezko's company used subsidies to rehabilitate more than 1,000 apartments, mostly in and around Obama's district, then refused to manage the units, leaving the buildings to decay to the point where many no longer were habitable.
Campaign finance records show that six prominent developers - including Jarrett, Davis, and Rezko - collectively contributed more than $175,000 to Obama's campaigns over the last decade and raised hundreds of thousands more from other donors. Rezko alone raised at least $200,000, by Obama's own accounting.



Read the rest here (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/06/27/grim_proving_ground_for_obamas_housing_policy/?page=full)



Hope and change!

[CPLHUNTER]

Obama remarks on Iraq prompt flip-flop charge

(CNN) -- Sen. John McCain's campaign again called Sen. Barack Obama a flip-flopper after the Democratic candidate held two news conferences to clarify his remarks on the Iraq war.

Obama on Thursday denied that he's shying away from his proposed 16-month phased withdrawal of all combat troops from Iraq, calling it "pure speculation" and adding that his "position has not changed."

However, he told reporters questioning his stance that he will "continue to refine" his policies as warranted.

His comments prompted the Republican National Committee to put out an e-mail saying the presumed Democratic nominee was backing away from his position on withdrawal.

Obama called a second news conference later Thursday to reiterate that he is not changing his position.

"Apparently I wasn't clear enough this morning on my position with respect to the war in Iraq (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/iraq_war). I have said throughout this campaign that this war was ill-conceived, that it was a strategic blunder and that it needs to come to an end," he said.

"I have also said that I would be deliberate and careful in how we got out, that we would bring our troops home at a pace of one to two brigades per month and that at that pace we would have our combat troops out in 16 months."

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/04/campaign.wrap/index.html

[Power_serj]

In this case a flip-flop is appropriate. I am not against flip flopping. If the flip-flop is because the politician admits he was wrong first or circumstances change, then it is appropriate. His lack of flip flopping is wrong in this case. The Iraq war has turned incredibly in US favor, and him not changing his view because of the changed circumstances, I cannot and never will respect Obama. I hope that this is just all talk for votes...but even then, he is wrong for doing that. If he becomes POTUS, I hope he uses common sense and acts appropriately.

[LaoSexMachine]

Both of these guys are politicians. They have flip flop down to a science.

[IMTT]

Sources have led me to believe that McCain and Obama in back door sessions with high level military leaders have commited to continue to prosecute GWOT with no changes if elected. The only requirement given is that progress is shown...whatever that means. Make no mistake in public they will more than likely sing another tune, then again who cares once they are elected the sheep of America will follow.


Baaa, Baaa, Baaa

[muttbutt]

Both of these guys are politicians. They have flip flop down to a science.
X it's their profession and they are pretty good at it.:roll:


term limit's might be nice so you don't get these career politicians.:|

[CPLHUNTER]

The thing about these statements have strange timing...

During his campaign for candidate, he always spoke about bringing the war to and end ASAP and then if he came into office, troop pullouts would effective within 6 months. Hillary said the same thing.

So now that Hillary is out of the picture, I think that he sees a need for more conservative votes in order to beat Mccain, therefore he changes his tune.

But politicians do it the time and then they wonder why they can't be trusted.

You're allowed to change your mind and admit you were wrong about some issue, which is not what the def of flip flopping is...

Overall, I have a huge lack of faith in the government and it seems like this cycle never ends. We need to start from scratch.

[IMTT]

At least career politicians have experience doing something in office to make it look like their all about the people. Obama doesn't have that going for him. His most compeling arguement is; don't be a racist vote for me. Thruth is the second thing to go, the first is ethics in order to become a Politician. Why do you think so many of them are Lawers they are professional liers so the switch from one to the other is made with great ease. Obama should fit in well in the White house with his Preacher. Just think if the Rev swears him into office. I will fall out laughing...duped again suckers! Stay tuned; Next the invasion of Iran and a full deployment / expansion in Africa. The customer always gets what they order.

[Hellfish]

How did he flip-flop? AFAIK, he's always stuck to his two brigades per month plan. I don't remember him ever advocating a drop and run policy, at least not as a presidential candidate.

[Power_serj]

IIRC he made some kind of comment saying that he may reconsider depending on what the Generals tell him. Not in those words, he was very ambiguous so it could be interpreted in different ways. I honestly don't think he said anything hinting that he would drastically change his policy.

[Hellfish]

I believe he made some kind of comment saying that he may reconsider depending on what the Generals tell him. Not in those words, he was very ambiguous so it could be interpreted in different ways.

He said his plan was flexible based on the realities of the situation. I don't see that as a flip-flop.

[budgie]

Both of these guys are politicians. They have flip flop down to a science.

I believe that the whole charge of 'flip-flopping' is unwarranted and shows a gross misunderstanding of democratic politics. What was used so effectively to discredit Kerry in 2004 was a base appeal to unsavvy voters who were easily convinced that a public servant should stick to their own set of values no matter what.

In reality, when the constituents demand something different, or circumstances change or when the experts bring new evidence to light (ie, the generals regarding Iraq) then policy must be altered - that sometimes means 'breaking' promises. In a system where the elected leaders are beholden to their voters (and everyone really once they take office) it is inevitable. In that sense, McCain, Obama, Clinton, Bush and whoever can and should be let off the hook for cases of alleged 'flip-flopping'.

[Winger]

"I have also said that I would be deliberate and careful in how we got out, that we would bring our troops home at a pace of one to two brigades per month and that at that pace we would have our combat troops out in 16 months."



When a guy like this starts talking particulars about how many troops to withdraw and at what pace like he's some expert, I start to question who is whispering BS into his here. Probably that Wes Clark, God help us.

[IMTT]

For the benefit of Hellfish6

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/07/07/080707taco_talk_packer
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama%27s_Iraq_Speech)
http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Barack_Obama_War_+_Peace.htm
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/06/obama-and-iraq.html
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/05/020650.php
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

Here’s a few notes from and on the future President Saddam;

Judgment You Can Trust!

As a candidate for the United States Senate in 2002, Obama put his political career on the line to oppose going to war in Iraq, and warned of “an occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs, and undetermined consequences.” Obama has been a consistent, principled and vocal opponent of the war in Iraq.

In 2003 and 2004, he spoke out against the war on the campaign trail;
In 2005, he called for a phased withdrawal of our troops;
In 2006, he called for a timetable to remove our troops, a political solution within Iraq, and aggressive diplomacy with all of Iraq’s neighbors;
In January 2007, he introduced legislation in the Senate to remove all of our combat troops from Iraq by March 2008.
In September 2007, he laid out a detailed plan for how he will end the war as president.

“The widespread conviction among Democrats that we are destined to fail in Iraq was the key to Barack Obama's emergence as Presidential front-runner. He postured himself as the candidate who had opposed the war from the beginning.”

“Obama’s plan, which was formally laid out last September, called for the remaining combat brigades to be pulled out at a brisk pace of about one per month,”


I love this bro, he will make possibly the most memorable and deserving (of the Citizens of the USA) President of my life time. This is going to be fun!


"YES WE CAN!" We are that stupid and naive!

[Hellfish]

I still don't see where he's flipped on anything IMTT. That history just looks like a natural development and refinement of policy.

[IMTT]

"natural development and refinement of policy"

I'm now laughing so hard my side hurts. I'm now using that line on my wife. Are you an Attorney?

Sweet dreams my Prince

[Hellfish]

I still don't see what you're saying. You seem to be whining and mocking like a child because you're incapable of being coherent.

[bugkill]

This is not a flip-flop and I'm surprised that many people on here (and the media) are claiming that it is. Obama has said consistently that he is going to pull us out of Iraq, but he also pointed out doing it in a responsible way. Obama is going to change the mission and his mission is to slowly end combat operations in Iraq. It may take 2-3 years to do it, but that is what he is going to do. He has every right to adjust his plan of pulling us out, but the bottom line is that he is going to get us out of there.

All this talk about victory and winning is not seeing reality for what it is, and that is that there is nothing for us to win in Iraq, because Iraq does not belong to us, and we gave them freedom to do what they want. Yes, we can build a friendship with them, but does that mean that we have to be there for the next 10 years and spend trillions of dollars? We did our mission and the Iraqis are almost at the point of handling things themselves, so what would be the point in talking about staying for another 5-10 years? We got a real war in Afghanistan against a CLEAR enemy, while Iraq involves multiple groups and other nations in a proxy war and insurgency.

Iraq is not going to fly a US flag over there or even honor our fallen (still have yet to see it from the Iraqi government), so why in the hell is it so damn important for us to stay? I was all about "winning" the war and staying there as long as it took, but I woke up from my dream, and I now realize that we have to change our mission over there. I do not think we are over there in the best interests of our country, because I do not think the Iraqi government will ultimately share our best interests. They seem to be playing the game as long as they can until they can become self sufficient, and then after that, I can see them telling us to "piss off"!

I think the truth is that the Iraqi government is going to give us the middle finger when we leave and be more of a friend to Iran, and that is why there are those in our government that fear this happening. Now, can you imagine the disaster this will bring for many people in government that went along with this mission? That we lost over 4,000 troops in Iraq, just so they can turn around and be friends with one of our biggest enemies. Some of you guys may not think that is a possibility, but I honestly believe that it is very possible.

[Hellfish]

Great post, bugkill.

[SilentType]

Seems like Obama has made it very clear to me where he stands on Iraq. If he is trying to soften his rhetoric now well he's a politician and that's what they do to get elected, but don't let it fool you into not knowing exactly where he stands.

When it comes to Iraq he wants a withdrawal regardless of conditions on the ground in 16 months. He has stated that he will listen to the commanders on the ground only so far as a pull-out is concerned and will disregard all advice to the contrary. Apparently Senator Obama's vast millitary experience and depth of knowledge make him better suited to sum up the strategic situation than career military officers.:roll:

What is more disconcerning is Obama's pledge to do the following:

1. Slow the development of Future Combat Systems (FCS). Why would we at time of war slow the development of systems that could help us both prosecute the war on terror better and save American lives? If you don't like the program or certain aspects of it why wouldn't you just kill it? Why would you want to slow its development while there are troops in the field?

2. Cut funding for "unproven missile defense systems." I have never seen a new system that was from conception "proven" and I believe many aspects of our missile defense programs have proven themselves already. Why would anyone on God's green earth want to harm our missile defense programs through cuts when they give an option other than all out nuclear war to a nation that is being attacked with WMD? Wouldn't it be nice to have an option that destroyed the nuclear weapons before they killed millions and prevented an all out nuclear exchange? You would think a Progressive Democrat tied to the peace movement would want that wouldn't ya?

3. Obama will not weaponize space. Well, that's good, but the Chinese are already working on doing that and some unilateral pledge while certainly praise worthy in social circles will not change the fact that other nations will continue to develop weapons that can hurt America which is heavily dependent on satellites. Sorry, but that ball is already rolling.

Why the media has failed to report on any of these things or question Obama about why he would pledge to do them and what led him to believe he should is beyond me?

Watch for yourself though folks:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl32Y7wDVDs

Keep in mind the above is just what he could fit into his 52 second clip there. He covered most the big budget items and you've got to wonder what other deep cuts he would like to see in defense spending. Kind of insane when you've got someone running for President who wants to by his own admission carry out operations in Afghanistan and prosecute the War on Terror and yet calls for the slowing of development or killing of multiple defense programs.

He's certainly a Change Agent when it comes to national defense. We'll have to depend on the good graces of our enemies that they elect not to harm us or our interests.

A pull out of Iraq while Obama refuses to endorse domestic exploration of oil will put the United States in a position where our hand could be forced into going back into Iraq at a later point to restore order. That would be a horrible situation that could result in the deaths of people that don't have to die since we are making progress toward security. To abandon those Iraqis who are working so hard to secure their nation would be a horrible stain on our honor as a nation.

Unfortunately, Senator Obama's real views will never be displayed by the media and most folks will not put the effort into looking beyond the nightly news to learn about his plans.

[Hellfish]

Seems like Obama has made it very clear to me where he stands on Iraq. If he is trying to soften his rhetoric now well he's a politician and that's what they do to get elected, but don't let it fool you into knowing exactly where he stands.


Jesus Christ. You people are breeding. Do you all read the same blog?

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=136425

[SilentType]

This is not a flip-flop and I'm surprised that many people on here (and the media) are claiming that it is. Obama has said consistently that he is going to pull us out of Iraq, but he also pointed out doing it in a responsible way. Obama is going to change the mission and his mission is to slowly end combat operations in Iraq. It may take 2-3 years to do it, but that is what he is going to do. He has every right to adjust his plan of pulling us out, but the bottom line is that he is going to get us out of there.

All this talk about victory and winning is not seeing reality for what it is, and that is that there is nothing for us to win in Iraq, because Iraq does not belong to us, and we gave them freedom to do what they want. Yes, we can build a friendship with them, but does that mean that we have to be there for the next 10 years and spend trillions of dollars? We did our mission and the Iraqis are almost at the point of handling things themselves, so what would be the point in talking about staying for another 5-10 years? We got a real war in Afghanistan against a CLEAR enemy, while Iraq involves multiple groups and other nations in a proxy war and insurgency.

Iraq is not going to fly a US flag over there or even honor our fallen (still have yet to see it from the Iraqi government), so why in the hell is it so damn important for us to stay? I was all about "winning" the war and staying there as long as it took, but I woke up from my dream, and I now realize that we have to change our mission over there. I do not think we are over there in the best interests of our country, because I do not think the Iraqi government will ultimately share our best interests. They seem to be playing the game as long as they can until they can become self sufficient, and then after that, I can see them telling us to "piss off"!

I think the truth is that the Iraqi government is going to give us the middle finger when we leave and be more of a friend to Iran, and that is why there are those in our government that fear this happening. Now, can you imagine the disaster this will bring for many people in government that went along with this mission? That we lost over 4,000 troops in Iraq, just so they can turn around and be friends with one of our biggest enemies. Some of you guys may not think that is a possibility, but I honestly believe that it is very possible.

We tried the whole "get out fast" approach remember? Before the surge? Obama basically wants to return us to that policy and that's just not going to bring any level of stability to Iraq at all. Things will get just as bad as they were pre-surge.

Ohhh, but Senator Obama is going to do it in a "responsible way." How do you do such a thing as pull out troops within 16 months and create stability while decreasing security for the nation of Iraq in a responsible way? I would LOVE to hear that plan.

Talk about victory is not reality? Why? The Iraqis continue to make progress. Can you point to anything that was a set-back for the Iraqis since the surge gained full strength? They are now carrying out large operations and taking control while providing security to areas that pre-surge were considered by some to be lost to chaos.

This is the KEY to this whole thing. Who cares how much the Democratic government of Iraq loves the American government? They will however care about their own popularity and to be popular they will require a free and open market with a steady export of oil. If we abandon Iraq and it slips into chaos what will that do to the already sky rocketing price of oil on the futures market? Obama will not let us drill here and God forbid the middle east has a larger conflict Americans will find themselves in an economic crisis. Senator Obama isn't going to give us all solar power cars is he and turn our economy around to one that isn't dependent on oil is he before he pulls us out?

I don't give a damn if the Iraqis "like us" and as a free nation they can give me the middle finger all they want as long as they continue to produce and export oil just like Iran does. Democratic nations are more predictable and will always act in their best economic interests.

[bugkill]

We tried the whole "get out fast" approach remember? Before the surge? Obama basically wants to return us to that policy and that's just not going to bring any level of stability to Iraq at all. Things will get just as bad as they were pre-surge.

Ohhh, but Senator Obama is going to do it in a "responsible way." How do you do such a thing as pull out troops within 16 months and create stability while decreasing security for the nation of Iraq in a responsible way? I would LOVE to hear that plan.

Talk about victory is not reality? Why? The Iraqis continue to make progress. Can you point to anything that was a set-back for the Iraqis since the surge gained full strength? They are now carrying out large operations and taking control while providing security to areas that pre-surge were considered by some to be lost to chaos.

This is the KEY to this whole thing. Who cares how much the Democratic government of Iraq loves the American government? They will however care about their own popularity and to be popular they will require a free and open market with a steady export of oil. If we abandon Iraq and it slips into chaos what will that do to the already sky rocketing price of oil on the futures market? Obama will not let us drill here and God forbid the middle east has a larger conflict Americans will find themselves in an economic crisis. Senator Obama isn't going to give us all solar power cars is he and turn our economy around to one that isn't dependent on oil is he before he pulls us out?

I don't give a damn if the Iraqis "like us" and as a free nation they can give me the middle finger all they want as long as they continue to produce and export oil just like Iran does. Democratic nations are more predictable and will always act in their best economic interests.

Progress does not equal having 130,00 combat troops and speding $12 billion a month for the next 5-10 years, especially when we have unfinished business in Afghanistan. Also, what the hell makes you think that the Iraqis are going to be our friends and let us have their oil? What are you prepared to do if they decide to not deal with us on that level once they gain control of their country? Are you going to go back in there and overthrow them like we did Saddam? Are you going to say that they are looking for nukes from Iran and make a case to go back in?

President Bush said that our mission is over once the Iraqi government can stand on its own feet, so why are you against plans for withdrawal since the Iraqi government has showed progress? If the country is doing better now, what do you expect it to look like in 2010? If the Surge worked and everything is getting better, why are we not talking about drawing down forces (which would take a couple of years), and moving some of them to A-stan? I'll tell you why not, its because we know damn well that the Iraqi government is going to develope a relationship with Iran and that our best interests (well, those that stand to gain financially) will not be met, unless we keep boots on the ground there. There is no reason for us to not have around 30-60,000 troops in Iraq by 2010, and that is if the Iraqis allowed us to stay. The levels we are at now is just too high and the Iraqi people need to take control of their own country, since President Bush decided to put them in control.

This is a forced relationship that we are in and it is the blood of American troops that is footing the bill. It is easy for you to think that we should stay there, no matter how they feel about us, and I say that you need to find a recruiting office and sign up to come fight (if you have not served).

[Power_serj]

Iraq is not going to fly a US flag over there or even honor our fallen (still have yet to see it from the Iraqi government), so why in the hell is it so damn important for us to stay? I was all about "winning" the war and staying there as long as it took, but I woke up from my dream, and I now realize that we have to change our mission over there. I do not think we are over there in the best interests of our country, because I do not think the Iraqi government will ultimately share our best interests. They seem to be playing the game as long as they can until they can become self sufficient, and then after that, I can see them telling us to "piss off"!

I think the truth is that the Iraqi government is going to give us the middle finger when we leave and be more of a friend to Iran, and that is why there are those in our government that fear this happening. Now, can you imagine the disaster this will bring for many people in government that went along with this mission? That we lost over 4,000 troops in Iraq, just so they can turn around and be friends with one of our biggest enemies. Some of you guys may not think that is a possibility, but I honestly believe that it is very possible.

Obviously Iraq isn't going to appreciate the freedoms our troops have given them. However, irresponsibly ending the war will have dire consequences in the long term. If the government is over thrown and we see rogue groups (maybe compared to pre-9/11 Afghanistan) controlling the country, it will be a big threat to us and our strategic interests. We don't want Iraq to be a new base for terrorist attacks on US, her allies, or her interests. The big object the United States must look out for is to make sure there are no staging areas for major terrorist attacks. (*terrorist attack could be either mainland, attacking interests such as oil, or attacking regional allies) Even if Iraq 'betrays' the United States and sides with Iran, it is better than having a rogue government or anarchy which will have negative long term effects for the United States, the region and the world.

[IMTT]

Hellfish6,

"whining and mocking" You got me. Are you a hard core Obama supporter or what? I think I was very coherent perhaps your blinded and your comprehension is dulled by good looks and Oprah. Go green party!

The American public was told on several occasions that we were getting out of Bosnia in 12 months by Uncle Bill. Were still there BTW.

Nothing will change in the current GWOT commitments. Regardless of what is said by Obama or McCain the course will stay in effect. Its a non-issue, just rhetoric for public consumption and mental mastrubation of the masses. We are little more than useful idiots in the process to be bamboozled. Bring on the clown!

[Hellfish]

I'm not an Obama supporter, nor am I a McCain supporter. I'm still undecided, but I think you're just a bitchy conservative who reads too many blogs/too much Fox/CNN/MSNBC to think for yourself.

We withdrew our forces from Bosnia several years ago. 2003, IIRC.

[bugkill]

Obviously Iraq isn't going to appreciate the freedoms our troops have given them. However, irresponsibly ending the war will have dire consequences in the long term. If the government is over thrown and we see rogue groups (maybe compared to pre-9/11 Afghanistan) controlling the country, it will be a big threat to us and our strategic interests. We don't want Iraq to be a new base for terrorist attacks on US, her allies, or her interests. The big object the United States must look out for is to make sure there are no staging areas for major terrorist attacks. (*terrorist attack could be either mainland, attacking interests such as oil, or attacking regional allies) Even if Iraq 'betrays' the United States and sides with Iran, it is better than having a rogue government or anarchy which will have negative long term effects for the United States, the region and the world.

We would not be leaving the country irresponsibly if we were to draw up plans for leaving in about 2 years. We would have spent almost 8 years and thousand of troops killed just so that Iraqis could hold elections, allow oil companies to drill for oil, and MAYBE have a good relationship with them militarily. All this talk about a terror base is simply ridiculous. I used to believe that, but now I don't.

We are going to be dealing with terrorists for many years and terrorists have staging areas all around the world, and they launched the biggest one (9/11) from a cave in Afghanistan. Also, if it was true that we are so worried about the terrorists having a haven in Iraq, why the hell have we not gone into Pakistan to take out the known threat there? I do not want to hear all this crap about respecting our ally's sovreignty, because they are not our ally if they will not permit us to take out our enemy in their country, and its an enemy that has targeted that country's leader in the past.

The problem with all this talk of staying in Iraq is the fact the we have a real fight in A-stan. I'm sick and tired of hearing about Iraq and how important it is for the GWOT, but we have not done enough in A-stan to finish off the Taliban and Al Qaeda there. Whatever happens to Iraq's future is going to be up to them. It does not matter how many more lives we sacrifice or the money we spend there, it all rests on the shoulders of the Iraqis. We are not there to make Iraq under our direct control, so it is basically a waste of time being there for another 5 years at the level we are at now. Each passing year, the Iraqis are getting more control and starting to get more independent, and there comes a time for us to change our mission, and that time is coming soon.

We need to bring our forces down slowly, starting in late 2009, but not announced publically. We do not have to talk about the movement of our forces and if the violence there is not at the level as it was in 2004-2007, we can start diverting forces to A-stan or keep them home. If Iraq falls into a civil war, we can just support the people we want to win and let the chips fall as they may. We are NOT the world's police force and we can't stop people from wanting to kill each other. We have been in Iraq long enough and now it is time to start making other plans.

If we are not going to take direct control of Iraq, we are essentially being pimped by some of the corrupt leaders there and the oil companies that stand to gain a lot with our presence there.

[IMTT]

Hellfish6,

No, none US presence in Bosnia? Did Tuzla close down shop and blow away? The point was this op was orginally sold as a short stop over until the EU could get a handle on thier problem. At the end of the day the our elected reps did whatever they wanted and lied to us. No news here.

[Hellfish]

As far as I know, all major units in Bosnia withdrew. We might have liaison and some support detachments back there, but there is no significant presence as I understand it.

[gaijinsamurai]

Well said, Bugkill. I'd add my $.02, but it would just be repetitive.

At this point, I'm with Hellfish, in that I'm neither a McCain or a Obama supporter. There are things about both candidates I dislike, and I'm still undecided.

But to say Obama is "flip-flopping" on Iraq, just because he's being flexible, is absurd. A stateman needs to know when to modify his policies, depending on how situations change. I would prefer a politician who can have an open mind and be flexible rather than someone like our current president, who lives in a state of denial because he can't bring himself to admit that his big Iraq adventure turned out to be a huge mistake.

[IMTT]

I never agreed with the excursion into Iraq to begin with either. However as in the case of Bosnia, Kosovo, Germany, Japan, and too many other places to list once we arrive we have a hard time washing our hands of places. There is Oil in Iraq and very much of it. Economically he needs stability (whatever dis-honest bafoon takes office) in the region regardless of politics. Bottom line money talks bullsh-t walks now we do have a "national interest" in this bottomless heathen filled sand pit. Bush declares victory after invasion and fighting is over but yet we are still there and losing young and old men alike. Both canidates knew that from the beginning and now as the election day draws near they are softing the blow to the American public that we are going no where. National, economic and pragmatic reality is what it is.

Call it what you want but at the end of the day both of these fools are puppets and are little more than dancing to the tune struck up by thier party band to get into office. Obama has no experience or background, he is anti-America specifically anti-white America, McCain doesn't know what he is from day and might as well be a democrat. Thankfully for the democrats Obama isn't white. It doesn't matter what you say to get there once your there you can do whatever you want.

Look at Bill, he was impeached and he was still laughing at the American people fools that we are while setting in his office. Then he released PR terrorists from prison and got his wife elected in NY. I love this guy, in your face and nothing you can do and your too stupid to see through the haze. But I have to give it to him at least my gas was relatively cheap, taxes were stable and our dollar was slamming everyone else in the world. His version of war was to bomb some little nothing no matter country for a couple days or weeks wash his hands and declare victory.

[gaijinsamurai]

Obama has no experience or background, he is anti-America specifically anti-white America,.

Would you care to give specific examples to show how Mr. Obama is "anti-America"? I would appreciate it, as I don't want to give my vote to a candidate who's aim is to try to weaken our country.

[IDF_TANKER]

Oh.Please.God.No.More.Obama.Threads.


http://www.jwz.org/images/asstattoo015.jpg

Unless this is a woman's ass, I'm considering posting this picture a very serious man law violation.

[bugkill]

I never agreed with the excursion into Iraq to begin with either. However as in the case of Bosnia, Kosovo, Germany, Japan, and too many other places to list once we arrive we have a hard time washing our hands of places. There is Oil in Iraq and very much of it. Economically he needs stability (whatever dis-honest bafoon takes office) in the region regardless of politics. Bottom line money talks bullsh-t walks now we do have a "national interest" in this bottomless heathen filled sand pit. Bush declares victory after invasion and fighting is over but yet we are still there and losing young and old men alike. Both canidates knew that from the beginning and now as the election day draws near they are softing the blow to the American public that we are going no where. National, economic and pragmatic reality is what it is.

Call it what you want but at the end of the day both of these fools are puppets and are little more than dancing to the tune struck up by thier party band to get into office. Obama has no experience or background, he is anti-America specifically anti-white America, McCain doesn't know what he is from day and might as well be a democrat. Thankfully for the democrats Obama isn't white. It doesn't matter what you say to get there once your there you can do whatever you want.

Look at Bill, he was impeached and he was still laughing at the American people fools that we are while setting in his office. Then he released PR terrorists from prison and got his wife elected in NY. I love this guy, in your face and nothing you can do and your too stupid to see through the haze. But I have to give it to him at least my gas was relatively cheap, taxes were stable and our dollar was slamming everyone else in the world. His version of war was to bomb some little nothing no matter country for a couple days or weeks wash his hands and declare victory.

I still find it funny that people make note of what color Obama is. Obama being black has nothing to do with him being in the position that he is in. I do not remember anyone saying that McCain is there because he is white, so why does it keep coming up? Yes, Obama has not been in Washington politics too long, but he would not be the first president with not much experience. Also, having a ton of time in Washington does not mean that you are the best choice to be president.

I like McCain and Obama, and whoever wins, I feel confident that neither one would put the country in turmoil. I'm only leaning towards Obama because of Iraq, McCain's age, and the fact that the democrats will have power. I think it is time to see what the democrats will do when they are in complete charge of all seats of power. The republicans had their chance and they squandered their opportunity, now it is the other sides turn. I'm neither democrat or republican, but I do hold mostly conservative values. It just does not mean that I will blindly support any party.

Right now, it is just not McCain's time. He even said it himself that he was too old and I just do not think there would be any progress with him as president with the house and senate being ran by democrats. I also do not like his stance on Iraq and his tough talk on Iran just does not impress me. We are the United States of America, we do not have to talk tough or not talk to our enemies. We should not even be talking about Iran when we have unfinished business in Iraq and Afghanistan, but Iran is being thrown around by him as possibly being the next target, which I find incredible given the situation we are in now. Why even entertain the thought of fighting Iran, when we have yet to dismantle a terrorist organization that killed 3,000 of our civilians? If Iraq has taught us anything, it would be that we need to deal with threats in a strategic manner, not piling on more conflicts.

[gaijinsamurai]

I'm still waiting for IMTT to expand on why Obama is "anti-America". If he can show me specifically how he is "anti-White" (other than the same tired arguments I've heard about his church and Rev. Wright), that would be helpful too......

[wildcat]

I still find it funny that people make note of what color Obama is. Obama being black has nothing to do with him being in the position that he is in. I do not remember anyone saying that McCain is there because he is white, so why does it keep coming up? Yes, Obama has not been in Washington politics too long, but he would not be the first president with not much experience. Also, having a ton of time in Washington does not mean that you are the best choice to be president.

I like McCain and Obama, and whoever wins, I feel confident that neither one would put the country in turmoil. I'm only leaning towards Obama because of Iraq, McCain's age, and the fact that the democrats will have power. I think it is time to see what the democrats will do when they are in complete charge of all seats of power. The republicans had their chance and they squandered their opportunity, now it is the other sides turn. I'm neither democrat or republican, but I do hold mostly conservative values. It just does not mean that I will blindly support any party.

Right now, it is just not McCain's time. He even said it himself that he was too old and I just do not think there would be any progress with him as president with the house and senate being ran by democrats. I also do not like his stance on Iraq and his tough talk on Iran just does not impress me. We are the United States of America, we do not have to talk tough or not talk to our enemies. We should not even be talking about Iran when we have unfinished business in Iraq and Afghanistan, but Iran is being thrown around by him as possibly being the next target, which I find incredible given the situation we are in now. Why even entertain the thought of fighting Iran, when we have yet to dismantle a terrorist organization that killed 3,000 of our civilians? If Iraq has taught us anything, it would be that we need to deal with threats in a strategic manner, not piling on more conflicts.


My only worry is that next year the nuclear arms agreement between Russia and the USA ends, and that is one of the points the new president has to deal with. Also Obama talked about dumping all our nuclear weapons, which I think is a big mistake, I don't think he would be best for commander in chief, and even though I don't like McCain, he would be better.

Also I personal don't trust Obama he is a democrat, and they have some crazy policies I can follow, I love the constitution whey to much. But then again McCain is not much better and the republican really showed there colors with Bush. I don't like either party, but I pushing more to McCain, I would like to see the dead lock govenment, one party has the house and senate, the other is the president.

[Power_serj]

We would not be leaving the country irresponsibly if we were to draw up plans for leaving in about 2 years. We would have spent almost 8 years and thousand of troops killed just so that Iraqis could hold elections, allow oil companies to drill for oil, and MAYBE have a good relationship with them militarily. All this talk about a terror base is simply ridiculous. I used to believe that, but now I don't.

I do agree that it's about time to start winding down, but a timetable is irresponsible. We must remain flexible for something that might happen to change the tides that are currently in our favor. My concern is that Obama's withdrawl plan is not flexible for anything that may change. I don't see why you would think that Iraq can't become a terror base, Al Qaeda is already known to operate there, and leaving Iraq without a strong government would allow either Al Qaeda or another Muslim strong arm group to take over with the same tactics of political oppression that Saddam and the Taliban used.

We are going to be dealing with terrorists for many years and terrorists have staging areas all around the world, and they launched the biggest one (9/11) from a cave in Afghanistan. Also, if it was true that we are so worried about the terrorists having a haven in Iraq, why the hell have we not gone into Pakistan to take out the known threat there? I do not want to hear all this crap about respecting our ally's sovreignty, because they are not our ally if they will not permit us to take out our enemy in their country, and its an enemy that has targeted that country's leader in the past.

Pakistan is our supposed ally. It is better to just leave them alone as long as the government is pro-US. Using any kind of force could take away our strategic advangtage and create a new enemy for ourselves, which would be essentially what happened in Iraq.

The problem with all this talk of staying in Iraq is the fact the we have a real fight in A-stan. I'm sick and tired of hearing about Iraq and how important it is for the GWOT, but we have not done enough in A-stan to finish off the Taliban and Al Qaeda there. Whatever happens to Iraq's future is going to be up to them. It does not matter how many more lives we sacrifice or the money we spend there, it all rests on the shoulders of the Iraqis. We are not there to make Iraq under our direct control, so it is basically a waste of time being there for another 5 years at the level we are at now. Each passing year, the Iraqis are getting more control and starting to get more independent, and there comes a time for us to change our mission, and that time is coming soon.

I agree that we must also focus on Afghanistan. However, Iraq is in our favor but the United States must begin a flexible withdrawl from Iraq, rather than a timetable. Because Iraq is in our favor, it is in our best interests to worry about it first, then once we have enough troops, use the same proven method of the surge and create Afghan militias the same way done in Iraq.

We need to bring our forces down slowly, starting in late 2009, but not announced publically. We do not have to talk about the movement of our forces and if the violence there is not at the level as it was in 2004-2007, we can start diverting forces to A-stan or keep them home. If Iraq falls into a civil war, we can just support the people we want to win and let the chips fall as they may. We are NOT the world's police force and we can't stop people from wanting to kill each other. We have been in Iraq long enough and now it is time to start making other plans.

I actually think we can start bringing force levels down immediately with a flexible unannounced timetable. What I mean by that it have a plan of an estimated date by when the majority of US forces should be out, but change accordingly if violence rises or slows. The hardest part is trying to keep some stupid politician from leaking the plan. Give our troops some R&R for a while, then begin a surge in Afghanistan.

If we are not going to take direct control of Iraq, we are essentially being pimped by some of the corrupt leaders there and the oil companies that stand to gain a lot with our presence there.






If we keep debating we will start to repeat ourselves. Once you make your final argument, it is better that we agree to disagree.

[SoSo]

Apparently Barack Obama has been challenged to a "town hall" debate by John McCain (this is where both candidates appear before an audience and take questions) but has continually balked, because he knows it will expose how uneducated he is regarding history, geography, and overseas events. He prefers a "Lincoln-Douglas" style debate (where each candidate simply makes a speech). This will enable him to rehearse and use cue cards, concealing his lack of knowledge.

Unfortunately, no one can compel Barack Obama to take spontaneous questions from his audience. And he will probably never do so. He will always be able to prepare his statements and appear more savvy than he really is. He is a fine, charismatic speaker, when he is able to rehearse; it is his greatest strength. His core constituency of poor and uneducated people, and naive, immature college kids, who adore Obama and see him as some kind of second Robert Kennedy, will never doubt or question him.

[Lee]

Obama being black has nothing to do with him being in the position that he is in.

If he was white you would have never heard of his name.

[Hellfish]

Apparently Barack Obama has been challenged to a "town hall" debate by John McCain (this is where both candidates appear before an audience and take questions) but has continually balked, because he knows it will expose how uneducated he is regarding history, geography, and overseas events. He prefers a "Lincoln-Douglas" style debate (where each candidate simply makes a speech). This will enable him to rehearse and use cue cards, concealing his lack of knowledge.

Unfortunately, no one can compel Barack Obama to take spontaneous questions from his audience. And he will probably never do so. He will always be able to prepare his statements and appear more savvy than he really is. He is a fine, charismatic speaker, when he is able to rehearse; it is his greatest strength. His core constituency of poor and uneducated people, and naive, immature college kids, who adore Obama and see him as some kind of second Robert Kennedy, will never doubt or question him.

Have you actually seen him talk? I have, and he frequently takes questions from the audience. And unlike GWB, his audiences aren't carefully screened with only party die-hards allowed in. I don't think McCain has done that yet either.

[wildcat]

Obama being black has nothing to do with him being in the position that he is in.

If he was white you would have never heard of his name.

True, but the same was for hilary, if she was not a woman then she would not of got some many votes(from all those girly, scaredy men and 40 plus women).

[Lee]

I'm still waiting for IMTT to expand on why Obama is "anti-America". If he can show me specifically how he is "anti-White" (other than the same tired arguments I've heard about his church and Rev. Wright), that would be helpful too......

oh wait! The same tired arguments about his church? It so happens that those anti white arguments might have a great deal of impact if Obama is elected. Don't trivilize important data.

[Hellfish]

When Obama gets elected, he's gonna send all the white people to re-education camps.

[wildcat]

He is a fine, charismatic speaker.
yes he is, I like him, he seem good, but I cannot trust him personally, with what I believe in, and that puts me off him. Some how he seems to good to be true, I remember him saying he supports the second amendment, only later to find out, that he all for restricting it to death.

[wildcat]

When Obama gets elected, he's gonna send all the white people to re-education camps.

man you must be first on the list, its not re-education camps, it's da-edumacation camp. (attempt at joke, was never good at Ebonics)

[Hellfish]

yes he is, I like him, he seem good, but I cannot trust him personally, with what I believe in, and that puts me off him. Some how he seems to good to be true, I remember him saying he supports the second amendment, only later to find out, that he all for restricting it to death.

what do you mean restricting it to death? Didn't he come out in support of the Supreme Court ruling a week or two ago upholding an individual's right to own handguns?

[wildcat]

what do you mean restricting it to death? Didn't he come out in support of the Supreme Court ruling a week or two ago upholding an individual's right to own handguns?
I need to find that article, then I post you the link, I personally like some of things he said, like late term abortions, etc, he the closet choice we have for the working American man. If the dem could tone down the second amendment attacks, and be conservative like JFK, then I would vote for them in a heart beat. The parties shifted so much over the last 40 years.

[wildcat]

what do you mean restricting it to death? Didn't he come out in support of the Supreme Court ruling a week or two ago upholding an individual's right to own handguns?


here you go

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm

[bugkill]

Obama being black has nothing to do with him being in the position that he is in.

If he was white you would have never heard of his name.

How you figure that? All we have ever had was white presidents, and Obama has the same charisma as Bill Clinton, who just so happens to be white. When people say stuff like that, it implies the Obama, being HALF black, has no substance or is not qualified to run for President of the United States. Matter of fact, here is the qualifications right out of the Constitution:


Age and Citizenship requirements - US Constitution, Article II, Section 1

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.


Barack Obama has met the qualifications to run for president and now the people get to decide if they want him or not. He has been elected to public office before and he decided to run for the top seat. What the other politicians know is that it does not truly matter how long you have been in the Senate or the House, or whatever committees you have sat on, you still have to go out and convince the people to vote for you, and that is exactly what Obama did.

It would be like you are looking for someone to run your company. You look at some of your staff and you narrow it down to two guys. There is a young charismatic worker that gets the job done and loves doing it. He has great ideas and inspires many others in the company. Then you have veteran within the company who is very knowledgable and has much experience, but he really does not inspire the rest of the company, yet he is liked by many. Who do you choose? I would choose the young hotshot because there is more upside to him than the veteran. The veteran would be better suited behind the scenes and to share his experience, while the young man should be the face of the company.

Experience is important, but it has its place. The most experienced individuals does not mean that they are the best option for being a leader. There is a place for them to be more effective and that usually is behind the scenes. Obama, if elected, would have a crap load of experienced individuals working for him, every president does. The decisions being made for our country is not made by one individual. He may cast the final decision, but there is much imput coming from different individuals.

[bugkill]

here you go

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm

You know, we are not going to agree with everything the candidates believe in. Obama believes in gun control, so what? I have all the confidence in the world that we would not lose our right to keep and bear arms if he is made president. The right to bear arms is one of those things that politicians will not touch. Gun control is one of those issues that will never succeed in this country. Yes, there will be limits imposed by the states, but there will never be a day when you or I will not be able to keep and bear arms in our homes.

Their best bet would be to ban the sale of guns, which is just not going to happen. The majority of both democrats and republicans believe in the right to bear arms and that will never change. I was not worried when Clinton was president and wanted gun control, and I'm not worried now.

[wildcat]

You know, we are not going to agree with everything the candidates believe in. Obama believes in gun control, so what? I have all the confidence in the world that we would not lose our right to keep and bear arms if he is made president. The right to bear arms is one of those things that politicians will not touch. Gun control is one of those issues that will never succeed in this country. Yes, there will be limits imposed by the states, but there will never be a day when you or I will not be able to keep and bear arms in our homes.

Their best bet would be to ban the sale of guns, which is just not going to happen. The majority of both democrats and republicans believe in the right to bear arms and that will never change. I was not worried when Clinton was president and wanted gun control, and I'm not worried now.

But look at how much Clinton passed when he was in office. The brady bill, At least we know have the kept the good part of the brady bill (back ground checks), but I cannot trust the dems on this issue, they will want a new brday bill. I think the current laws on the books are fine, but there are a lot of dems that want more. Obama was for the DC hand gun ban.

[Nizark]

Can we just move this to the political section and leave it? I'm guessing a anti-mccain thread would get locked in like 15 minutes.

[JKD]

Can we just move this to the political section and leave it? I'm guessing a anti-mccain thread would get locked in like 15 minutes.

This is in the political section. There is a McCain rants thread.
...Grizzly Adams did have a beard.

[crod2487]

That mother****er is dead. Wouldnt be suprised one bit if we got at Tora Bora. We dropped so much ordnance on his head i just dont see a sick many escaping that attack on that type of terrain. He probably died and they took his body on the way out or he died of wounds later.

Hypothetically if he was alive...it would the dumbest most lame brained thing to capture him. AQ doesnt give a ****...theyll kill ****ing newborn babies to get their point across. I woulsnt put it past them for a second to come back to CONUS and hold up a school or something with suicide vests demaninding th release of him. Have we not learned? the only good terrorist is a dead terrorist. We arent fighting states so diplomacy and world image doesnt matter. AQ has no land for anyone to invade if they dont like how they play. they have no citizens who will be in danger in other nations if said nation doesnt like their foreign policy.

[gaijinsamurai]

^ This is an OBAMA thread, not an OSAMA thread. Notice the subtle difference in spelling?

[Hellfish]

^ This is an OBAMA thread, not an OSAMA thread. Notice the subtle difference in spelling?

Cue the smartass who says "What's the difference between the two?"

[TR1]

When Obama gets elected, he's gonna send all the white people to re-education camps.
Good. Everyone here is so poorly educated it can't hurt.

[Chulo]

That mother****er is dead. Wouldnt be suprised one bit if we got at Tora Bora. We dropped so much ordnance on his head i just dont see a sick many escaping that attack on that type of terrain. He probably died and they took his body on the way out or he died of wounds later.

Hypothetically if he was alive...it would the dumbest most lame brained thing to capture him. AQ doesnt give a ****...theyll kill ****ing newborn babies to get their point across. I woulsnt put it past them for a second to come back to CONUS and hold up a school or something with suicide vests demaninding th release of him. Have we not learned? the only good terrorist is a dead terrorist. We arent fighting states so diplomacy and world image doesnt matter. AQ has no land for anyone to invade if they dont like how they play. they have no citizens who will be in danger in other nations if said nation doesnt like their foreign policy.


^ This is an OBAMA thread, not an OSAMA thread. Notice the subtle difference in spelling?


Cue the smartass who says "What's the difference between the two?"
had to quote for posterity

[gaijinsamurai]

It's quaint how some conservatives still think they're being cute when they pretend to confuse Obama and Osama, as if we'll start subconsciously linking the two if they do it enough times.

Or they'll emphasize Obama's middle name, and think we'll be stupid enough to think he's somehow related to Saddam or the late King of Jordan.

[budgie]

It's quaint how some conservatives still think they're being cute when they pretend to confuse Obama and Osama, as if we'll start subconsciously linking the two if they do it enough times.

Or they'll emphasize Obama's middle name, and think we'll be stupid enough to think he's somehow related to Saddam or the late King of Jordan.

True. I think it's just plain immature. For my part I've laid off name-calling (avoiding of late, labels such as "conservitard" and even accusing Bush of "stupidity" save where I can tie it to a particular action or policy). I've realised it adds nothing to the argument.

Apart from that blog that popped up last week about his war-record, McCain has largely been spared the ad-hominem attacks. However it's unsurprising to see that the angry Right, who seem to thrive on the politics of hate, continue to harangue Obama about such minor details as his name.

[gaijinsamurai]

...when they do that, they're just showing that they have little of substance on which to attack him.

[hell]

This gave me a laugh, thought I'd repost here:

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/files/images/080211_change.jpg
http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/8712/il5389783jdul1.jpg

[gaijinsamurai]

^ Hahaha!! Good one!

[Createdeemcee]

Can we just move this to the political section and leave it? I'm guessing a anti-mccain thread would get locked in like 15 minutes.



Why dont we perform a Test, Ill Start one now. :)

(FIXED)

[Macs.]

"The Brandenburg Gate is the most famous and history-rich site in Germany," the Chancellery source said. In the past, the location has only been used on very special occasions for political speeches by world leaders. And it has been reserved for use only by elected American presidents, not candidates. The decision on whether the Democrat can speak at the location ultimately lies with the Berlin state government. Chancellery officials are concerned that the Brandenburg Gate could be turned into an "arbitrary stage" that other campaigns could also seek to use in the future.


It's a traditional practice for US presidential candidates to visit Germany before the election. However, the source pointed out that agreements can only be made with elected presidents. The source also noted that a the German federal government would also be equally pleased to play host to a visit by Republican candidate John McCain. The door is just as open for him, the source said.


I think Obama is thinking he is Mr. Mumbo Jumbo or wat.

[muck]

Hillary would have been better. At least she has been a politician before and did not only Mr. Nice Guy.

As for a possible visit of Mr. Obama to the Brandenburg Gate - I can't wipe off the impression that he has forgotten that he isn't a elected POTUS yet.

[Macs.]

Muck, I have exactly the same feeling. "Mr. Future-President"... Sure... As if it's all canned.

[ronnieraygun]

Hillary would have been better. At least she has been a politician before and did not only Mr. Nice Guy.

As for a possible visit of Mr. Obama to the Brandenburg Gate - I can't wipe off the impression that he has forgotten that he isn't a elected POTUS yet.

No. Dynastic politics have to end for the moment here. Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton would have been a disservice to at least the pretension that we are still a functioning democracy in which your vote counts for ****. Plus, Hillary was always an unelectable lightning rod for criticism.

The Obama@Brandenburg gate thing, IIRC, is some new strategy where his appearance will now be branded like something JFK would have done. He will not accept the nomination at the Democratic convention, but somewhere else, just like Kennedy. (IIRC Kennedy accepted the nomination at the LA Coliseum of that time and not at the convention). He will make an appearance at Berlin, if he really does, just like that whole _I am a jelly donut_ speech that Kennedy made.

[Hellfish]

No. Dynastic politics have to end for the moment here. Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton would have been a disservice to at least the pretension that we are still a functioning democracy in which your vote counts for ****. Plus, Hillary was always an unelectable lightning rod for criticism.



****in' A.

[toki]

The Obama@Brandenburg gate thing, IIRC, is some new strategy where his appearance will now be branded like something JFK would have done. He will not accept the nomination at the Democratic convention, but somewhere else, just like Kennedy. (IIRC Kennedy accepted the nomination at the LA Coliseum of that time and not at the convention). He will make an appearance at Berlin, if he really does, just like that whole _I am a jelly donut_ speech that Kennedy made.

If he wants the same cheers as Reagan or Kennedy he should say
"Mr. Medwedew, rebuild this wall!"

Seriously, i think the Berlin Senate (not the Federal government afaik) should think twice allowing that. Why the Brandenburg Gate? Obviously to reenact historical speeches by American Presidents, but why should we play along and take part in this comedy? I think a candidate should speak in the Reichstags building/Bundestag, but not in front of the Brandenburg gate.

[Winger]

If he wants the same cheers as Reagan or Kennedy he should say
"Mr. Medwedew, rebuild this wall!"

Seriously, i think the Berlin Senate (not the Federal government afaik) should think twice allowing that. Why the Brandenburg Gate? Obviously to reenact historical speeches by American Presidents, but why should we play along and take part in this comedy? I think a candidate should speak in the Reichstag, but not in front of the Brandenburg gate.

I too would be dissapointed if the Germans allowed that.

[toki]

I too would be dissapointed if the Germans allowed that.
Though "the Germans" have no saying in it. At least not the German government. Only the Berlin Senate, speak local politicians including the mayor of Berlin has a saying in it. That's why i think they will grant him to hold a speech there. (Berlin is a City state, one of 16 federal states in Germany) And Berlin as a city probably likes the idea.

So don't be dissapointed in "the Germans". p-)

[Hellfish]

When are we not disappointed in the Germans? WWII. Concentration camps. David Hasselhof.

[toki]

When are we not disappointed in the Germans? WWII. Concentration camps. David Hasselhof.

We should send a little moonexplorer and replace all the American flags with German ones, ungrateful bastards.

[Laworkerbee]

We should send a little moonexplorer and replace all the American flags with German ones, ungrateful bastards.

Wernher von Braun will be dug up and sent home to Germany if you do such a thing.

[Thor]

No. Dynastic politics have to end for the moment here. Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton would have been a disservice to at least the pretension that we are still a functioning democracy in which your vote counts for ****. Plus, Hillary was always an unelectable lightning rod for criticism.
Who cares about dynastic politics bla bla. I would rather make passionate love to Hillary, and throw up in my mouth, than see Hussein Obama elected.

[Macs.]

Though "the Germans" have no saying in it. At least not the German government. Only the Berlin Senate, speak local politicians including the mayor of Berlin has a saying in it. That's why i think they will grant him to hold a speech there.

And the so-called mayor of Berlin is a homo****** Partylion who drinks champagne out of high heels.

And that is not even comedy. OH MY GOD. If it's up to him, he will grant him to speak there without waiting 1 seconds. That little Attentionwhore would do anything to get some time on prime time TV.

[toki]

Wernher von Braun will be dug up and sent home to Germany if you do such a thing.

The Jewish council of Germany won't like it, tell the Gay mayor of Berlin to allow Obamas speech and he will win the election.

[Macs.]

But Berlin Mayor Klaus Wowereit appeared unimpressed by the warning from Chancellor Angela Merkel's office and said during a press conference on Tuesday that he would be pleased if Obama were to address the public at the Brandenburg Gate.

"We are not ruling anything out," a spokesman for the Berlin city council told SPIEGEL ONLINE. "The Brandenburg Gate would certainly be a nice place." The local government also pointed out that the decision over where Obama should make his appearance was in the hands of the city council of Berlin and not the chancellor's office or the federal government.


:roll::roll::roll:

Wowi.

[budgie]

When are we not disappointed in the Germans? WWII. Concentration camps. David Hasselhof.

Aaah but WWII was the fault of the Nazis. We should hold all Germans personally accountable for Hasselhoff...

[Laworkerbee]

Aaah but WWII was the fault of the Nazis. We should hold all Germans personally accountable for Hasselhoff...

You can't do such a thing! the fault will fall with California at some point and we have enough bad press as it is.

[toki]

You can't do such a thing! the fault will fall with California at some point and we have enough bad press as it is.

If i see it whis way, California is responsible for David Hasselhoff, who is by own account responsible for the German Reunification. This is actually the biggest crime against humanity since ww2 and you should be hold accountable for it.

[ronnieraygun]

Who cares about dynastic politics bla bla. I would rather make passionate love to Hillary, and throw up in my mouth, than see Hussein Obama elected.

I care. Most people here do. If another Clinton gets elected we'll even be worse off and we'll quit buying H&M, those Swedish mints, your cars and your compressed particle board furniture. What will you do then?

I don't think you could go into hard-pounding mode with Hillarity. I believe she has a lot of softball-playing friends these days, if you know what I mean.

[Laworkerbee]

Well don't blame California, blame Los Angeles, in fact blame the creators and the producers of Bay watch and Night Rider who were Jews.

Germans blaming Jews, it comes back full circle. rofl

[toki]

Well don't blame California, blame Los Angeles, in fact blame the creators and the producers of Bay watch and Night Rider who were Jews.

Germans blaming Jews, it comes back full circle. rofl

David Hasselhoff is a Zionist Roboter, who was created to ridicule Germans abroad. I see a pattern.

Macs, start the procedures.

[ronnieraygun]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D91QIAP08&show_article=1

So, apparently enough people have forgotten about Rev. Jackson that it's time for him to spew out some more garbage. This time, he said Obama has "cut his nuts off" with the black community. I don't know what that means. Black people don't vote anyway. p-)

[Createdeemcee]

Black people don't vote anyway. p-)


Sad but true.

[akd]

JJ definitely wants in on this thread:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=4h5Aq6wPFis

[Fiber]

You can't say nuts on TV?

[bugkill]

Sad but true.

You guys are silly and very uneducated. 60% of blacks voted in the 2004 general election and over the years, the black vote has steadily increased. Get your facts straight first before coming up here making stereotypical posts about blacks not participating in elections, because the truth is that we have. By the way, only 65% of white americans voted. Sad, but true. :(

[Chulo]

You guys are silly and very uneducated. 60% of blacks voted in the 2004 general election and over the years, the black vote has steadily increased. Get your facts straight first before coming up here making stereotypical posts about blacks not participating in elections, because the truth is that we have. By the way, only 65% of white americans voted. Sad, but true. :(
source? 60% is higher than any national average

[ronnieraygun]

You guys are silly and very uneducated. 60% of blacks voted in the 2004 general election and over the years, the black vote has steadily increased. Get your facts straight first before coming up here making stereotypical posts about blacks not participating in elections, because the truth is that we have. By the way, only 65% of white americans voted. Sad, but true. :(

Sorry to trade in stereotypes and seem like a bad guy, but I believe it to be true. I also will personally kiss your ass if you can prove from a reliable source that 60% of blacks voted in the 2004 general election.

Granted, the numbers are increasing as well they should be and that's a good thing, but 60% sounds a bit high.

[bugkill]

Sorry to trade in stereotypes and seem like a bad guy, but I believe it to be true. I also will personally kiss your ass if you can prove from a reliable source that 60% of blacks voted in the 2004 general election.

Granted, the numbers are increasing as well they should be and that's a good thing, but 60% sounds a bit high.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p20-556.pdf

Here ya go, stats are from the US Census Bureau.

[Chulo]

You guys are silly and very uneducated. 60% of blacks voted in the 2004 general election and over the years, the black vote has steadily increased. Get your facts straight first before coming up here making stereotypical posts about blacks not participating in elections, because the truth is that we have. By the way, only 65% of white americans voted. Sad, but true. :(


http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p20-556.pdf

Here ya go, stats are from the US Census Bureau.
its not 65% of blacks voted, rather 65% of those that have registered that voted.. BIG difference
if im reading it right, 68% of blacks registered, and then from that only 60% of those voted

[tbk107]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D91QIAP08&show_article=1

So, apparently enough people have forgotten about Rev. Jackson that it's time for him to spew out some more garbage. This time, he said Obama has "cut his nuts off" with the black community. I don't know what that means. Black people don't vote anyway. p-)


Give me a break. An experienced pol like JJ knew full well he was mic'd up and said what he did on purpose. It wasn't his first time on tv and I can guarantee they ran a sound check to make sure his mic was functioning properly; he must have forgot that rofl. This was a ploy to show 'white' voters that Obama is not beholden to the old guard within the black political establishment. As an added bonus it distracts from his FISA vote as well as his other recent policy position changes.

It's not like JJ's son holds a senior position for the campaign or that Michelle used to hang out at JJ's house with his daughter, godmother to one of their kids, during her younger days.

This guy and his team are extremely slick and have pretty much everyone playing from their music sheet.

[bugkill]

its not 65% of blacks voted, rather 65% of those that have registered that voted.. BIG difference
if im reading it right, 68% of blacks registered, and then from that only 60% of those voted

Dude, what other measure is there? Of course I'm talking about registered voters, because that is the measure that we use to identify who is voting. Did 100% of whites become registered voters? Absolutely not, and only 67% of whites voted in 2004, so what does all of this mean? It means NOTHING.

Blacks only make up 14% of this country and for some reason, some of you guys feel a need to pick out this one group to make a point about people voting, when it is the WHOLE country (no matter the color) that have not turned out in high percentages. The nation as a whole does not come out and vote in high numbers. Whites make up over 70% of this country and you point to a minority group as an example for low voter turnout? You need to reassess your statement, that is all I'm saying.

[ronnieraygun]

Give me a break. An experienced pol like JJ knew full well he was mic'd up and said what he did on purpose. It wasn't his first time on tv and I can guarantee they ran a sound check to make sure his mic was functioning properly; he must have forgot that rofl. This was a ploy to show 'white' voters that Obama is not beholden to the old guard within the black political establishment. As an added bonus it distracts from his FISA vote as well as his other recent policy position changes.

It's not like JJ's son holds a senior position for the campaign or that Michelle used to hang out at JJ's house with his daughter, godmother to one of their kids, during her younger days.

This guy and his team are extremely slick and have pretty much everyone playing from their music sheet.

You don't need any break from me. I'm just 'sayin. I like your theory, assuming it's yours and you didn't digest it from some AM radio talk show. Please remember that this is Jessie "Hymietown" Jackson. I don't think his remarks about "hymietown" were cleverly orchestrated. I was listening to some sports talk on my lunch break and Charles Barkley said the most poignant thing about it all day. "Jessie Jackson needs to shut the hell up."

I disagree only because Obama is not part of their (Jackson's and the professional complainers) machine. This is generational politics at play and Jackson is mad because once again he and his cronies did not get to be kingmakers once another African American rises to prominence.

[ronnieraygun]

You guys are silly and very uneducated. 60% of blacks voted in the 2004 general election and over the years, the black vote has steadily increased. Get your facts straight first before coming up here making stereotypical posts about blacks not participating in elections, because the truth is that we have. By the way, only 65% of white americans voted. Sad, but true. :(

The quote reads "60% of blacks voted." Your words. Next time for clarity, please say "60% of registered blacks voted." A HUGE difference. Let us know so we don't get our collective panties in a knot again.

[bugkill]

The quote reads "60% of blacks voted." Your words. Next time for clarity, please say "60% of registered blacks voted." A HUGE difference. Let us know so we don't get our collective panties in a knot again.

Well, next time you should not come on here making statements like "black people don't vote anyway", when it is total bulls**t. Whites did not post great numbers of voting (67% out of 75% that registered), but I do not see you writing about that, so stop with the blanket stereotype that blacks do not vote. If you do, you should expect to be called out on it.

[ronnieraygun]

Well, next time you should not come on here making statements like "black people don't vote anyway", when it is total bulls**t. Whites did not post great numbers of voting (67% out of 75% that registered), but I do not see you writing about that, so stop with the blanket stereotype that blacks do not vote. If you do, you should expect to be called out on it.

That's why I put the "pirate" smile on there. That usually denotes a hint of sarcasm. Ya dig?

[tbk107]

You don't need any break from me. I'm just 'sayin. I like your theory, assuming it's yours and you didn't digest it from some AM radio talk show. Please remember that this is Jessie "Hymietown" Jackson. I don't think his remarks about "hymietown" were cleverly orchestrated. I was listening to some sports talk on my lunch break and Charles Barkley said the most poignant thing about it all day. "Jessie Jackson needs to shut the hell up."

I disagree only because Obama is not part of their (Jackson's and the professional complainers) machine. This is generational politics at play and Jackson is mad because once again he and his cronies did not get to be kingmakers once another African American rises to prominence.


The give me a break comment wasn't directed at you but the premise that Obama and JJ don't like each other or somehow don't get along. Their families are about as close as you can get without being relatives. Again JJ's son holds a senior position in the campaign and Michelle practically grew up in JJ's house. I can recall interviews where both Barack and Michelle speak highly of JJ and say they consult with him to make sure they are doing the right thing.

As for listening to AM radio; never been into talk radio. Don't even live in the U.S.A. so it would be kind of hard to pick it up on my radio and I wouldn't waste my isp's bandwidth streaming it.

[ronnieraygun]

As for listening to AM radio; never been into talk radio. Don't even live in the U.S.A. so it would be kind of hard to pick it up on my radio and I wouldn't waste my isp's bandwidth streaming it.

Good man - it's endemic here these days. I sure like it when people actually think for themselves. :)

[ramthor]

.
making the rounds today, after JJ's remarks...

http://img58.imageshack.us/img58/6238/appeasementvh8.jpg
.

[Invisigoth]

.
making the rounds today, after JJ's remarks...
.

JJ's comment just goes to show one thing, he realizes that he is quickly becoming irrelevant as he is being replaced by modern, young black leaders who have a completely different approach to the issues associated race.

Instead of anger, rants, demonstrations and civil rights outrage the new generation like Obama prefers to not only point to the problems of race that still persists in the U.S. (and the world) today, but also to the shortcomings of 'their' ethnic community.

JJ wasn't pissed off because Obama was 'lecturing' the black community, JJ is pissed off because he's way past his expiration date.

And Jesse doesn't like it, one bit. In fact he loves the spotlight so much he'd cut yer nuts off for it. p-)

[Winger]

JJ's comment just goes to show one thing, he realizes that he is quickly becoming irrelevant as he is being replaced by modern, young black leaders who have a completely different approach to the issues associated race.

Instead of anger, rants, demonstrations and civil rights outrage the new generation like Obama prefers to not only point to the problems of race that still persists in the U.S. (and the world) today, but also to the shortcomings of 'their' ethnic community.

JJ wasn't pissed off because Obama was 'lecturing' the black community, JJ is pissed off because he's way past his expiration date.

And Jesse doesn't like it, one bit. In fact he loves the spotlight so much he'd cut yer nuts off for it. p-)

Even though I don't agree with Obama's politics I like him for one simple reason. He doesn't have the sheep mentality that rallies around Jackson or Sharpton and thereby sets a a good example for those that would.

[Invisigoth]

Even though I don't agree with Obama's politics I like him for one simple reason. He doesn't have the sheep mentality that rallies around Jackson or Sharpton and thereby sets a a good example for those that would.

Well I think hes a very intelligent and educated man who has got a differentiated view on the racial issues that plague the U.S. White people feel less 'threatened' by him since he is not out there for confrontation but rather for solving issues. Probably got to do with the fact that he didn't experience racial discrimination like older generations did.

And while American society is in part to blame for some of the issues in ethnic communities he gets the fact that you can't just blame 'the outside' and not look at one's own shortcomings.

The guy's pretty spot on and at a much different level than JJ or AlSharpton.

[Chulo]

Even though I don't agree with Obama's politics I like him for one simple reason. He doesn't have the sheep mentality that rallies around Jackson or Sharpton and thereby sets a a good example for those that would.
You mean like how he spent 20 years in a church and was surprised by the comments his pastor, personal friend, spiritual mentor made, and the world view he has?

[Invisigoth]

You mean like how he spent 20 years in a church and was surprised by the comments his pastor, personal friend, spiritual mentor made, and the world view he has?

hey at least he doesn't think that the Jews are responsible for 9/11 eh? :roll:

[bugkill]

You mean like how he spent 20 years in a church and was surprised by the comments his pastor, personal friend, spiritual mentor made, and the world view he has?

He was not surprised by Rev. Wright's comments and you can't say that Obama holds his views either. Let me explain, Wright's experiences in this country as a black man is far different than Obama's. Rev. Wright calling out the US government's past indiscretions is not hating white people. Rev. Wright saying that "Rich white folks" are responsibile for the problems that we have in this country today and in the past, does not mean that he hates white people. I do not think many of you guys from today's generation have any idea how it was for blacks during the 50's and 60's, it was a totally different world compared to the last 30 years.

I do not agree with Rev. Wright, not with what he say's about our government's past dirty deeds (well, I do with some of it), but more to the fact that his argument means nothing in today's society. It is very hard for many blacks of the older generation to move on with their views and opinions. They are speaking about today's issues as if it is still 1950 and it just does not work, and it has no place in today's black community.

I have no problem with Obama being in that church for so many years or being friends with Rev. Wright. Wright is not a racist or a hate mongerer. He has never said anything about there needs to be segregation, that whites are inferior, whites need to be killed, no race race mixing, or that whites need to be hung from trees. He has a deep mistrust of the US government and its past policies, that he lived through. He just does not understand that the world has changed and he needs to change with it.

I only hold Obama accountable for what he says, not what others say around him. I know plenty of people that have said some stupid things (and some of you guys frequent this forum), but does that mean that I can't have relationship with them if they are geniune human beings? Everybody has different views or see things socially in a different way, but that does not mean that you can't be friends with them.

I'll leave with this example, last week at the gym, I met a guy in the sauna after a workout. He was white and he had "White Pride" tattoed on his chest. I had already engaged him in conversation before I noticed the tatt, so I asked him about it. He told me he was young and stupid, he did time for selling meth, and was part of the Aryans in prison. I looked at him and I said "Well, you did your time and I can't really hold it against you, and you said that you have changed. I'm cool with it". We kept on talking like it was nothing and we shook hands before we left. This guy has some feelings that don't mesh entirely with mine, but we both have different experiences, yet we were still able to be civil and friendly with one another.

I would shake that man's hand with his shirt off in front of a group of black people, because I got to know him fully, not by looking at his tattoes. Think about it.

[Zoomie]

Obama's Iraq Withdrawal Plan May Prove Difficult

U.S. Commanders in Iraq Warn of Security Dangers, See Logistical Nightmare

By MARTHA RADDATZ

July 11, 2008—

Whatever nuance Barack Obama is now adding to his Iraq withdrawal strategy (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/07/mccain-suggests.html), the core plan on his Web site is as plain as day: Obama (http://abcnews.go.com/politics/fullpage?id=5197404) would "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."
It is a plan that, no doubt, helped Obama get his party's nomination, but one that may prove difficult if he is elected president.

Sustainable Security

Military personnel in Iraq are following the presidential race closely, especially when it comes to Iraq.
The soldiers and commanders we spoke to will not engage in political conversation or talk about any particular candidate, but they had some strong opinions about the military mission which they are trying to accomplish, and the dramatic security gains they have made in the past few months.
We spent a day with Maj. Gen. Jeffery Hammond in Sadr City. He is the commander of the 4th Infantry Division, which is responsible for Baghdad. Hammond will likely be one of the commanders who briefs Barack Obama when he visits Iraq.
"We still have a ways to go. Number one, we're working on security and it's very encouraging, that's true, but what we're really trying to achieve here is sustainable security on Iraqi terms. So, I think my first response to that would be let's look at the conditions.
"Instead of any time-based approach to any decision for withdrawal, it's got to be conditions-based, with the starting point being an intelligence analysis of what might be here today, and what might lie ahead in the future. I still think we still have work that remains to be done before I can really answer that question," Hammond said when asked how he would feel about an order to start drawing down two combat brigades a month.
Asked if he considered it dangerous to pull out if the withdrawal is not based on "conditions," Hammond said, "It's very dangerous. I'll speak for the coalition forces, men and women of character and moral courage; we have a mission, and it's not until the mission is done that I can look my leader in the eye and say, 'Sir, Ma'am, mission accomplished,' and I think it is dangerous to leave anything a little early."

That phrase, "sustainable security," is something you hear a lot in Iraq.
Lt. Gen. Lloyd Austin, who is the operational commander of all U.S. forces in Iraq, says he has seen things improve significantly here.
As for Obama's stated plan to bring home the troops within 16 months, Austin said, "I'd have to see the entire plan. I'd have to understand the strategic objectives of the leadership, and based on those strategic objectives, come up with operational objectives. It's very difficult to comment on one way or the other, whether one plan would work or one plan wouldn't work. Right now, we are helping the Iraqis achieve sustainable security, and helping them to increase the capability of the Iraqi security forces, and we are making great progress along those lines."
On the streets of Baghdad, where a suicide bomber had struck just days before, Capt. Josh West told us he wants to finish the mission, and that any further drawdown has to be based on conditions on the ground.
"If we pull out of here too early, it's going to establish a vacuum of power that violent criminal groups will be able to fill once we leave," West said.
Capt. Jeremy Ussery, a West Point graduate on his third deployment, pointed to his heavy body armor as we walked in the 120-degree heat, saying, "The same people keep coming back because we want to see Iraq succeed, that's what we want. I don't want my kids, that hopefully will join the military, my notional children, to have to come back to Iraq 30 years from now and wear this."
But Ussery added, "You can't put a timetable on it -- it's events-based."

Logistics

Success on the battlefield is not the only complication with Obama's plan.
Physically removing the combat brigades within that kind of time frame would be difficult, as well.
The military has been redeploying troops for years, and Maj. Gen. Charles Anderson, who would help with the withdrawal, told us as we toured Camp Arifjan in Kuwait, "We have the capacity to do a minimum of two-and-a-half brigade combat teams a month -- can we expand that capacity? Sure. Can we accelerate? It depends. It depends on the amount of equipment that we bring back. And it's going to depend on how fast we bring them out."

It is the equipment that is the real problem.
In the kind of redeployment that Anderson is talking about, the troops head home, but much of their equipment stays behind. Two combat brigades means up to 1,200 humvees in addition to thousands of other pieces of equipment, like trucks, fuelers, tankers and helicopters.
And 90 percent of the equipment would have to be moved by ground through the Iraqi war zone, to the port in Kuwait, where it must all be cleaned and inspected and prepared for shipment. This is a place with frequent dust storms, limited port facilities and limited numbers of wash racks.
While Anderson and his troops have a positive attitude, several commanders who looked at the Obama plan told ABC News, on background, that there was "no way" it could work logistically.



Source (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=5351864&page=1)

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

[Chulo]

How much about black theology do you know and what Wright has been preaching and what Obama has been listening to?

[gobdav]

Nice, even article. All I have to say is "NO NEW TAXES!"

How can a junior Senator who has little knowledge of the military expect to do what he says without an all-out surrender? He'll say whatever he has to say to get himself in office, because many of his voters are starry-eyed people who watch too many movies and think a decent speech and slogan can change everything, and then he'll have to deal with reality.
It will be interesting to see next year what things will be like.

[ramthor]

How much about black theology do you know and what Wright has been preaching?

Like Shakespeare's Caliban, their zealots stare in the mirror and rage at what they see.
The rage becomes hatred, the hatred needs a target. If they ever forgive you, they must then indict themselves"

--Frederick Forsythe

[bugkill]

How much about black theology do you know and what Wright has been preaching and what Obama has been listening to?

I know plenty about it and I've actually been in black churches that are very similiar to Trinity church, and I've heard many preachers in those churches say the same things as Wright did (not all of them though). But here is the deal, the closest person in my life is my best friend of 28 years (known him since I was 6 yrs old) and he is WHITE. I'm a god father to his kids and he is closer to me than any black person outside my IMMEDIATE family. I would take a bullet for him and his family in a heartbeat.

The reason I say this is because the sermons given in that church does not have us coming out of there wanting to hate white people. Yes, there is mistrust by many blacks, especially the older generation, but to say that it is "hate" speech is ridiculous. The reason why many whites get frustrated by hearing certain language coming from black people, is that they feel that if they said anything remotely like it, they would be considered racist, but many whites ignore one fact....and that is your ethnic group has a history in this country of fermenting racial issues. My parents were affected by the Jim Crow laws and the racist attitudes of whites. It is not like a light switch, where you can flip it on or off, and then you will get results. The problems that whites created throughtout this country's history is going to take a while to fix, but I do see it getting better.

Why would you like to harp on Obama's relationship with Rev. Wright, when almost every presidential candidate has had questionable ties to people in the past, and that includes John McCain (he also had his little spiritual advisor problem this year as well)? Barack Obama is no different than the other politicians and if George Bush can be President of the United States after having a DUI and alcohol issues, why the hell is it a big deal if one of Obama's associates makes controversial statements in a sermon?

By the way, I do not have mind reading powers, so I cannot tell you what Obama thought or felt while he was there, and I do not even care. What are you afraid of? You think Obama is going to go into the White House and ask all the white people to report to concentration camps?

[Zoomie]

July 12, 2008
Obama Won’t Commit to Event at Military Base

By KATE ZERNIKE (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/z/kate_zernike/index.html?inline=nyt-per)
A coalition of military groups is planning a nationally televised town-hall-style meeting with the presidential candidates near Fort Hood, Tex., the largest active-duty military installation in the country. But so far, only Senator John McCain (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/john_mccain/index.html?inline=nyt-per) of Arizona, the presumptive Republican nominee, has agreed to attend.
CBS has agreed to broadcast the meeting live from 9 to 11 p.m. Eastern time on Monday, Aug. 11. The candidates would face questions directly from an audience of 6,000 people, made up of veterans, service members and military families from the base.
Senator Barack Obama (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per) of Illinois, the presumptive Democratic nominee, has not agreed to participate.
“Senator Obama strongly supports America’s veterans and military families and has worked hard on their behalf in the Senate,” said Phillip Carter, director of Mr. Obama’s veterans effort and an Iraq war veteran. “While we unfortunately had a previously scheduled commitment on the date proposed, Senator Obama looks forward to continuing the dialogue he’s been having throughout the country with veterans on how we can better serve our men and women in uniform as they serve us.”
Carissa Picard, managing director of the Fort Hood Presidential Town Hall Consortium, said she had suggested Aug. 11 and asked the campaign to suggest other dates if that was not convenient, but after several conversations she had not been able to work anything out.
“I’m having extreme difficulty getting the Obama campaign to commit to this event, and we do not understand why,” said Ms. Picard, whose husband is deployed in Iraq. “We made it very clear to them that if they would commit to the event, we would work with them on dates.”
The organizers released details about the event in hopes that it would pressure the Obama campaign to agree to the event.
“This was a decision that was made with tremendous difficulty, to publicize it,” Ms. Picard said. “We were at a point where we had no other option. We got the impression that they could talk us to November.”
The meeting would be at the Expo Center in Belton, Tex., about 25 miles from Fort Hood.
A military audience might seem more hospitable to a Republican candidate, particularly one like Mr. McCain, who has made his support for the war in Iraq the heart of his campaign. But the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have taken a heavy toll on Fort Hood; one of the groups organizing the event estimates that up to 800 of the service people who have died in Iraq have come through the base.
And organizers say many Fort Hood residents — the base serves about 218,000 people, including service members, retirees and military families — have grown tired of the war and agree with Mr. Obama’s declaration that it must end.
Still, Mr. McCain prefers the town-hall-style format. He had proposed a series of 10 similar events with Mr. Obama, and the two campaigns were said to be working out details for a more limited series of meetings.
Organizers say the veterans and military population in the United States, including families, totals about 44 million people.
“McCain and Obama are asking to be the next commander in chief,” Ms. Picard said. “What’s a more compelling audience than this, the people that you have asked to maintain our security? It would be tremendous for the morale of this community.”
Organizers include American Veterans, Disabled American Veterans, Military Order of the Purple Heart, Veterans for Common Sense and Military Spouse Corporate Career Network.



Source (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/12/us/politics/12obama.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin)




So much for Obama's "Any time, anywhere" challenge to debating McCain on foreign policy.

[gobdav]

So much for Obama's "Any time, anywhere" challenge to debating McCain on foreign policy.



"Veteran's for Common Sense." Seeing that group on the invitation list is probably what drove Obama to decide not to go. :cantbeli:

[Zoomie]

"Veteran's for Common Sense." Seeing that group on the invitation list is probably what drove Obama to decide not to go. :cantbeli:
And what effect should that have on Obama's challenge? None. So there's now suddenly little caveats and stipulations as to when he'll debate? :roll:
If Obama's afraid to do a debate hosted by them, just think of how he'd act in a real-world situation, where it's not a friendly controlled environment that he's used to.

[budgie]

And what effect should that have on Obama's challenge? None. So there's now suddenly little caveats and stipulations as to when he'll debate? :roll:
If Obama's afraid to do a debate hosted by them, just think of how he'd act in a real-world situation, where it's not a friendly controlled environment that he's used to.

Firstly the problem with this is precisely that it is not a 'real-world' debate. It looks and smells like a Republican set-up: the group that is organising it is in support of McCain in the first place. There's no need to stick your head in the lion's mouth just because somebody asked. Everyone knows McCain has more experience in defence issues in general, and trapping him into a debate on the minutae could deflect from the broader policy issues at stake: "Obama doesn't know the difference between a Bradley and a Stryker so let's all stay in Iraq for 100 years". Yeah I see the logic in that....

And secondly who is the somebody? Carissa Picard, managing director of the Fort Hood Presidential Town Hall Consortium: a private citizen who's started a group. Quick, drop everything and run down there!

Finally as stated above, the campaign appears to have other engagements scheduled that day. Should these be cancelled just because a bunch of McCain supporters wanna have a scrap.

The debates will come in the usual format. There's no need for special interest groups to try and organise their own sideshows.

[Chulo]

Firstly the problem with this is precisely that it is not a 'real-world' debate. It looks and smells like a Republican set-up: the group that is organising it is in support of McCain in the first place. There's no need to stick your head in the lion's mouth just because somebody asked.
I think thats the same excuse they use to NOT go on Fox News for debates, but the republicans have no problem with going on CNN/MSNBC < and fight it as much as you want, you know that they (CNN/MSNBC) have more of a liberal leaning and is set up for the "Democrats">

[Zoomie]

And secondly who is the somebody? Carissa Picard, managing director of the Fort Hood Presidential Town Hall Consortium: a private citizen who's started a group. Quick, drop everything and run down there!So you attack the person, and not the issue at hand. Typical. :roll: What's wrong with organizing a group? You would think Obama would actually want to get a debate going, but I guess he'd rather avoid any tough situations.


Finally as stated above, the campaign appears to have other engagements scheduled that day. Should these be cancelled just because a bunch of McCain supporters wanna have a scrap. Did you even bother to read the article?

Carissa Picard, managing director of the Fort Hood Presidential Town Hall Consortium, said she had suggested Aug. 11 and asked the campaign to suggest other dates if that was not convenient, but after several conversations she had not been able to work anything out.
“I’m having extreme difficulty getting the Obama campaign to commit to this event, and we do not understand why,” said Ms. Picard, whose husband is deployed in Iraq. “We made it very clear to them that if they would commit to the event, we would work with them on dates.” I'd actually like to see Obama step up to the plate and live up to his word.


The debates will come in the usual format. There's no need for special interest groups to try and organise their own sideshows.
By saying that you forfeit your right to complain about any further debates on how unfair/impartial/insert rant they are.

[LaoSexMachine]

Obama's Iraq Withdrawal Plan May Prove Difficult

U.S. Commanders in Iraq Warn of Security Dangers, See Logistical Nightmare

By MARTHA RADDATZ

July 11, 2008—

Whatever nuance Barack Obama is now adding to his Iraq withdrawal strategy (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/07/mccain-suggests.html), the core plan on his Web site is as plain as day: Obama (http://abcnews.go.com/politics/fullpage?id=5197404) would "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."
It is a plan that, no doubt, helped Obama get his party's nomination, but one that may prove difficult if he is elected president.

Sustainable Security

Military personnel in Iraq are following the presidential race closely, especially when it comes to Iraq.
The soldiers and commanders we spoke to will not engage in political conversation or talk about any particular candidate, but they had some strong opinions about the military mission which they are trying to accomplish, and the dramatic security gains they have made in the past few months.
We spent a day with Maj. Gen. Jeffery Hammond in Sadr City. He is the commander of the 4th Infantry Division, which is responsible for Baghdad. Hammond will likely be one of the commanders who briefs Barack Obama when he visits Iraq.
"We still have a ways to go. Number one, we're working on security and it's very encouraging, that's true, but what we're really trying to achieve here is sustainable security on Iraqi terms. So, I think my first response to that would be let's look at the conditions.
"Instead of any time-based approach to any decision for withdrawal, it's got to be conditions-based, with the starting point being an intelligence analysis of what might be here today, and what might lie ahead in the future. I still think we still have work that remains to be done before I can really answer that question," Hammond said when asked how he would feel about an order to start drawing down two combat brigades a month.
Asked if he considered it dangerous to pull out if the withdrawal is not based on "conditions," Hammond said, "It's very dangerous. I'll speak for the coalition forces, men and women of character and moral courage; we have a mission, and it's not until the mission is done that I can look my leader in the eye and say, 'Sir, Ma'am, mission accomplished,' and I think it is dangerous to leave anything a little early."

That phrase, "sustainable security," is something you hear a lot in Iraq.
Lt. Gen. Lloyd Austin, who is the operational commander of all U.S. forces in Iraq, says he has seen things improve significantly here.
As for Obama's stated plan to bring home the troops within 16 months, Austin said, "I'd have to see the entire plan. I'd have to understand the strategic objectives of the leadership, and based on those strategic objectives, come up with operational objectives. It's very difficult to comment on one way or the other, whether one plan would work or one plan wouldn't work. Right now, we are helping the Iraqis achieve sustainable security, and helping them to increase the capability of the Iraqi security forces, and we are making great progress along those lines."
On the streets of Baghdad, where a suicide bomber had struck just days before, Capt. Josh West told us he wants to finish the mission, and that any further drawdown has to be based on conditions on the ground.
"If we pull out of here too early, it's going to establish a vacuum of power that violent criminal groups will be able to fill once we leave," West said.
Capt. Jeremy Ussery, a West Point graduate on his third deployment, pointed to his heavy body armor as we walked in the 120-degree heat, saying, "The same people keep coming back because we want to see Iraq succeed, that's what we want. I don't want my kids, that hopefully will join the military, my notional children, to have to come back to Iraq 30 years from now and wear this."
But Ussery added, "You can't put a timetable on it -- it's events-based."

Logistics

Success on the battlefield is not the only complication with Obama's plan.
Physically removing the combat brigades within that kind of time frame would be difficult, as well.
The military has been redeploying troops for years, and Maj. Gen. Charles Anderson, who would help with the withdrawal, told us as we toured Camp Arifjan in Kuwait, "We have the capacity to do a minimum of two-and-a-half brigade combat teams a month -- can we expand that capacity? Sure. Can we accelerate? It depends. It depends on the amount of equipment that we bring back. And it's going to depend on how fast we bring them out."

It is the equipment that is the real problem.
In the kind of redeployment that Anderson is talking about, the troops head home, but much of their equipment stays behind. Two combat brigades means up to 1,200 humvees in addition to thousands of other pieces of equipment, like trucks, fuelers, tankers and helicopters.
And 90 percent of the equipment would have to be moved by ground through the Iraqi war zone, to the port in Kuwait, where it must all be cleaned and inspected and prepared for shipment. This is a place with frequent dust storms, limited port facilities and limited numbers of wash racks.
While Anderson and his troops have a positive attitude, several commanders who looked at the Obama plan told ABC News, on background, that there was "no way" it could work logistically.


http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=5351864&page=1

[budgie]

So you attack the person, and not the issue at hand. Typical. :roll: What's wrong with organizing a group? You would think Obama would actually want to get a debate going, but I guess he'd rather avoid any tough situations.

Incorrect. I merely suggest that she's not so important as to drop everything and go running to her debate.


Did you even bother to read the article?
Yes, the bit you posted.



The debates will come in the usual format. There's no need for special interest groups to try and organise their own sideshows.
By saying that you forfeit your right to complain about any further debates on how unfair/impartial/insert rant they are.

Oh well feel free to censor me. I didn't know you were the sole arbiter of such things. And frankly I don't see the connection in this little leap of logic.

But I do believe that the normal debate circuit is sufficient, and having Obama front up to debate in front of a pre-arranged crowd organised by McCain campaigner is as sensible as having Bush speak to the Lesbians for Choice at Berkley. It may be a pet issue for members at mp.net, but the world already knows McCain has more military knowledge and experience than Obama so what's the point in cancelling other engagements and going down there to get trounced on one of the smaller issues as far as the general public is concerned?

[LaoSexMachine]

CNN exclusive: Obama on foreign policy



Story Highlights
Barack Obama gives wide-ranging interview about global issues
Obama asked what he would do if U.S. forces capture Osama bin Laden
Obama explains why he majored in international affairs
Obama wants to bring back foreign policy that characterized Truman administration

Editor's note: Fareed Zakaria is a pre-eminent foreign affairs analyst and hosts "Fareed Zakaria: GPS" on CNN at 1 p.m. ET Sunday.
(CNN) -- Sen. Barack Obama discussed his vision for the world in a wide-ranging foreign policy discussion with CNN's Fareed Zakaria.
The Democratic presidential hopeful answered some tough questions about how he would deal with the world's crises, what he would do if Osama bin Laden is caught and his plan for Iraq.
Here are some highlights from the interview, which aired Sunday on "Fareed Zakaria -- GPS."
ZAKARIA: Tell me, what is your first memory of a foreign policy event that shaped you, shaped your life?
OBAMA: A first memory. Well, you know, it wasn't so much an event.
I mean, my first memory was my mother coming to me and saying, "I've remarried this man from Indonesia, and we're moving to Jakarta on the other side of the world." http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/img/2.0/mosaic/tabs/video.gifWatch part of Obama's discussion on foreign policy » (http://cnn.site.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=CNN+exclusive%3A+Obama+on+foreign+policy+-+CNN.com&expire=&urlID=29713822&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2008%2FPOLITICS%2F07%2F13%2Fzakaria.obama%2Findex.html&partnerID=211911#cnnSTCVideo)
And that's, I think, my first memory of understanding how big the world was. And then, flying there and landing. This was only maybe a year, or even less than a year, after an enormous coup, the military coup in which we learned later that over half-a-million people had probably died.
But it was for me, as a young boy, a magical place. And I think that probably is when it first enters into my consciousness that this is a big world. There are a lot of countries, a lot of cultures. It's a complicated place.
ZAKARIA: But you were an American in Indonesia. How did that make you feel?
OBAMA: Well, you know, it made me realize what an enormous privilege it is to be an American. I mean, it certainly was at that time, even more so, because the gap in the wealth of the West at the time compared to the East was much wider.
But it wasn't simply the fact that my mother was being paid in dollars by the U.S. Embassy, and so, that gave us some additional comfort.
It was also becoming aware that, for example, the generals in Indonesia or members of Suharto's family were living in lavish mansions, and the sense that government wasn't always working for the people, but was working for insiders -- not that that didn't happen in the United States, but at least the sense that there was a civil society and rules of law that had to be abided by.
My stepfather was essentially dragged out of the university he'd been studying in in Hawaii, and was conscripted and sent to New Guinea. And when he was first conscripted, he didn't know whether he was going to be jailed, killed -- that sense of arbitrariness of government power.
Those were the things that you felt you were protected from as an American, and made me, as I got older, appreciate America that much more.
ZAKARIA: Why did you major in international affairs?
OBAMA: Well, obviously, having lived overseas and having lived in Hawaii, having a mother who was a specialist in international development, who worked -- was one of the early practitioners of microfinancing, and would go to villages in South Asia and Africa and Southeast Asia, helping women buy a loom or a sewing machine or a milk cow, to be able to enter into the economy -- it was natural for me, I think, to be interested in international affairs.
The Vietnam War had drawn to a close when I was fairly young. And so, that wasn't formative for me in the way it was, I think, for an earlier generation.
The Cold War, though, still loomed large. And I thought that both my interest in what was then called the Third World and development there, as well as my interest in issues like nuclear proliferation and policy, that I thought that I might end up going into some sort of international work at some point in my life.
ZAKARIA: Do you believe, when looking at the world today, that Islamic extremism is the transcendent challenge of the 21st century?
OBAMA: I think the problems of terrorism and groups that are resisting modernity, whether because of their ethnic identities or religious identities, and the fact that they can be driven into extremist ideologies, is one of the severe threats that we face.
I don't think it's the only threat that we face.
ZAKARIA: But how do you view the problem within Islam? As somebody who saw it in Indonesia ... the largest Muslim country in the world?
OBAMA: Well, it was interesting. When I lived in Indonesia -- this would be '67, '68, late '60s, early '70s -- Indonesia was never the same culture as the Arab Middle East. The brand of Islam was always different.
But around the world, there was no -- there was not the sense that Islam was inherently opposed to the West, or inherently opposed to modern life, or inherently opposed to universal traditions like rule of law.
And now in Indonesia, you see some of those extremist elements. And what's interesting is, you can see some correlation between the economic crash during the Asian financial crisis, where about a third of Indonesia's GDP was wiped out, and the acceleration of these Islamic extremist forces.
It isn't to say that there is a direct correlation, but what is absolutely true is that there has been a shift in Islam that I believe is connected to the failures of governments and the failures of the West to work with many of these countries, in order to make sure that opportunities are there, that there's bottom-up economic growth.
You know, the way we have to approach, I think, this problem of Islamic extremism ... is we have to hunt down those who would resort to violence to move their agenda, their ideology forward. We should be going after al Qaeda and those networks fiercely and effectively.
But what we also want to do is to shrink the pool of potential recruits. And that involves engaging the Islamic world rather than vilifying it, and making sure that we understand that not only are those in Islam who would resort to violence a tiny fraction of the Islamic world, but that also, the Islamic world itself is diverse.
And that lumping together Shia extremists with Sunni extremists, assuming that Persian culture is the same as Arab culture, that those kinds of errors in lumping Islam together result in us not only being less effective in hunting down and isolating terrorists, but also in alienating what need to be our long-term allies on a whole host of issues.
ZAKARIA: If U.S. forces in Afghanistan captured Osama bin Laden, what would you do with him, and you were president?
OBAMA: Well, I think that, if he was -- if he was captured alive, then we would make a decision to bring the full weight of not only U.S. justice, but world justice down on him. And I think that -- and I've said this before -- that I am not a cheerleader for the death penalty. I think it has to be reserved for only the most heinous crimes. But I certainly think plotting and engineering the death of 3,000 Americans justifies such an approach. http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/img/2.0/mosaic/tabs/video.gifWatch what Obama says about bin Laden » (http://cnn.site.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=CNN+exclusive%3A+Obama+on+foreign+policy+-+CNN.com&expire=&urlID=29713822&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2008%2FPOLITICS%2F07%2F13%2Fzakaria.obama%2Findex.html&partnerID=211911#cnnSTCVideo)
Now, I think this is a big hypothetical, though. Let's catch him first. And the fact that we have failed to seriously go after al Qaeda over the last five years, because of the distraction of Iraq, I think we are now seeing the consequences of that in Afghanistan.
That's not the only problem we have in Afghanistan. We have not dealt with the narco-trafficking that's taking place there. We have not provided farmers there an option beyond poppy. I think the Karzai government has not gotten out of the bunker and helped organize Afghanistan and government, the judiciary, police forces, in ways that would give people confidence.
So, there are a lot of problems there. But a big chunk of the issue is that we allowed the Taliban and al Qaeda to regenerate itself when we had them on the ropes. That was a big mistake, and it's one I'm going to correct when I'm president.
ZAKARIA: You talked about the other threats we face. In dealing with these threats, how should we approach other nations?
John McCain has talked about a new G-8, the group of the richest countries in the world, which would exclude Russia, expel Russia, and not include China. So, it would be an attempt to draw a line in the sand and cast out, as it were, the non-democracies.
Do you think that's a good idea?
OBAMA: It would be a mistake.
Look. If we're going to do something about nuclear proliferation -- just to take one issue that I think is as important as any on the list -- we've got to have Russia involved. The amount of loose nuclear material that's floating around in the former Soviet Union, the amount of technical know-how that is in countries that used to be behind the Iron Curtain -- without Russia's cooperation, our efforts on that front will be greatly weakened.
China is going to be one of the dominant economies -- already is -- and will continue to grow at an extraordinary pace. The notion that we don't want to be engaged in a serious way with China, or that we would want to exclude them from the process of creating international rules of the road that are able to maintain order in the financial markets, that are able to address critical issues like terrorism, that are able to focus our attention on disparities of wealth between countries -- that does not make sense.
Now, I think that we have to have a clear sense of what our values are and what our ideals are. I don't think that we should shy away from being straight with the Russians about human rights violations. We should not shy away from talking to the Chinese about those same subjects.
I think that we have to be tough negotiators with them when it comes to critical issues. For example, if China is not working cooperatively with us on trade issues, I think that there's nothing wrong with us being tough bargainers.
But we have to engage and get them involved and brought into dealing with some of these transnational problems. And that kind of tough, thoughtful, realistic diplomacy used to be a bipartisan hallmark of U.S. foreign policy.
And one of the things that I want to do, if I have the honor of being president, is to try to bring back the kind of foreign policy that characterized the Truman administration with Marshall and Acheson and Kennan.
But also characterized to a large degree -- the first President Bush -- with people like Scowcroft and Powell and Baker, who I think had a fairly clear-eyed view of how the world works, and recognized that it is always in our interests to engage, to listen, to build alliances -- to understand what our interests are, and to be fierce in protecting those interests, but to make sure that we understand it's very difficult for us to, as powerful as we are, to deal all these issues by ourselves.
We need to show leadership through consensus and through pulling people together wherever we can. There are going to be times where we have to act unilaterally to protect our interests. And I always reserve the right to do that, should I be commander in chief.
ZAKARIA: What about if you don't get that consensus, let's say, in a place like Darfur? You've called for a no-fly zone. But it's a U.N. no-fly zone.
OBAMA: Right.
ZAKARIA: Now, but the U.N. isn't going to have a no-fly zone, probably, because the Chinese and the Russians will probably not go along with it.
So, in that event, do you want to have a U.S. or a NATO no-fly zone? In other words, do you want to do something, even if you can't get consensus?
OBAMA: Well, look. There are going to be times where it's the right thing to do, and the consensus is not going to be perfect.
I think our intervention in the Balkans ultimately was the right thing to do, although we never got the sort of formal consensus and coalition that we were able to achieve, for example, in the Gulf War. And so, the situations are going to vary.
My point is this, that we should always strive to create genuine coalitions -- not coalitions that are based on us twisting arms, withholding goodies, ignoring legitimate concerns of other countries, but coalitions that are based on a set of mutual self-interests.
In a situation like Darfur, I think that the world has a self-interest in ensuring that genocide is not taking place on our watch. Not only because of the moral and ethical implications, but also because chaos in Sudan ends up spilling over into Chad. It ends up spilling over into other parts of Africa, can end up being repositories of terrorist activity.
Those are all things that we've got to pay attention to. And if we have enough nations that are willing -- particularly African nations, and not just Western nations -- that are willing to intercede in an effective, coherent way, then I think that we need to act, even if we haven't achieved 100 percent consensus.
But the principle of us wanting to build effective alliances with other countries and to lead in that way through persuasion and organization, I think that's something that has historically been when we are at our best.
ZAKARIA: One area where you're outside the international consensus -- and certainly, perhaps, some others -- is the statement you made in a recent speech supporting Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel.
Now, why not support the Clinton plan, which envisions a divided Jerusalem, the Arab half being the capital of a Palestinian state, the Jewish half being the capital of the Jewish state?
OBAMA: You know, the truth is that this was an example where we had some poor phrasing in the speech. And we immediately tried to correct the interpretation that was given.
The point we were simply making was, is that we don't want barbed wire running through Jerusalem, similar to the way it was prior to the '67 war, that it is possible for us to create a Jerusalem that is cohesive and coherent.
I was not trying to predetermine what are essentially final status issues. I think the Clinton formulation provides a starting point for discussions between the parties.
And it is an example of us making sure that we are careful in terms of our syntax. But the intention was never to move away from that basic, core idea that they -- that those parties are going to have to negotiate these issues on their own, with the strong engagement of the United States.
And if you look at the overall tenor of that speech and what I've said historically about this issue, you know, Israel has an interest not just in bunkering down. They've got to recognize that their long-term viability as a Jewish state is going to depend on their ability to create peace with their neighbors.
The Palestinian leadership has to acknowledge that the battles that they've been fighting, and the direction that they've been going in and the rhetoric they've been employing, has not delivered for their people.
And it is very hard, given the history of that region and the sense of grievance on both sides, to step back and say, let's be practical and figure out what works. But I think that's what the people of Israel and the people in the West Bank and Gaza are desperate for, is just some practical, commonsense approaches that would result in them feeling safe, secure and able to live their lives and educate their children.
ZAKARIA: You've also said that the chief beneficiary of the Iraq war has been Iran, which now poses a significant strategic threat to, or challenge to, the United States in the region.
If we were to leave Iraq entirely, would that not cede the field to them and allow Iran to consolidate its gains in the region and in the country?
OBAMA: I don't think so. Look, first of all, I have never talked about leaving the field entirely. What I've said is that we would get our combat troops out of Iraq, that we would not have permanent bases in Iraq.
I've talked about maintaining a residual force there to ensure that al Qaeda does not re-form in Iraq, that we're making sure that we are providing logistical support and potential training to Iraqi forces -- so long as we're not training sectarian armies that are then fighting each other -- to protect our diplomats, to protect humanitarian efforts in the region.
So, nobody's talking about abandoning the field.
ZAKARIA: That might be a large force.
OBAMA: Well, it -- you know, I'm going to make sure that we determine, based on conditions on the ground, how we effectively carry out those limited, temporary missions.
But what is going to prevent Iran from having significant influence inside of Iraq -- or at least, so much influence that Iraq is not functioning -- is to make sure that the government has stood up, that it has capacity, that the Shia, the Sunni, the Kurds have come to the sort of political accommodation that allows them to divide oil revenues that are now coming in quite handsomely, that ensures that, in fact, we're serious about ending corruption in some of the ministries, that provincial federalist approaches to governance are being observed.
The stronger the Iraqi government is on its own -- not with us, but on its own -- the less likely that Iran is going to exert its influence.
And again, this is -- you know this better than I do, Fareed -- the assumption that, because many in Iraq are Shia, that they automatically are going to align themselves with Iran, ignores the fact that you've got Arab and Persian cultures that are very different. And there's -- if Iraqi Shias feel that their government is actually functioning, then I think their identity as Iraqis reasserts itself.
If, on the other hand, the perception is that the government in Iraq is just an extension of the U.S. government, then sympathies for the kind of mischief that Iran has been engaged in may increase.
Now, the last point I would make on this is, this is going to be a messy affair. There's no elegant and easy solutions to what I believe has been an enormous strategic blunder by this administration.
We're going to have to work our way through it. There are going to be -- there's going to be progress in some areas. There is going to be slippage in others.
What we do have to make certain of is that, by creating a phased withdrawal in Iraq, that we are mounting the sort of diplomacy and reaching out to our allies in ways that actually strengthen our ability to isolate Iran, if it continues to pursue what are unacceptable foreign policy decisions by their leadership.
ZAKARIA: But you could imagine a situation where, if the Iraqi government wanted it, 30,000 American troops are still in Iraq 10 years from now.
OBAMA: You know, I have been very careful not to put numbers on what a residual force would look like. What I am absolutely convinced of is that, to maintain permanent bases, to have ongoing combat forces, to have an open-ended commitment of the sort that John McCain and George Bush have advocated, is a mistake. It is a strategic mistake.
It weakens our ability to go after al Qaeda in Afghanistan. It continues to fan anti-American sentiment. I think it allows Iran to more effectively engage in mischief in the region. And it prevents us from isolating them and making clear to the world that they are the authors of their own isolation by their behavior.
Those costs cannot be borne. And that's before we even start talking about the hundreds of billions of dollars and American lives that are lost or profoundly disrupted as a consequence of this engagement.
ZAKARIA: You are going to Europe and the Middle East. You know that in places like France you have 85 percent approval ratings.
Isn't that going to make some Americans very suspicious? If all of Europe likes you, if France likes you, there must be something wrong.
OBAMA: Well, I tell you what. You know, it's interesting. As I travel around the country, here in the United States, I think people understand that there has been a price to the diminished regard with which the world holds the United States over the last several years.
It's something that bothers people. It's something that's brought up.
You know, when I'm doing a town hall meeting in some rural community, invariably, somebody will raise their hand and they'll say, "When are we going to restore the respect that the world had for America?"
And, you know, the American people's instincts are good. It's not just a matter of wanting to be liked. It's the fact that, as a consequence of that diminished standing, we have less leverage on a whole host of critical issues that have to be dealt with.
So, I think the American people are ready for a president who is not alienating the world. And if that president is liked a little bit, well, that's just a bonus.
Now, I don't know how long that will last. We'll see if my approval ratings hold up after I'm president.
ZAKARIA: You're bound to disappoint people. I mean, with approval ratings that high, it's bound to be a letdown. Don't you think?
OBAMA: You know, my job is to make sure that, here in the United States, the American people feel confident that I'm going to be advocating for their interests, that I'm going to keep them safe.
The way to do that though, I believe, is to make sure that we're paying attention to the rest of the world, their hopes, their aspirations, as well, and that we're leading with our values and ideals, and not just with our military.
http://images.clickability.com/pti/spacer.gif

Find this article at:

[brainplay]

A coalition of military groups is planning a nationally televised town-hall-style meeting with the presidential candidates near Fort Hood, Tex., the largest active-duty military installation in the country.The candidates would face questions directly from an audience of 6,000 people, made up of veterans, service members and military families from the base.

“We made it very clear to them that if they would commit to the event, we would work with them on dates.”


It may be a pet issue for members at mp.net, but the world already knows McCain has more military knowledge and experience than Obama so what's the point in cancelling other engagements and going down there to get trounced on one of the smaller issues as far as the general public is concerned?

You didn't read the article and you haven't been paying attention to many that have posted here. Both members of the military and their families are not all McCain supporters nor do they all support the war. You attack the messenger by calling her a McCain organizer when there is no evidence of that in the article. Nominee's have done this in front of organizations like Unions in the past (well Clinton did at least which also meant no telepromters), why not with the military? And finally the point that really got me, which is this "smallest issue" you are describing. I'm throwing you a lifeline here.

[budgie]

You didn't read the article and you haven't been paying attention to many that have posted here.

I find it best to repeat myself in instances such as these:


Did you even bother to read the article?


Yes, the bit you posted.

Which turned out to be the whole thing anyway. Back to the fun and games:

You attack the messenger by calling her a McCain organizer when there is no evidence of that in the article.

Suggesting a person supports a candidate - even if it is one I do not - is not an attack. It's common knowledge that the Republicans, and McCain in particular, have traditionally held stronger support among the military and military families than the Democrats.


And finally the point that really got me, which is this "smallest issue" you are describing. I'm throwing you a lifeline here.

While security is a big issue, the minutae of defence or whether military experience should be a pre-requisite for executive office is not a big one among voters. If that were the case Obama would be trailing 30 points. It is however an issue for select groups such as the military, veterans and their families.

I counted the word 'You' four times in the above paragraph: classic technique here from the playbook of Dronetek/AGE-Ranger (remember them?) : derail the thread and turn it into a discussion on budgie instead of either the candidates or the issues.

[loganinkosovo]

July 22 New Yorker Cover.....

http://images.politico.com/global/080713_nyorkercover.jpg


Just Awe inspiring! I especially love the burning American Flag in the Oval Office Fireplace. :)

http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0708/Ya_cant_make_it_up.html

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11718.html

[loganinkosovo]

http://images.politico.com/global/080710_obama_brown.jpg


http://pbskids.org/curiousgeorge/img/hm_george_1.gif

You decide!

[wildcat]

http://images.politico.com/global/080710_obama_brown.jpg


http://pbskids.org/curiousgeorge/img/hm_george_1.gif

You decide!

I vote for Curious George, we can have his friend the dog as VP.

[loganinkosovo]

I vote for Curious George, we can have his friend the dog as VP.

And the big yellow hat Dude as Sec Def.

[The Balkan]

http://images.politico.com/global/080710_obama_brown.jpg


http://pbskids.org/curiousgeorge/img/hm_george_1.gif

You decide!


Wow. The forum turns into Stormfront once again.

[brainplay]

While security is a big issue, the minutae of defence or whether military experience should be a pre-requisite for executive office is not a big one among voters. If that were the case Obama would be trailing 30 points. It is however an issue for select groups such as the military, veterans and their families.

I counted the word 'You' four times in the above paragraph: classic technique here from the playbook of Dronetek/AGE-Ranger (remember them?) : derail the thread and turn it into a discussion on budgie instead of either the candidates or the issues.

Actually, the event would have focused on overseas policy at some point and specific questions about the Iraq/Afganistan war. Its considered the #2 issue behind the economy which would no doubt be brought up as well. You know, military families worry about issues other than the military. Trailing by 30 points? Did you just try to back up your claim by throwing a poll number at me?

I've seen some of Dronetek's movies on liveleak (he's got alot) but apparently he's banned here and was before my time. Never heard of AGE-Ranger. Although good strategy to misdirect. The reason "you" is used is to respond to something you posted or responded to. If you make a response to a post or statement that ignores what was stated then you will be asked to clarify or be corrected. In which case you can issue a counter. Thats how debate works.

You can also just call me a silly poopy banana dude and we'll all just scratch our heads.



p.s.: Wow, loganinkosovo thats not very mature. Not a fan of the guy but thats just messed up. Ban-stick incoming?

[Zoomie]

Wow. The forum turns into Stormfront once again.
So let me get this straight, when that guy does it, it's racist? But when someone does that to Bush, it's not? (Not condoning it, just pointing something obvious out)

[Snoshi]

So let me get this straight, when that guy does it, it's racist? But when someone does that to Bush, it's not? (Not condoning it, just pointing something obvious out)

Oh noes!!
http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/EPH/8130~George-W-Bush-Monkey-Posters.jpg

[Thor]

Here's the upcoming The New Yorker July issue cover.

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/usa/newyorkercover220.jpg

[Holycrusader]

So let me get this straight, when that guy does it, it's racist? But when someone does that to Bush, it's not? (Not condoning it, just pointing something obvious out)


Of course not. Nobody call all white people "monkeys" like it happen offen to the blacks...
Now you see a difference?

[gobdav]

Of course not. Nobody call all white people "monkeys" like it happen offen to the blacks...
Now you see a difference?

LoL, that's the most ignorant thing I've heard all day. Thanks for the laugh! rofl

[Zoomie]

Of course not. Nobody call all white people "monkeys" like it happen offen to the blacks...
Now you see a difference?
Nope. What I see is a double standard.

[The Balkan]

So let me get this straight, when that guy does it, it's racist? But when someone does that to Bush, it's not? (Not condoning it, just pointing something obvious out)

Calling Bush a monkey is like calling Obama an idiot. It's just an insult. It has no historical use as anything else for white people. Calling a black man an ape or monkey is one of the most comon ways racist put them down even today let alone before. It's up there with "porch monkey" and "coon". So caling Obama an idiot is fine. Calling him a monkey is like calling Bush a cracker or some white slur (except worse since crackers never been that powerful and rich white people started it). For Obama it's a racial insult for a white guy it's just an insult. White people ven tried to prove how the Black race is the product of a woman mating with an ape at one point. I don't see how you could possibly not know this or you're just playing dumb. Not to mention Obama doesn't even look like that.



Nope. What I see is a double standard.

Let me explain further for you.

Calling me a greedy hook nosed bastard is just an insult.

Calling a Jew a greedy hook nosed bastard is a racial/ethnic insult.

[budgie]

Wow. The forum turns into Stormfront once again.

I doubt the poster intended to be racist but it's still a pretty gay attack. The curious George tie-in has been associated with Bush for the past seven years: the Obama-haters will have to find another mascot.

[Laworkerbee]

I doubt the poster intended to be racist but it's still a pretty gay attack. The curious George tie-in has been associated with Bush for the past seven years: the Obama-haters will have to find another mascot.

I can only hope that race doesn't play a part in mascot selection, I better not hold my breath though.

[budgie]

Trailing by 30 points? Did you just try to back up your claim by throwing a poll number at me?

Look up hyperbole.


you will be asked to clarify or be corrected. In which case you can issue a counter. Thats how debate works.

I clarified my post. Sorry if I can't please everyone. I don't need lessons in debate or a 'lifeline'.

[Fade]

I can only hope that race doesn't play a part in mascot selection, I better not hold my breath though.
Do not want!

[Laworkerbee]

Fine I'll find a new avatar :bash:

[Fade]

Fine I'll find a new avatar :bash:
lol, wasn't making a statement - it just seemed to fit with your answer :)

[Macs.]

Fine I'll find a new avatar :bash:

Look Laworkerbee, I don't want to make any trouble here...

But your racist undertones are getting really disgusting.

[bugkill]

I do not care what he posts about Obama. The posting of Curious George alongside Obama can definitely be looked upon as being offensive to some people, but why should I as a black man be offended? I do not consider myself a monkey and if some whites are racist to think that way, that's there problem. I could care less about what whites say on the internet or at there dinner tables, just as long that they are not dumb enough to say it to my face.

I do not understand why some people in this country would go around posting pics of a monkey and comparing it to a man that has taught at Harvard and has led a very professional life. Ok, you don't like the man's politics, but all you have to do is not vote for him, not belittle him. I did not like when others did it to Bush and I don't like it now, just shows a sign of stupidity. Why is it not enough to just vote for the other guy or debate against his stance on certain issues? Posting pics in a effort to be funny or semi-shocking just shows how dumb the poster is.

[Breakfast in Vegas]

So let me get this straight, when that guy does it, it's racist? But when someone does that to Bush, it's not? (Not condoning it, just pointing something obvious out)You are forgetting the Golden Rule, only white people can be racist.

[Calanen]

I do not care what he posts about Obama. The posting of Curious George alongside Obama can definitely be looked upon as being offensive to some people, but why should I as a black man be offended? I do not consider myself a monkey and if some whites are racist to think that way, that's there problem. I could care less about what whites say on the internet or at there dinner tables, just as long that they are not dumb enough to say it to my face.

I do not understand why some people in this country would go around posting pics of a monkey and comparing it to a man that has taught at Harvard and has led a very professional life. Ok, you don't like the man's politics, but all you have to do is not vote for him, not belittle him. I did not like when others did it to Bush and I don't like it now, just shows a sign of stupidity. Why is it not enough to just vote for the other guy or debate against his stance on certain issues? Posting pics in a effort to be funny or semi-shocking just shows how dumb the poster is.

George Bush is called Lord Chimpy and things by the Left, so it seems the monkey calls go across the board. All's fair in love, war and politics it seems. People take their politics very seriously, and there are people on all sides who will stoop as low as they can. The Daily KOS will stop at nothing to scream at politics, even in celebrating the death of right wing personalities. Pretty sick stuff.

[The Balkan]

You are forgetting the Golden Rule, only white people can be rascist.

Or the fact that some people purposly do things knowing what it means, but also knowing they can pull the "double standard" card later in defense.

He knew very well what reaction he would get calling a Black man a monkey.

[Zoomie]

Or the fact that some people purposly do things knowing what it means, but also knowing they can pull the "double standard" card later in defense.

He knew very well what reaction he would get calling a Black man a monkey.
It seems to me that you're the only one taking offense to it, and making a mountain out of a molehill. Since you're the acting PC Officer, tell us what animal comparisons are appropriate?

[The Balkan]

It seems to me that you're the only one taking offense to it, and making a mountain out of a molehill. Since you're the acting PC Officer, tell us what animal comparisons are appropriate?

And you're seriosly going to act like you didn't know calling Blacks apes and monkies is racist? Either you live in a cave away from humanity or you're just being ignorant on purpose.

And if you look there was 3 others who felt the same just in the last 2 pages.

But even if there wasn't, and I was the only one, it wouldn't matter really, cuz this site has an obvious majority that aren't exactly bothered by this type of thing. On some other site with a little more....diversity shall we say, you'd have plenty of arguments over it. If you don't belive me try posting it somwehre else or going outside and asking a Black man if you can call him an ape/monkey. That is if there even is any Black people around you lol.

Not calling people racial **** isn't being a PC officer it's just common sense and not being an asshole. I'm far from PC.

[Breakfast in Vegas]

Or the fact that some people purposly do things knowing what it means, but also knowing they can pull the "double standard" card later in defense.

He knew very well what reaction he would get calling a Black man a monkey.Perhaps, but it still doesn't change the fact that there is a double standard in judging racism in the media world, seemingly particularly in hyper-sensitive PC America. Wonder how much racism will be an issue in the election campaign, particularly how the media will behave in its satire and humor. The first shots were fired with the New Yorker cover and the public reaction seems to be one unbecoming of a democracy.

[loganinkosovo]

Or the fact that some people purposly do things knowing what it means, but also knowing they can pull the "double standard" card later in defense.

He knew very well what reaction he would get calling a Black man a monkey.

I didn't call the Guy a Monkey. Did you see me call the Guy a Monkey? NO!

I posed a question as to whether you would like to see a cartoon character or a Marxist Anti-American Friend of Criminals and Terrorists as President.

I would love to see Condoleezza Rice as our Next President. She IS the smartest woman in the world.

Of course the first victim under the Liberals is Free Speech.

Since you didn't like the first set of candidates.....

http://images.politico.com/global/080710_obama_brown.jpg


http://www.myfreewallpapers.net/cartoons/wallpapers/bugs-bunny-forever.jpghttp://picturesinwood.co.uk/media/DIR_2518/Bugs%7EBunny.jpg
http://www.myfreewallpapers.net/cartoons/wallpapers/bugs-bunny-forever.jpg

You Decide!


It doesn't matter what Colour Obama or George W. are, they both look like Curious George. It's a Fact of Life.

[Zoomie]

And you're seriosly going to act like you didn't know calling Blacks apes and monkies is racist? Either you live in a cave away from humanity or you're just being ignorant on purpose.
*yawns* Give me a break, I'm not even going to touch that as I made myself pretty clear in my original post.


But even if there wasn't, and I was the only one, it wouldn't matter really, cuz this site has an obvious majority that aren't exactly bothered by this type of thing. On some other site with a little more....diversity shall we say, you'd have plenty of arguments over it. If you don't belive me try posting it somwehre else or going outside and asking a Black man if you can call him an ape/monkey. Oh please, spare me your holier than thou attitude. The monkey comparison is tame compared to the way Condi Rice has been portrayed over the years. It's rather amusing to see how you say there's stipulations on name calling. I guess it's like using the N word, only blacks can use it, because if a white person does. . .that's racist.


That is if there even is any Black people around you lol. Yeah, look who's being racist now, that's such an ignorant statement.



Not calling people racial **** isn't being a PC officer it's just common sense and not being an asshole. I'm far from PC.I've not seen anyone around here calling anyone racial stuff.

[Holycrusader]

Here's the upcoming The New Yorker July issue cover.

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/usa/newyorkercover220.jpg

After seeing this if i could I would be voting Obama...

Its like nazi caricature from WWII. Total bad taste...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7505953.stm

[Holycrusader]

Calling Bush a monkey is like calling Obama an idiot. It's just an insult. It has no historical use as anything else for white people. Calling a black man an ape or monkey is one of the most comon ways racist put them down even today let alone before. It's up there with "porch monkey" and "coon". So caling Obama an idiot is fine. Calling him a monkey is like calling Bush a cracker or some white slur (except worse since crackers never been that powerful and rich white people started it). For Obama it's a racial insult for a white guy it's just an insult. White people ven tried to prove how the Black race is the product of a woman mating with an ape at one point. I don't see how you could possibly not know this or you're just playing dumb. Not to mention Obama doesn't even look like that.




Let me explain further for you.

Calling me a greedy hook nosed bastard is just an insult.

Calling a Jew a greedy hook nosed bastard is a racial/ethnic insult.

Thank you Balkan for good explanation of my point...

[gobdav]

After seeing this if i could I would be voting Obama...

Its like nazi caricature from WWII. Total bad taste...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7505953.stm


This is a perfect example of how media can get away with anything so long as they use an eye-grabbing headline or magazine cover. You obviously didn't read the article, but anyways, I'm sure that's what the magazine had in mind all along.

Maybe they're doing this in hopes of "starting a dialogue" p-)

[Zoomie]

After seeing this if i could I would be voting Obama...

Its like nazi caricature from WWII. Total bad taste...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7505953.stm
So out of total ignorance and a caricature, you'd sole base your vote on that?
Just wow. :roll: So following that line of logic, you would of voted for Bush no matter what by now.

[gobdav]

So out of total ignorance and a caricature, you'd sole base your vote on that?
Just wow. :roll: So following that line of logic, you would of voted for Bush no matter what by now.


That doesn't apply Zoomie. Bush isn't a Messiah p-)

[WARPIG]

I think the whole Messiah title is overrated. He's a rockstar. He's got no record of substance, no experience and the only thing anyone can criticize is his affilitations. Even the warped policies and left wingnut liberal ideas he has won't turn off too many voters just yet. The more the right tries to expose him as a socialist, the more the utube generation will rally around him.

Obama's on TV right now laying out the "specifics." He needs to make his celebrity appearances and stay as vague as possible. If the real voters get a good look at Obama in the daylight they might not be as infatuated.

[Zoomie]

I think the whole Messiah title is overrated. He's a rockstar. He's got no record of substance, no experience and the only thing anyone can criticize is his affilitations. Even the warped policies and left wingnut liberal ideas he has won't turn off too many voters just yet. The more the right tries to expose him as a socialist, the more the utube generation will rally around him.

Obama's on TV right now laying out the "specifics." He needs to make his celebrity appearances and stay as vague as possible. If the real voters get a good look at Obama in the daylight they might not be as infatuated.
Obama cleans up after himself pretty well. I mean just look his website, he purges things and changes things all the time to make it look like he knows what he's doing.
Like this (http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/07/obama-scrubs-iraq-webpage.html) for example when he finally (but not publicly) acknowledge the surge works and there really isn't an impending civil war.

[ronnieraygun]

I think the whole Messiah title is overrated. He's a rockstar. He's got no record of substance, no experience and the only thing anyone can criticize is his affilitations. Even the warped policies and left wingnut liberal ideas he has won't turn off too many voters just yet. The more the right tries to expose him as a socialist, the more the utube generation will rally around him.

Obama's on TV right now laying out the "specifics." He needs to make his celebrity appearances and stay as vague as possible. If the real voters get a good look at Obama in the daylight they might not be as infatuated.

No one runs off specifics at this point in the campaign. Stay on message, keep it concise. No one wins an election by being detailed about policy. It's unsexy for your brand. That's just the way it is, right or wrong. He's no different than the others, generally speaking.

I will say this, though - it pains me to say it - some of the biggest Obama fans are in for a rude awakening if he were to be elected and realized they got sold a bill of goods. There is no way he can deliver on the hype at all and a lot of people will be pissed to find they voted in a guy who really can't change **** for at least the first couple years.

[WARPIG]

Obama cleans up after himself pretty well. I mean just look his website, he purges things and changes things all the time to make it look like he knows what he's doing.
Like this (http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/07/obama-scrubs-iraq-webpage.html) for example when he finally (but not publicly) acknowledge the surge works and there really isn't an impending civil war.

Like I said, Obama knows squat. Right now polls are showing support because people are voting emotions right now.

But, unless the whole "Rock the Vote" thing works this time around, I'm not banking on the younger demographic showing up for Obama. You never know.


As far as rant's go, my beef with Obama isn't his lack of experience, or even his socialist gooey center. That teflon coating is what bugs me. If the Rev. Wrights and all the other affilitations were part of Obama's past, then he should have stood by them. At first I just thought the media was simply letting that sort of thing slide. Obama's just as suspect when it comes to his alliances. If Obama's fickle about his "spiritual mentor" and long time friends, his loyalty to his country can't run too deep either. If his wife's "love" of America is any hint, then I don't see how the Office is much more than a career aspiration to Obama.

[bugkill]

I think the whole Messiah title is overrated. He's a rockstar. He's got no record of substance, no experience and the only thing anyone can criticize is his affilitations. Even the warped policies and left wingnut liberal ideas he has won't turn off too many voters just yet. The more the right tries to expose him as a socialist, the more the utube generation will rally around him.

Obama's on TV right now laying out the "specifics." He needs to make his celebrity appearances and stay as vague as possible. If the real voters get a good look at Obama in the daylight they might not be as infatuated.

The problem is that the "messiah" and "rock star" titles were all created by the media, not Obama himself. I also hear Rush Limbaugh and other conservative talk hosts use those titles, and it is a bit played out. Obama is a candidtate running for president, not any thing else. At the end of the day, you are either going to vote for him or not.

John McCain has all the experience in the world, but that is not enough to be president. I like John McCain, but I think he is too old and I do not want to see a republican in the White House with a Democrat controlled Senate and House. I also do not like his stance on Iraq and I feel that we need a change of mission there, not sitting around claiming to be there looking for victory, because there is no vicory that awaits us there.

Obama may not be as experienced, but he has showed me to be competent enough to do the job. I do not agree with most of his stances, but it time for the democrats to be in the hot seat like the republicans were. The republicans had their chance and blew it, now we need to see what the dems can do. The republicans need 4 years to get their act straight and McCain as president will not help their cause. For me, it is not as simple as liking McCain better and voting for him, but more about what is best for the country.

And I think that Obama winning would be.

[seraosha]

Obama may not be as experienced, but he has showed me to be competent enough to do the job.

How so? Not flamebait, just wondering what Obama has done that can convince someone that he is competent "enough" to be POTUS.

[Createdeemcee]

How so? Not flamebait, just wondering what Obama has done that can convince someone that he is competent "enough" to be POTUS.


Lets see hes for the Majority of what Nationals of this country wants. Hes not a war monger. He wants to make our medical coverage more affordable, he wants to end a worthess war, and find alternative energy for us. He also wants to keep american jobs in america, not for half the price overseas. All things most of us want and havent had for the last 8 years. Nothing that needs to be explained just the obvious.

[budgie]

If Obama's fickle about his "spiritual mentor" and long time friends, his loyalty to his country can't run too deep either. If his wife's "love" of America is any hint, then I don't see how the Office is much more than a career aspiration to Obama.

Aaah that old 'conservative' chesnut about Democrats being unpatriotic rears its ugly head once more. Well, I suppose it half-worked on Kerry, so why not give it another round?


Lets see hes for the Majority of what Nationals of this country wants. Hes not a war monger. He wants to make our medical coverage more affordable, he wants to end a worthess war, and find alternative energy for us. He also wants to keep american jobs in america, not for half the price overseas. All things most of us want and havent had for the last 8 years. Nothing that needs to be explained just the obvious.

See? A communist, jihadist traitor to the core.

[hank]

But, unless the whole "Rock the Vote" thing works this time around, I'm not banking on the younger demographic showing up for Obama. You never know.

The best pollster in GA (name escapes me) has the Georgia race neck and neck. All else have McCain up 10+ points. Difference? Since last presidential general election there are 500,000 new registered voters. Overwhelmingly Democrat and under 39 years of age. Don't know how that will play out but for me that statistic was shocking. That's a huge jump in Democratic registered voters in a state of less than 10MM people total. Question is - will they vote? This pollster says they will and that they'll put GA in play for the Dems for the first time since Clinton's first term. Only time will tell.

hank

[seraosha]

Lets see hes for the Majority of what Nationals of this country wants. Hes not a war monger. He wants to make our medical coverage more affordable, he wants to end a worthess war, and find alternative energy for us. He also wants to keep american jobs in america, not for half the price overseas. All things most of us want and havent had for the last 8 years. Nothing that needs to be explained just the obvious.

Well those are nice goals, and some empty rhetoric, but they don't show competence, as I understand the definition.

com·pe·tence http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/lunaWAV/C06/C0699300) [/URL]-noun 1.the quality of being competent; adequacy; possession of required skill, knowledge, qualification, or capacity
com·pe·tent http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png [URL="http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/lunaWAV/C06/C0699500"]http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/audio.html) –adjective 1.having suitable or sufficient skill, knowledge, experience, etc., for some purpose; properly qualified

So how does B.H. Obama fit the description of "competent enough"?

[budgie]

Well those are nice goals, and some empty rhetoric, but they don't show competence, as I understand the definition.

com·pe·tence http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/lunaWAV/C06/C0699300) [/URL]-noun 1.the quality of being competent; adequacy; possession of required skill, knowledge, qualification, or capacity
com·pe·tent http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png [URL="http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/lunaWAV/C06/C0699500"]http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/audio.html) –adjective 1.having suitable or sufficient skill, knowledge, experience, etc., for some purpose; properly qualified

So how does B.H. Obama fit the description of "competent enough"?

Unfortunately comptetence can be a pretty subjective word when in comes to politics. Let's just say he's the guy most people would like to have a beer and chew tobacco with this year.

[WARPIG]

Still haven't heard a single shred of even a soundbyte that shows Obama as competent for the Office. I'm not a war monger. I want to make our medical coverage more affordable, I want to end a worthless war, and find alternative energy for us. I also want to keep american jobs in america, not for half the price overseas. I've also got a leg up with having military service. But, neither of us have any experience running a country. Heck I barely have less experience than Obama in the Senate. Even his voting record of "present" gets him no extra points than me. So, does that make me Presidential material?

Here's the kick in the pants, there's quite a few Democrats that think Obama is too far left for the Democratic party. I know the "media" is responsible for this rockstar label that Obama has, but with or without the label, he's an empty suit. Obama's charisma is working for him, but I think most of his supporters are simply fishing for reasons to vote for him. He's likeable and he's not a republican. Maybe that's going to be enough. But, I wouldn't count on the UTuber's to pull out the vote. The swing vote is still pretty much in the center and McCain is much closer to that than any candidate we've had in a long time. If he can keep ahead of the liberals trying to equate him to president Bush.. he's gonna be hard to beat.

[JKD]

The problem is that the "messiah" and "rock star" titles were all created by the media, not Obama himself. I also hear Rush Limbaugh and other conservative talk hosts use those titles, and it is a bit played out. Obama is a candidtate running for president, not any thing else. At the end of the day, you are either going to vote for him or not.

Kerry and Gore weren't particularly charismatic and liked to talk policy in their campaigns. And they got called boring and stiff... And haha look at Kerry in that NASA clean suit, what a nerd! And he throws a football like a girl! No way I'm voting for these policy eggheads! I'd rather have a beer with Bush so he's got my vote.

Now here come Obama who's charismatic, knows how to work his crowds, and doesn't talk a lot of policy details in his speeches and suddenly he's a "massiah" and his supporters are his religious followers.

His opponents will go after him this sort of thing either way.

[seraosha]

Let's just say he's the guy most people would like to have a beer and chew tobacco with this year.

Strangely, I don't find that a compelling argument in his favor. On the surface, it seemed to me that folks liked him because he wasn't Hillary Clinton, which makes sense...but now it's because he isn't...old? White? Republican? Veteran? Experienced? Warmonger?

There are a lot of things he isn't...but what is he? Who is he?
What defines him as a man, and as a presidential candidate?

[WARPIG]

Kerry and Gore weren't particularly charismatic and liked to talk policy in their campaigns. And they got called boring and stiff... And haha look at Kerry in that NASA clean suit, what a nerd! And he throws a football like a girl! No way I'm voting for these policy eggheads! I'd rather have a beer with Bush so he's got my vote.

Now here come Obama who's charismatic, knows how to work his crowds, and doesn't talk a lot of policy details in his speeches and suddenly he's a "massiah" and his supporters are his religious followers.

His opponents will go after him this sort of thing either way.


No, actually, I think his charisma and slickness will be part of his downfall. Bill Clinton is a more accurate comparison than the "beer with Bush" analogy. Either way, not really great examples to follow these days. Slick Willy was getting his wick wet in the oval office and dodging impeachment by lying under oath, and Dubya's managed to piss off most of the friggin planet with his cowboy policies. So, rockstar, messiah, or the best thing since sliced bread.. I think Obama's going to charm his way out of the job. The liberal media has proven pretty fickle before, let's hope they stand behind Obama for the long haul.

[loganinkosovo]

The coming three ring circus in Denver will turn off a lot of people and I think we will find out that Hillery ain't dead yet. Her supporters will mount a coup at the convention. They are still pi$$ed about all the crap the DNC has pulled on them. These people have not gone away.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KACQuZVAE3s

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

[Zoomie]

May We Mock, Barack?

By MAUREEN DOWD (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/maureendowd/index.html?inline=nyt-per)
WASHINGTON
When I interviewed Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert for Rolling Stone a couple years ago, I wondered what Barack Obama would mean for them.
“It seems like a President Obama would be harder to make fun of than these guys,” I said.
“Are you kidding me?” Stewart scoffed.
Then he and Colbert both said at the same time: “His dad was a goat-herder!”
When I noted that Obama, in his memoir, had revealed that he had done some pot, booze and “maybe a little blow,” the two comedians began riffing about the dapper senator’s familiarity with drug slang.
Colbert: Wow, that’s a very street way of putting it. ‘A little blow.’
Stewart: A little bit of the white rabbit.
Colbert: ‘Yeah, I packed a cocktail straw of cocaine and had a prostitute blow it in my ear, but that is all I did. High-fivin.’ ’
Flash forward to the kerfuffle — and Obama’s icy reaction — over this week’s New Yorker cover parodying fears about the Obamas.
“We’ve already scratched thrift, candor and brevity off the list of virtues in this presidential cycle, so why not eliminate humor, too?” wrote James Rainey in The Los Angeles Times, suggesting “an irony deficiency” in Obama and his fans.
Many of the late-night comics and their writers — nearly all white — now admit to The New York Times’s Bill Carter that because of race and because there is nothing “buffoonish” about Obama — and because many in their audiences are intoxicated by him and resistant to seeing him skewered — he has not been flayed by the sort of ridicule that diminished Dukakis, Gore and Kerry.
“There’s a weird reverse racism going on,” Jimmy Kimmel said.
Carter also observed that there’s no easy comedic “take” on Obama, “like allegations of Bill Clinton’s womanizing, or President Bush’s goofy bumbling or Al Gore’s robotic personality.”
At first blush, it would seem to be a positive for Obama that he is hard to mock. But on second thought, is it another sign that he’s trying so hard to be perfect that it’s stultifying? Or that eight years of W. and Cheney have robbed Democratic voters of their sense of humor?
Certainly, as the potential first black president, and as a contender with tender experience, Obama must feel under strain to be serious.
But he does not want the “take” on him to become that he’s so tightly wrapped, overcalculated and circumspect that he can’t even allow anyone to make jokes about him, and that his supporters are so evangelical and eager for a champion to rescue America that their response to any razzing is a sanctimonious: Don’t mess with our messiah!
If Obama keeps being stingy with his quips and smiles, and if the dominant perception of him is that you can’t make jokes about him, it might infect his campaign with an airless quality. His humorlessness could spark humor.
On Tuesday, Andy Borowitz satirized on that subject. He said that Obama, sympathetic to comics’ attempts to find jokes to make about him, had put out a list of official ones, including this:
“A traveling salesman knocks on the door of a farmhouse, and much to his surprise, Barack Obama answers the door. The salesman says, ‘I was expecting the farmer’s daughter.’ Barack Obama replies, ‘She’s not here. The farm was foreclosed on because of subprime loans that are making a mockery of the American dream.’ ”
John McCain’s Don Rickles routines — “Thanks for the question, you little jerk” — can fall flat. But he seems like a guy who can be teased harmlessly. If Obama offers only eat-your-arugula chiding and chilly earnestness, he becomes an otherworldly type, not the regular guy he needs to be.
He’s already in danger of seeming too prissy about food — a perception heightened when The Wall Street Journal reported that the planners for Obama’s convention have hired the first-ever Director of Greening, the environmental activist Andrea Robinson. She in turn hired an Official Carbon Adviser to “measure the greenhouse-gas emissions of every placard, every plane trip, every appetizer prepared and every coffee cup tossed.”
The “lean ‘n’ green” catering guidelines, The Journal said, bar fried food and instruct that, “on the theory that nutritious food is more vibrant, each meal should include ‘at least three of the following colors: red, green, yellow, blue/purple, and white.’ (Garnishes don’t count.) At least 70% of the ingredients should be organic or grown locally, to minimize emissions from fuel during transportation.”
Bring it on, Ozone Democrats! Because if Obama gets elected and there is nothing funny about him, it won’t be the economy that’s depressed. It will be the rest of us.

Source (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/16/opinion/16dowd.html?_r=2&ref=opinion&oref=slogin&oref=slogin)
............

[akd]

The Journal said, bar fried food and instruct that, “on the theory that nutritious food is more vibrant, each meal should include ‘at least three of the following colors: red, green, yellow, blue/purple, and white.’ (Garnishes don’t count.) At least 70% of the ingredients should be organic or grown locally, to minimize emissions from fuel during transportation.”


Cool. New FDA guidelines under the Obama administration.

[budgie]

The farm joke is actually pretty funny. Obama does come across as too serious at times: always on-message...

[Undisputed4]

Obama should of just came out and said the cover just shows how ridicilous people are trying to portray me.

Healthcare would prolly be cheaper if americans werent so fat and lazy. We need prevention not more medication.

The economy would be better if americans didnt but everything on credit. If you got a adjustable rate morgage and it went up, sucks for you. You knew it could happen.

Americans need to look at themselves not the gov't. I want a president who tell's americans to get off their ass's and stop whining about everything.

And not half assing wars. If a commander says he needs more troops, it shouldnt take months to get them. Troop numbers shouldnt depend on policy, but on the needs of commanders. As soon as the war goes bad, people want to leave. Instead of lets get these mother****ers

[Winger]

How so? Not flamebait, just wondering what Obama has done that can convince someone that he is competent "enough" to be POTUS.

Zilch, nada. Next.

[Zoomie]

Washington (AP) - In a bold move today, Democratic presidential frontrunner Barack Obama announced that he had taken yet another dump. Campaign insiders confirmed reports of the absolute ferocity of the ****, citing a campaign stop last night at a Mexican restaurant outside of Butte, Montana.
"Clearly, we are tracking Obama's movements and we can see that they are all good, excepting reports of some blood on Tuesday," stated one advisor on condition of anonymity from a men's room stall at the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport.
Sources say that further dumps are planned, and their moves will be tracked and reported exclusively to the internet website militaryphotos.net, the All Obama, All The Time Channel.
In closing his comments, Obama had this to say.
"We honor and respect John McCain's service to his country, but the fierce assblast of today was the phonky **** that America needs."

ABC actually did a similar story (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/07/obama-hits-the.html), but this is regards to Obama hitting the gym. It must really be a slow news day in the Obama fan camp.

[Hollis]

Obama’s Brother to Capture Nation’s Attention

by BMCWrites (http://www.nowpublic.com/bmcwrites) | January 16, 2008 at 04:05 pm | 9168 views | 6 comments (http://www.nowpublic.com/politics/obama-s-brother-capture-nation-s-attention#comments)
http://media.nowpublic.net/images//8e/3/8e3651d161032d32b5c2184d97725cd1.jpg (http://www.nowpublic.com/politics/obama-s-brother-capture-nation-s-attention-0) by Edmund Jenks (http://www.nowpublic.com/edmund_jenks)


Arguably the most colorful presidential sibling of my lifetime, Billy Carter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Carter) became well known to the American public as Jimmy Carter’s beer-drinking brother. In similar fashion, Roger Clinton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Clinton,_Jr.) gained notoriety as Bill Clinton’s drug-abusing, ex-con brother. Now, another politician’s sibling stands on the verge of capturing the nation’s attention.


Continues:
http://www.nowpublic.com/politics/obama-s-brother-capture-nation-s-attention

[budgie]

Obama’s Brother to Capture Nation’s Attention

by BMCWrites (http://www.nowpublic.com/bmcwrites) | January 16, 2008 at 04:05 pm | 9168 views | 6 comments (http://www.nowpublic.com/politics/obama-s-brother-capture-nation-s-attention#comments)
http://media.nowpublic.net/images//8e/3/8e3651d161032d32b5c2184d97725cd1.jpg (http://www.nowpublic.com/politics/obama-s-brother-capture-nation-s-attention-0) by Edmund Jenks (http://www.nowpublic.com/edmund_jenks)


Arguably the most colorful presidential sibling of my lifetime, Billy Carter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Carter) became well known to the American public as Jimmy Carter’s beer-drinking brother. In similar fashion, Roger Clinton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Clinton,_Jr.) gained notoriety as Bill Clinton’s drug-abusing, ex-con brother. Now, another politician’s sibling stands on the verge of capturing the nation’s attention.


Continues:
http://www.nowpublic.com/politics/obama-s-brother-capture-nation-s-attention


And let's not forget W's whoring younger sibling and the current Commander in Chief's good old hard-boozing days....I'd say he did a bit more than 'experiment'

[Hollis]

And let's not forget W's whoring younger sibling and the current Commander in Chief's good old coke-snorting days....


Hey this is the OBAMA rant thread, not W's,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

[budgie]

Yeah fair enough.

But notice how the McCain rant thread has sorta died? that's because there's nothing to rant about. Those that support Obama don't necessarily hate McCain .

But in their desperate quest to find something truly unlikeable about Obama (other than that he's black, democratic, liberal and running for a change to their beloved Bush-admin policies), the Obama-haters are dragging up every petty association, every alleged flip-flop and supposed example of lack of his wife's patriotism in order to create hysteria.

So far I've seen zero incriminating evidence and very little evidence of poor moral fibre (apart from his being black and democratic and having a Muslim middle name - a sure crime in at least 48 states!).

In fact so far the only thing I'd say he's done wrong so far is the comment on rural voters for which he paid in the primary polls and will suffer somewhat in the general election. Practically everything else on this thread has been BS.

[Hollis]

Yeah fair enough.

But notice how the McCain rant thread has sorta died? that's because there's nothing to rant about. Those that support Obama don't necessarily hate McCain .

But in their desperate quest to find something truly unlikeable about Obama (other than that he's black, democratic, liberal and running for a change to their beloved Bush-admin policies), the Obama-haters are dragging up every petty association, every alleged flip-flop and supposed example of lack of his wife's patriotism in order to create hysteria.

So far I've seen zero incriminating evidence and very little evidence of poor moral fibre (apart from his being black and democratic and having a Muslim middle name - a sure crime in at least 48 states!).

In fact so far the only thing I'd say he's done wrong so far is the comment on rural voters for which he paid in the primary polls and will suffer somewhat in the general election. Practically everything else on this thread has been BS.


Point taken, I wonder if the Obama-haters are taking their lessons from the Bush-haters. Reason we have the rant threads, is because "......are dragging up every petty association" and posting about it.

[budgie]

Well that said, most of this certainly qualifies as ranting...

[Hollis]

Well that said, most of this certainly qualifies as ranting...

yeah and it will just intensify for either candidate as we near November, along with the quality getting much worse.

[lightfire]

Obama is supposedly comming to Europe these days, plys Astan and Iraq later on. But I can't find any details on his visit dates. I mean, they are kept like a secrect or smth. I understand Iraq and Astan. But London, Berlin? So far I've heard only speculations by the media. I'm gonna be today and tomorow in London. While ąūth was a supposed date of his visit there, but noone can confirm this..I've called US embassy, Obama campaign phone number - nothing, no official information. Now I ain't any wacko fan or smth, in fact I'd like to get to the press conf ( I work as a reporter), but how and where to get, if there's no official info..Calling to the states is useless with that old All Bundy trick (if you want this, please press 1, if you want that, please press 2..etc. until after 10 minutes the telephone credit runs out and the last words yoy hear are "please wait"). wtf? Why is there such a secrecy?

[Undisputed4]

Chelsea Clinton came to my school and they wouldnt say when she was arriving till like the mourning of. Then she rolled up in like a Nissan SUV. And someone like ran to open the door for her. I was expecting like some secret service Tahoe's or something with the way they handled her arrival time. But no. She had like 2 secret service guys with her and some local cops. The SS guys were wearing their sunglasses on a foggy day

[Masai]

Gawd i hope that black man gets his @$$ in the oval office.

[Calanen]

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTY1NWQ3YmIxODEzM2ViM2JiMzE2MWRjZDA0NDFlMzc=

Thursday, July 17, 2008
http://beta.nationalreview.com/images/blog_dotted_divider.gif
BARACK OBAMA
No Paperwork For Obama Grants From 1997 To 2000


From the Chicago Sun-Times article (http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/1060495,CST-NWS-watchdog17.article) on grants distributed by then-state-legislator Barack Obama.
(Records from 1997 to 2000 weren't available.)

There's a shock.

His state legislative office records may have been thrown out (http://www.pantagraph.com/articles/2007/11/14/news/doc473b8492b009e593715711.txt), he told us.
He's never released a specific list (http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Y2E3N2RhMjQ2NjA3YTdiMDc1MzE2NDUwZmUxMGQ4MzU=) of law clients, instead giving a list of all of his firm's clients, numbering several hundred each year. His campaign will only confirm representation when the media comes to them with a specific case.

He won't release his application to the state bar (http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/06/10/memo-to-obama-missing-documents/). He's never released any legal or billing records to verify that he only did a few hours of work for a nonprofit tied to Tony Rezko.

He's never released any medical records, just a one-page letter from his doctor. (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/06/obama-admits-sm.html)

Does it bother anyone that a guy with political ambitions for his entire adult life has not left a paper trail?

07/17 10:20 AM (http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTY1NWQ3YmIxODEzM2ViM2JiMzE2MWRjZDA0NDFlMzc=)

[hank]

Chelsea Clinton came to my school and they wouldnt say when she was arriving till like the mourning of. Then she rolled up in like a Nissan SUV. And someone like ran to open the door for her. I was expecting like some secret service Tahoe's or something with the way they handled her arrival time. But no. She had like 2 secret service guys with her and some local cops. The SS guys were wearing their sunglasses on a foggy day

That is like a totally awesome story. Like, when I read it, like, I totally like felt like I was there at like your school and stuff. Like totally vivid descriptions are like totally vivid. Totally. Like.

hank

[Winger]

That is like a totally awesome story. Like, when I read it, like, I totally like felt like I was there at like your school and stuff. Like totally vivid descriptions are like totally vivid. Totally. Like.

hank

That was, like, a joke.

[hank]

That was, like, a joke.

Like totally.

hank

[WARPIG]

Yeah fair enough.

But notice how the McCain rant thread has sorta died? that's because there's nothing to rant about. Those that support Obama don't necessarily hate McCain .

But in their desperate quest to find something truly unlikeable about Obama (other than that he's black, democratic, liberal and running for a change to their beloved Bush-admin policies), the Obama-haters are dragging up every petty association, every alleged flip-flop and supposed example of lack of his wife's patriotism in order to create hysteria.

So far I've seen zero incriminating evidence and very little evidence of poor moral fibre (apart from his being black and democratic and having a Muslim middle name - a sure crime in at least 48 states!).

In fact so far the only thing I'd say he's done wrong so far is the comment on rural voters for which he paid in the primary polls and will suffer somewhat in the general election. Practically everything else on this thread has been BS.

Funny because the most damaging "BS" against Obama has been coming from the democratic party.
Let's see, you've immediately whipped out the race card, (we all criminalize Obama for being black), victimized poor Obama from those damned "Obama Haters", trivialized everyones opinion, and twisted comments completely out of context. The only thing missing is some reference to Bush and possibly an insult or personal attack.


If I summarize all the "rants" on this thread, I basically get an impression that Obama's an empty suit with enough charisma to burn, very little track record to criticize or run on, and is proving to be a bit too slick for his own good. His ego might be getting the best of him and the worst thing anyone can drum up against him seems to be with his associations. Other than being almost too liberal for the democrats, he's a friggin juggernaut.

As much as this rant goes.. It's the Obama faithfuls that deserve most of the criticism.

[akd]

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTY1NWQ3YmIxODEzM2ViM2JiMzE2MWRjZDA0NDFlMzc=

Thursday, July 17, 2008
http://beta.nationalreview.com/images/blog_dotted_divider.gif
BARACK OBAMA
No Paperwork For Obama Grants From 1997 To 2000


From the Chicago Sun-Times article (http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/1060495,CST-NWS-watchdog17.article) on grants distributed by then-state-legislator Barack Obama.

(Records from 1997 to 2000 weren't available.)
Not sure about this odd sort of public grantmaking, but IRS does not require private grantmakers to retain records of grants past 7 years (although most everyone maintains them indefinitely).