Jump to content

Recommended Posts

So Barak is cleaning the floor with Hillary. Makes me happy for many reasons, and sad for other.The one thing about Barak I really am worried about is what he is going to do when he gets the power/ability to direct our country.Will he rise above the party and do what's best forth country, or will he seek to solidify the democrat power and retake as much as possible.So far he has basically offered no real plans for the country.He boasts of being against the war, when almost 100% of the democrats who looked at the intelligence data and got the briefings by the people that knew all voted for the war. He recieved no intel, no briefings by generals or diplomats. He was against the war as a feeling. Now that's fine many people tell me they also were against the war once it no longer was cool to be for the war, but they aren't going to be the ones that get to make decisions that could weaken us globally, or invite attacks because of preceived weakness. Feeling a war is right or wrong is as bad as Hillary crying because running for president is hard. Sorry lady, there's no crying for yourself in politics.Now Obama may very well find some good democrats who can place the country ahead of party, but we will not know until after he gets the big prize. This is troubling to place that much trust in anyone sick enough to run for president.Hillary would be bad for this country in my opinion, but Baraka could be worse.Hopefully Barak can put together a more precise set of plans, that we can judge for their value, instead of: Hey trust me, I'm black and young.If Barak finds good people, he could be the best thing to happen to this country since Reagan. But right now he's just a better alternative to Hillary. Not a very good measuring stick for me.But I'll still vote for him obv.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 177
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

So Barak is cleaning the floor with Hillary. Makes me happy for many reasons, and sad for other.The one thing about Barak I really am worried about is what he is going to do when he gets the power/ability to direct our country.Will he rise above the party and do what's best forth country, or will he seek to solidify the democrat power and retake as much as possible.So far he has basically offered no real plans for the country.He boasts of being against the war, when almost 100% of the democrats who looked at the intelligence data and got the briefings by the people that knew all voted for the war. He recieved no intel, no briefings by generals or diplomats. He was against the war as a feeling. Now that's fine many people tell me they also were against the war once it no longer was cool to be for the war, but they aren't going to be the ones that get to make decisions that could weaken us globally, or invite attacks because of preceived weakness. Feeling a war is right or wrong is as bad as Hillary crying because running for president is hard. Sorry lady, there's no crying for yourself in politics.Now Obama may very well find some good democrats who can place the country ahead of party, but we will not know until after he gets the big prize. This is troubling to place that much trust in anyone sick enough to run for president.Hillary would be bad for this country in my opinion, but Baraka could be worse.Hopefully Barak can put together a more precise set of plans, that we can judge for their value, instead of: Hey trust me, I'm black and young.If Barak finds good people, he could be the best thing to happen to this country since Reagan. But right now he's just a better alternative to Hillary. Not a very good measuring stick for me.But I'll still vote for him obv.
I strongly agree on these points...
Link to post
Share on other sites

Dude, I click on a thread called Obama EXPOSED, and there are no pictures, no video?You're just a big tease. :PWrite the superdelegates and urge an Obama-Gore ticket. A groundswell of support might tip his hand, and the two of them together would be unstoppable. [As it is now, CNN.com reports that Gov. Tim Kaine of Virginia is on his short list as VP. Kaine, my governor, is good -- Catholic, decent, quiet, runs the state competently, not an ideologue, not a dope. Not a bad choice, but it doesn't exactly set me on fire with passion, either.]By the way, the total turnout numbers are the same in Virginia as everywhere: Obama alone got more votes than all three Republicans combined, nearly twice as many. 840,000 total turnout for VA Dems, 400,000 for Republicans. That's the real trouble sign for them in November. If they can't DOUBLE their turnout, wth a candidate many of them don't like, November '08 will be a historic rout.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dude, I click on a thread called Obama EXPOSED, and there are no pictures, no video?You're just a big tease. :D
I know. I was at least expecting to see him shirtless or something. Dang. Such a disappointment. :club:
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, all right then!!! And my inner lesbian thinks the Sasha pic is good, too.Two funny moments just now on CNN, during McCain's speech: he was speaking about terrorists who despise us and our ideals. I glanced up at the captions to read, "de spice us and our eye deals."Damn, I hate it when someone de-spices my eye deal. Sounds like a redneck getting pepper-sprayed.Then, McCain said, "I do NOT believe that God anointed me to save this country in its hour of need." Wow, no wonder Republicans hate him! That's a direct bitch-slap to Duhh-bya, who said post-9/11 that God chose him to be president. Made me laugh out loud in delight.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Very sobering and right on point BGNo one can dispute that those points are all valid.Recently there have been several public focus group discussions with dozens of Obama supporters in attendance. When asked what significant accomplishments Barack has made since being a politician, no one could come up with anything. NOTHING. Not one example. Ziltch.Now I've said it before, I like this guy as a person. Seems like a very cool dude.But I need more than just to like someone before I give them the keys to my wallet and the country's nukes (even though I know we are safe from him ever going near them).None of the Democratic candidates are telling us specifically just what they plan on doing.WHAT are theses changes?, in DETAIL PLEASE.HOW are they going to be implemented?HOW are they going to pay for it all?WHO will most likely gain and WHO will most likely lose (trick question).I know there is a ton of time yet, and hopefully a lot of this will get wrung out, but these and many other questions have yet to be answered. I fear the Dems because they are drooling at the chance to ride scorched earth style and really mess things up. Too radical a change too fast would do far more harm than good imo.Gonna be a wild ride to November.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting flag hanging in Obama's newly opened support office in Texas:http://www.myfoxhouston.com/myfox/pages/Ho...mp;pageId=1.1.1At least they know what they represent and aren't afraid to show it. No thanks. Even though McCain is not the ideal conservative, he's still far better than the socialism being offered from the other side. Let's get McCain in there if for no other reason than to get the appointment of some conservative judges and look for a better candidate in 2012 if he turns out to be the liberal President his critics say he is. Who knows, maybe he'll surprise us.

Link to post
Share on other sites
He lost a bet but dont worry. I have already cancelled his vote. :club:
You can't cancel out his vote unless you live in the same state. Sorry.Anyway, as far as the OP is concerned, I think those are valid points about Obama. The thing is, he's got the talking points...change, hope, etc....down pat, but he never says anything substantive about what he's actually gonna do. I do have to disagree a little bit about your thoughts on the war. I know that everybody voted for it and they CLAIM that all the intelligence pointed in that direction. But, the bottom line is that it was one of the biggest mistakes our country has ever made. Many of the Bush Administration higher-ups were planning a War on Iraq long before 9/11 (which really just ended up giving them the excuse they wanted). There was no justification for going into Iraq, Saddam was never a threat to US (a potential threat to his neighbors maybe), but not to us. Furthermore, that was a country drawn randomly on a map with major potential for civil war. Saddam Hussein, brutal dictator that he was, was holding that place together. NOW, we're stuck dealing with a civil war that we basically created and American soldiers are dying and American money is being spent on huge mess we could have avoided. All that said, I think the Democratic Presidential candidates are dead wrong when they talk about trying to set deadlines and withdraw all our troops. The war was a huge mistake, but unfortunately, we can't just leave now and admit defeat. We have to stay and finish what we started, and the reality is that we'll probably end up having troops based there for many, many years to come. If we do it right that is.
Link to post
Share on other sites
You can't cancel out his vote unless you live in the same state. Sorry.Anyway, as far as the OP is concerned, I think those are valid points about Obama. The thing is, he's got the talking points...change, hope, etc....down pat, but he never says anything substantive about what he's actually gonna do. I do have to disagree a little bit about your thoughts on the war. I know that everybody voted for it and they CLAIM that all the intelligence pointed in that direction. But, the bottom line is that it was one of the biggest mistakes our country has ever made. Many of the Bush Administration higher-ups were planning a War on Iraq long before 9/11 (which really just ended up giving them the excuse they wanted). There was no justification for going into Iraq, Saddam was never a threat to US (a potential threat to his neighbors maybe), but not to us. Furthermore, that was a country drawn randomly on a map with major potential for civil war. Saddam Hussein, brutal dictator that he was, was holding that place together. NOW, we're stuck dealing with a civil war that we basically created and American soldiers are dying and American money is being spent on huge mess we could have avoided. All that said, I think the Democratic Presidential candidates are dead wrong when they talk about trying to set deadlines and withdraw all our troops. The war was a huge mistake, but unfortunately, we can't just leave now and admit defeat. We have to stay and finish what we started, and the reality is that we'll probably end up having troops based there for many, many years to come. If we do it right that is.
WOW, I have never actually read someone else's beliefs that actually used critical thinking and judgement before writing an opinion on Iraq. You are completely right, 100%. :club:
Link to post
Share on other sites
You can't cancel out his vote unless you live in the same state. Sorry.Anyway, as far as the OP is concerned, I think those are valid points about Obama. The thing is, he's got the talking points...change, hope, etc....down pat, but he never says anything substantive about what he's actually gonna do. I do have to disagree a little bit about your thoughts on the war. I know that everybody voted for it and they CLAIM that all the intelligence pointed in that direction. But, the bottom line is that it was one of the biggest mistakes our country has ever made. Many of the Bush Administration higher-ups were planning a War on Iraq long before 9/11 (which really just ended up giving them the excuse they wanted). There was no justification for going into Iraq, Saddam was never a threat to US (a potential threat to his neighbors maybe), but not to us. Furthermore, that was a country drawn randomly on a map with major potential for civil war. Saddam Hussein, brutal dictator that he was, was holding that place together. NOW, we're stuck dealing with a civil war that we basically created and American soldiers are dying and American money is being spent on huge mess we could have avoided. All that said, I think the Democratic Presidential candidates are dead wrong when they talk about trying to set deadlines and withdraw all our troops. The war was a huge mistake, but unfortunately, we can't just leave now and admit defeat. We have to stay and finish what we started, and the reality is that we'll probably end up having troops based there for many, many years to come. If we do it right that is.
I always wanted to live and work and vote and be proud of a country that sidestepped issues, let dictators run amok and instead of lending a hand to other nations and or people in trouble stayed home and watched Seinfeld reruns. My only regret is it that it took 9/11 for the country to wake the **** up to the the possibilities.
Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing that really disgusts me is people who go on and on about how many casualties we've taken and innocent people have died, etc. when 30,000 children die every day from various causes. Keep that in your perspective when you decry your outrage of thousands of brave (all volunteer) servicemen who died fighting for a cause (freedom) that as Americans I think we have quickly forgotten how hard it was to obtain. We can fight them there or we can fight them here. I know which way I lean. There is no greater threat to their existence than spreading of free democracies in their lands.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You can't cancel out his vote unless you live in the same state. Sorry.Anyway, as far as the OP is concerned, I think those are valid points about Obama. The thing is, he's got the talking points...change, hope, etc....down pat, but he never says anything substantive about what he's actually gonna do. I do have to disagree a little bit about your thoughts on the war. I know that everybody voted for it and they CLAIM that all the intelligence pointed in that direction. But, the bottom line is that it was one of the biggest mistakes our country has ever made. Many of the Bush Administration higher-ups were planning a War on Iraq long before 9/11 (which really just ended up giving them the excuse they wanted).
You are making the case you knew the motives of the Bush admin. Please tell us the current motives for the Russian administration.
There was no justification for going into Iraq, Saddam was never a threat to US (a potential threat to his neighbors maybe), but not to us. Furthermore, that was a country drawn randomly on a map with major potential for civil war. Saddam Hussein, brutal dictator that he was, was holding that place together. NOW, we're stuck dealing with a civil war that we basically created and American soldiers are dying and American money is being spent on huge mess we could have avoided.
The two bolded points contridict each other. Is it our fault that French and British forced together these different ethnic groups, or is it our fault we don't allow their near slavery to save their lives? Next you'll say defeating communism was bad because they kept Yugoslavia intact. Was Bush idealic in his goal, probably. But it was never on anything but the best interest of the nation to remove a terrorist sympathetic dictator from an oil rich country. The fact that he was telling everyone he had nukes to keep the Iranians and others at bay worked against him, and it tricked us, along with every other country in the world. The UN placed demands that Saddam thumbed his nose at, eventually you can't keep saying 'better not' and you have to do something. If Saddam had let the inspectors back and shut his mouth, we never could have invaded.
All that said, I think the Democratic Presidential candidates are dead wrong when they talk about trying to set deadlines and withdraw all our troops. The war was a huge mistake, but unfortunately, we can't just leave now and admit defeat. We have to stay and finish what we started, and the reality is that we'll probably end up having troops based there for many, many years to come. If we do it right that is.
I'm sure you and I would agree more than we disagree, but I think that putting motives on the Bush administration that are based on nothing but dislike only preps you to buy into conspiracy theories of his psychological state of mind and hidden desires, things that none of us are going to probably ever know.The war is not the disaster the left wants to make it out, and if the Iraqis ever step up and decide they like freedom more than oppression, they may become a peaceful effect on the region that no outsider could ever accomplish. Last year we began talking about withdrawing troops out of Germany, it's been 60 years since we occupied it. We still deny Japan from having a standing army, and it is mostly our military that protects them because of this, 60 years later. We spent billions in France, Germany, Britian, etc after the last war, money we didn't really have. None of this is new, but we are all pretending that Bush should have been able to finish Iraq in a couple years and then get us out. The fact that they never bought in to the political wind that made this a popular mind set shows me they have more character than the left. When Clinton bombed Iraq, even though the papers all said he did it to misdirect from the Lewinski story, the republicans stuck by the president. When troops are in harms way, the congress and senate should support them and not bad talk their mission. At least you do if you are a responsible leaders. The democrats have proven they are not. The time for dissent was before they sent the troops in, now support the war and put pressure where it belongs, on the Iraqis.
Link to post
Share on other sites
One thing that really disgusts me is people who go on and on about how many casualties we've taken and innocent people have died, etc. when 30,000 children die every day from various causes. Keep that in your perspective when you decry your outrage of thousands of brave (all volunteer) servicemen who died fighting for a cause (freedom) that as Americans I think we have quickly forgotten how hard it was to obtain. We can fight them there or we can fight them here. I know which way I lean. There is no greater threat to their existence than spreading of free democracies in their lands.
Go do Oprah! Go do Oprah! Go do Oprah!
Link to post
Share on other sites
Very sobering and right on point BGNo one can dispute that those points are all valid.Recently there have been several public focus group discussions with dozens of Obama supporters in attendance. When asked what significant accomplishments Barack has made since being a politician, no one could come up with anything. NOTHING. Not one example. Ziltch.Now I've said it before, I like this guy as a person. Seems like a very cool dude.But I need more than just to like someone before I give them the keys to my wallet and the country's nukes (even though I know we are safe from him ever going near them).None of the Democratic candidates are telling us specifically just what they plan on doing.WHAT are theses changes?, in DETAIL PLEASE.HOW are they going to be implemented?HOW are they going to pay for it all?WHO will most likely gain and WHO will most likely lose (trick question).I know there is a ton of time yet, and hopefully a lot of this will get wrung out, but these and many other questions have yet to be answered. I fear the Dems because they are drooling at the chance to ride scorched earth style and really mess things up. Too radical a change too fast would do far more harm than good imo.Gonna be a wild ride to November.
They are running the same way Kerry ran 4 years ago which is why he lost.
Link to post
Share on other sites
You are making the case you knew the motives of the Bush admin. Please tell us the current motives for the Russian administration.The two bolded points contridict each other. Is it our fault that French and British forced together these different ethnic groups, or is it our fault we don't allow their near slavery to save their lives? Next you'll say defeating communism was bad because they kept Yugoslavia intact. Was Bush idealic in his goal, probably. But it was never on anything but the best interest of the nation to remove a terrorist sympathetic dictator from an oil rich country. The fact that he was telling everyone he had nukes to keep the Iranians and others at bay worked against him, and it tricked us, along with every other country in the world. The UN placed demands that Saddam thumbed his nose at, eventually you can't keep saying 'better not' and you have to do something. If Saddam had let the inspectors back and shut his mouth, we never could have invaded.
Mmm, as far as I can remember the UN had a team of inspectors in Iraq lead by Hans Blix, from Sweden. They found no WMD, no trace of WMD and nothing that concluded with that there might be WMDs somewhere in the country. The UN clearly voted against the American invasion and said it would be a horrible mistake.The only people that have profited on the invasion are major american companies, some of which were linked to government officials. They said so on 60 minutes, and they don't have a habit of telling lies as far as I know.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Mmm, as far as I can remember the UN had a team of inspectors in Iraq lead by Hans Blix, from Sweden. They found no WMD, no trace of WMD and nothing that concluded with that there might be WMDs somewhere in the country. The UN clearly voted against the American invasion and said it would be a horrible mistake.The only people that have profited on the invasion are major american companies, some of which were linked to government officials. They said so on 60 minutes, and they don't have a habit of telling lies as far as I know.
Yea I knew talking about the war could degrade into this, so let's move the war debte to the politics section and stick to is Obama a good thing for this country?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Yea I knew talking about the war could degrade into this, so let's move the war debte to the politics section and stick to is Obama a good thing for this country?
Well, your information was incorrect, so I corrected it.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, your information was incorrect, so I corrected it.
My not wanting to get into a sidetracked discussion is not the same as capitulation.And a Hans Blixt was a lying provocateur. After crying that he was against the war, this is HIS words:
THE SECURITY COUNCIL, 27 JANUARY 2003: AN UPDATE ON INSPECTION Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC, Dr. Hans Blix "Iraq has declared that it only produced VX on a pilot scale, just a few tonnes and that the quality was poor and the product unstable. UNMOVIC, however, has information that conflicts with this account. There are indications that Iraq had worked on the problem of purity and stabilization and that more had been achieved than has been declared. Indeed, even one of the documents provided by Iraq indicates that the purity of the agent, at least in laboratory production, was higher than declared." "Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for." " This was a relatively new bunker and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions. The investigation of these rockets is still proceeding. Iraq states that they were overlooked from 1991 from a batch of some 2,000 that were stored there during the Gulf War. This could be the case. They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve but rather points to the issue of several thousands of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for. " "Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 litres of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction." "There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. It might still exist. Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was, indeed, destroyed in 1991." "As I reported to the Council on 19 December last year, Iraq did not declare a significant quantity, some 650 kg, of bacterial growth media" " I note that the quantity of media involved would suffice to produce, for example, about 5,000 litres of concentrated anthrax."
Excerpts from:Hans Blix report
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...