| Author | Post |
|---|
ninuchy2
Member
| Joined: | Sun Jan 27th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 32 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun May 11th, 2008 02:43 pm |
|
You are such a fool, there is not an overwhelming majority of people who think that Bush is an indiot. That is Democratic and Liberal Newspaper propaganda. Did not your parents ever tell you not to believe everything you read. You just go along with whatever your fellow fools tell you and choose not to think for yourself. We lost several thousand more American Men and Women in WWI and WWII and yet no one seems to be griping about that was and why we were there. We still have troops in Germany, Japan and yet no one complains about them, but we can complain that our troops may be in Bagdad for years to come. What insanity. I would much rather have our troops on foreign soil protecting me at night than here in the states just waiting for the next attack. You people who don't get it don't deserve to be protected.
sometimes rational wrote:
razenkn wrote:
Gem asked...
You will have to tell us how Ex-President Bill Clinton got us into this war in Iraq?
Former Pres Clinton did nothing about the attacks on Americans during his eight years in office other than bombing a pill factory as ninuchy so eloquently pointed out. There were many including the first attack on the WTC in 1993. He did not take any of the threats seriously choosing to look the other way. All that did for us was to embolden our enemy, hence 9-11 because they truly thought we wouldn't do anything again. Well, they were wrong weren't they? Had do you know what Clinton did or attempted in response to 1993? Yeh, it's true he didn't launch a war on the wrong country..and even if you're correct, and you are in a microscopic minority who thinks so, that Sadaam was involved, why don't you fault George's old man who stopped short of entering Bagdad during his term? Why do Democrats need to clean up after incompetent Repub presidents?
We finally got someone in office with some fortitude to protect America instead of their political career and bingo we have the scum bags on the run. But at what price? Yes, your party has done a very good job in decimating President Bush's legacy but you know what? He doesn't give a crap because he sleeps very well at night knowing somebody had to have the guts to stop these animals because he is a clueless idiot..he slept well as Gov. of Texas for the same reason.. Had Clinton had the courage, we wouldn't have been hit on 9-11. That's how he got us into Afghanistan and Iraq.
I've outlined many times the threat and blatant middle finger salute Sadaam gave us and the world, defying 18 resolutions and bragged about his WDM, kicking out the inspectors, etc. etc. etc. you know the story but continue to ignore it. Giving the middle finger justifies war? Really?
Let me say this one more time, had President Bush done nothing especially following 9-11 and Sadaam handed over some of his WDM to Al Qaeda, we would have been toast. Would you really have been willing to take that risk? Both parties, dems included said no, they weren't ready to take that risk and voted to go in.
The mantra he lied and where's the WDM were both ugly partisan attacks to undermine the Bush Administration because you weren't able to say anything bad about him for his magnificent performance so you define 'magnificent performance' as attacking the wrong country and suspending our civil rights?immediately following 9-11 that will go down in the history books for his amazing leadership to pull us out of a potential leathal blow. George W. Bush will go down in history as an incompetent fool and one of the worst three presidents in American history...the overwhelming majority of Americans believe that.
He could have taken the cowardly road like Clinton to protect his legacy and he might have been ok, but we would have had another attack during his eight years, maybe even worse. Saddam was emboldening the terrorists with $25,000 rewards to their families for each homicide bombing.
Now you know why I praise and admire our Commander in Chief. He chose not to take the easy route and instead chose to do the right thing. We all owe him a huge debt of gratitude explain that to the families of more than 3000 American soldiers who died due to Bush's incompetence.
Will either of the democratic candidates have that kind of fortitude, really don't think so.
|
ninuchy2
Member
| Joined: | Sun Jan 27th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 32 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun May 11th, 2008 02:37 pm |
|
Thank you Thank you Thank you. Very well said. Its to bad it is going to fall on deaf ears and empty heads. They just don't get it.
razenkn wrote:
Gem asked...
You will have to tell us how Ex-President Bill Clinton got us into this war in Iraq?
Former Pres Clinton did nothing about the attacks on Americans during his eight years in office other than bombing a pill factory as ninuchy so eloquently pointed out. There were many including the first attack on the WTC in 1993. He did not take any of the threats seriously choosing to look the other way. All that did for us was to embolden our enemy, hence 9-11 because they truly thought we wouldn't do anything again. Well, they were wrong weren't they?
We finally got someone in office with some fortitude to protect America instead of their political career and bingo we have the scum bags on the run. But at what price? Yes, your party has done a very good job in decimating President Bush's legacy but you know what? He doesn't give a crap because he sleeps very well at night knowing somebody had to have the guts to stop these animals. Had Clinton had the courage, we wouldn't have been hit on 9-11. That's how he got us into Afghanistan and Iraq.
I've outlined many times the threat and blatant middle finger salute Sadaam gave us and the world, defying 18 resolutions and bragged about his WDM, kicking out the inspectors, etc. etc. etc. you know the story but continue to ignore it.
Let me say this one more time, had President Bush done nothing especially following 9-11 and Sadaam handed over some of his WDM to Al Qaeda, we would have been toast. Would you really have been willing to take that risk? Both parties, dems included said no, they weren't ready to take that risk and voted to go in.
The mantra he lied and where's the WDM were both ugly partisan attacks to undermine the Bush Administration because you weren't able to say anything bad about him for his magnificent performance immediately following 9-11 that will go down in the history books for his amazing leadership to pull us out of a potential leathal blow.
He could have taken the cowardly road like Clinton to protect his legacy and he might have been ok, but we would have had another attack during his eight years, maybe even worse. Saddam was emboldening the terrorists with $25,000 rewards to their families for each homicide bombing.
Now you know why I praise and admire our Commander in Chief. He chose not to take the easy route and instead chose to do the right thing. We all owe him a huge debt of gratitude.
Will either of the democratic candidates have that kind of fortitude, really don't think so.
|
sometimes rational
Member
| Joined: | Wed May 7th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 62 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun May 11th, 2008 06:19 am |
|
razenkn wrote:
Gem asked...
You will have to tell us how Ex-President Bill Clinton got us into this war in Iraq?
Former Pres Clinton did nothing about the attacks on Americans during his eight years in office other than bombing a pill factory as ninuchy so eloquently pointed out. There were many including the first attack on the WTC in 1993. He did not take any of the threats seriously choosing to look the other way. All that did for us was to embolden our enemy, hence 9-11 because they truly thought we wouldn't do anything again. Well, they were wrong weren't they? Had do you know what Clinton did or attempted in response to 1993? Yeh, it's true he didn't launch a war on the wrong country..and even if you're correct, and you are in a microscopic minority who thinks so, that Sadaam was involved, why don't you fault George's old man who stopped short of entering Bagdad during his term? Why do Democrats need to clean up after incompetent Repub presidents?
We finally got someone in office with some fortitude to protect America instead of their political career and bingo we have the scum bags on the run. But at what price? Yes, your party has done a very good job in decimating President Bush's legacy but you know what? He doesn't give a crap because he sleeps very well at night knowing somebody had to have the guts to stop these animals because he is a clueless idiot..he slept well as Gov. of Texas for the same reason.. Had Clinton had the courage, we wouldn't have been hit on 9-11. That's how he got us into Afghanistan and Iraq.
I've outlined many times the threat and blatant middle finger salute Sadaam gave us and the world, defying 18 resolutions and bragged about his WDM, kicking out the inspectors, etc. etc. etc. you know the story but continue to ignore it. Giving the middle finger justifies war? Really?
Let me say this one more time, had President Bush done nothing especially following 9-11 and Sadaam handed over some of his WDM to Al Qaeda, we would have been toast. Would you really have been willing to take that risk? Both parties, dems included said no, they weren't ready to take that risk and voted to go in.
The mantra he lied and where's the WDM were both ugly partisan attacks to undermine the Bush Administration because you weren't able to say anything bad about him for his magnificent performance so you define 'magnificent performance' as attacking the wrong country and suspending our civil rights?immediately following 9-11 that will go down in the history books for his amazing leadership to pull us out of a potential leathal blow. George W. Bush will go down in history as an incompetent fool and one of the worst three presidents in American history...the overwhelming majority of Americans believe that.
He could have taken the cowardly road like Clinton to protect his legacy and he might have been ok, but we would have had another attack during his eight years, maybe even worse. Saddam was emboldening the terrorists with $25,000 rewards to their families for each homicide bombing.
Now you know why I praise and admire our Commander in Chief. He chose not to take the easy route and instead chose to do the right thing. We all owe him a huge debt of gratitude explain that to the families of more than 3000 American soldiers who died due to Bush's incompetence.
Will either of the democratic candidates have that kind of fortitude, really don't think so.
|
razenkn
Member
| Joined: | Thu Aug 31st, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1763 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun May 11th, 2008 04:58 am |
|
Gem asked...
You will have to tell us how Ex-President Bill Clinton got us into this war in Iraq?
Former Pres Clinton did nothing about the attacks on Americans during his eight years in office other than bombing a pill factory as ninuchy so eloquently pointed out. There were many including the first attack on the WTC in 1993. He did not take any of the threats seriously choosing to look the other way. All that did for us was to embolden our enemy, hence 9-11 because they truly thought we wouldn't do anything again. Well, they were wrong weren't they?
We finally got someone in office with some fortitude to protect America instead of their political career and bingo we have the scum bags on the run. But at what price? Yes, your party has done a very good job in decimating President Bush's legacy but you know what? He doesn't give a crap because he sleeps very well at night knowing somebody had to have the guts to stop these animals. Had Clinton had the courage, we wouldn't have been hit on 9-11. That's how he got us into Afghanistan and Iraq.
I've outlined many times the threat and blatant middle finger salute Sadaam gave us and the world, defying 18 resolutions and bragged about his WDM, kicking out the inspectors, etc. etc. etc. you know the story but continue to ignore it.
Let me say this one more time, had President Bush done nothing especially following 9-11 and Sadaam handed over some of his WDM to Al Qaeda, we would have been toast. Would you really have been willing to take that risk? Both parties, dems included said no, they weren't ready to take that risk and voted to go in.
The mantra he lied and where's the WDM were both ugly partisan attacks to undermine the Bush Administration because you weren't able to say anything bad about him for his magnificent performance immediately following 9-11 that will go down in the history books for his amazing leadership to pull us out of a potential leathal blow.
He could have taken the cowardly road like Clinton to protect his legacy and he might have been ok, but we would have had another attack during his eight years, maybe even worse. Saddam was emboldening the terrorists with $25,000 rewards to their families for each homicide bombing.
Now you know why I praise and admire our Commander in Chief. He chose not to take the easy route and instead chose to do the right thing. We all owe him a huge debt of gratitude.
Will either of the democratic candidates have that kind of fortitude, really don't think so.
Last edited on Sun May 11th, 2008 05:00 am by razenkn
|
GEM127
Member
|
Posted: Sun May 11th, 2008 02:43 am |
|
ninuchy2 wrote:
I did not blame everything on Bill Clinton. Why must you guys be so defensive. He did help create the problem that we are having now and if you would not live in a fantasy world and admit it to be true. Maybe you are right some of the Democrats should commit mass suicide instead of reaching in everyones pockets to keep paying for every one else such as welfare, illegal people at our hospitals, food stamps. All you Dems want is big government so that you can take care of everyone instead of letting everyone take care of themselves. Don't misquote me either, I said some Democrats should commit suicide because they act like crazed lunatics with their name calling and the idiotic statements that they make. The world could be a better place without all that going on.
GEM127 wrote:
So basically what you are saying is Former President Bill Clinton got us into the war with Iraq, Bill Clinton gave the OK to all the oil companies in the world to jack the prices up so high that the lower and middle class people of this country would have to make a choice, buy gas to go to work or buy food?
Bill Clinton totally destroyed the earth with all the bills he passed to give auto makers a free hand as to whether to build fuel efficient cars or gas guzzlers. So it really must be the Democrats fault for everything that has, will be and is wrong with this country and probably the world.
Wow that is a lot of blame, for anyone.
Maybe the Democrats should just commit mass suicides and rid the world of all their mistakes.
It's not being defensive, I was just commenting on what you had to say.
You will have to tell us how Ex-President Bill Clinton got us into this war in Iraq? Then you can tell us how the current President has just about bankrupt this country in less then 7 years and why the majority of this countries legal voters believes he is the worst President we have ever had.
But I wouldn't want to forget how a lot of big business' set record profits since he has been in office.
So in your eyes the republicans had nothing to do with any of the problems in this country. It's all been the Democrats.
Where can I get a set of those rose colored glasses you see life through?
I would need a far right set of glasses, if you wouldn't mind. Or is it far left?Last edited on Sun May 11th, 2008 02:49 am by GEM127
|
ninuchy2
Member
| Joined: | Sun Jan 27th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 32 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun May 11th, 2008 02:03 am |
|
I did not blame everything on Bill Clinton. Why must you guys be so defensive. He did help create the problem that we are having now and if you would not live in a fantasy world and admit it to be true. Maybe you are right some of the Democrats should commit mass suicide instead of reaching in everyones pockets to keep paying for every one else such as welfare, illegal people at our hospitals, food stamps. All you Dems want is big government so that you can take care of everyone instead of letting everyone take care of themselves. Don't misquote me either, I said some Democrats should commit suicide because they act like crazed lunatics with their name calling and the idiotic statements that they make. The world could be a better place without all that going on.
GEM127 wrote:
So basically what you are saying is Former President Bill Clinton got us into the war with Iraq, Bill Clinton gave the OK to all the oil companies in the world to jack the prices up so high that the lower and middle class people of this country would have to make a choice, buy gas to go to work or buy food?
Bill Clinton totally destroyed the earth with all the bills he passed to give auto makers a free hand as to whether to build fuel efficient cars or gas guzzlers. So it really must be the Democrats fault for everything that has, will be and is wrong with this country and probably the world.
Wow that is a lot of blame, for anyone.
Maybe the Democrats should just commit mass suicides and rid the world of all their mistakes.
|
deuce
Member
| Joined: | Sun Feb 24th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 150 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun May 11th, 2008 12:41 am |
|
Things are getting a little too serious . . .
Why did the chicken cross the road?
BARACK OBAMA:
The chicken crossed the road because it was time for a CHANGE! The chicken wanted CHANGE!
JOHN MC CAIN:
My friends, that chicken crossed the road because he recognized the need to engage in cooperation and dialogue with all the chickens on the other side of the road.
HILLARY CLINTON:
When I was First Lady, I personally helped that little chicken to cross the road. This experience makes me uniquely qualified to ensure -- right from Day One! -- that every chicken in this country gets the chance it deserves to cross the road. But then, this really isn't about me....... Last edited on Sun May 11th, 2008 12:42 am by deuce
|
razenkn
Member
| Joined: | Thu Aug 31st, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1763 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat May 10th, 2008 11:05 pm |
|
Well, if Hillary's supporters wouldn't vote for Obama even though the dems determined he is the best candidate, then who would they vote for? Wow, that's an eye opener that women will only vote for a candiate if they are the same gender. Didn't know that, but have to say I would give women much more credit than that, or at least the women I know wouldn't buy into that.
The race and gender and latino's and black vote, working class, not working, egg heads, uneducated, way, way too much labeling going on in the democratic party as far as I'm concerned. How about the most qualified and experienced candidate to run our great nation, or is that too conservative?
|
dwig222
Member
| Joined: | Wed Oct 18th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 410 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat May 10th, 2008 10:39 pm |
|
I think he needs to energize the women who supported Hillary. I am a woman, I know a lot of women and inspite of the mini Ann Coulter - Elizabeth Hasslebeck - I watch The View. I hear so many women say they are behind Hillary because she is a woman. Both candidates have the same basic platform. He needs to win those women.
The VP selection process includes seeking out a running mate that will give him a geographic advantage. She would give him the mid-west and the south. He could go with Richardson to get the latino vote, but I don't think that would be as large of a group as women supporters. She is capable of being the president and it would be a good choice. He could sure win me over with her for many reasons.
I agree that it is bizzare that he would even consider picking a candidate based on race or color, but he knows he can win if he gets Hillary's supporters and that's what he will do. That's why this primary season will go down in history as changing the way we pick our candidates. It's not the election process that you or I grew up with.
Again, it's not about what is best for this country, it's about money.
|
razenkn
Member
| Joined: | Thu Aug 31st, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1763 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat May 10th, 2008 10:16 pm |
|
That was funny Max. We all feel like we are entering that zone on here from time to time. 
Dwig, what makes you think we HAVE TO have a female on the ticket? Is that some kind of a liberal insurance policy because you don't think Obama can pull it off by himself or what? I don't think it's a good thing when you start searching out a running mate for their race or gender. Policies are a different thing, but choosing a running mate by race or gender is nothing more than political manipulation as though voters are too stupid to know that is what is taking place. How about choosing someone who could run the country well if such an event becomes necessary?
|
max22
Member
| Joined: | Wed Nov 16th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 194 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat May 10th, 2008 09:20 pm |
|
ninuchy2 wrote: You DEMS really live in your own little fantasy world. History proves that each new president takes on the burdens of the prior president but yet we always blame the current President. Clinton was a bum, and did nothing during his presidency except perpetuate the circumstances that we are in now. If he had done something during his years as president instead of blowing up pill factorys we would not be in this war in two foreign countries. If you think for one minute that the people of this country be it perception or whatever you want to call it think the Obama is going to change anything you are truly living in a world with no reality. He isn't going to do anything except really mess up foreign policies because he has absolutely no experience in this area, anyone who thinks they are going to change the minds of the tyrants of the world is clueless. No one wants war, but we better go to war to protect our shores.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=cTSX91J6UtE&feature=related
|
dwig222
Member
| Joined: | Wed Oct 18th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 410 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat May 10th, 2008 09:13 pm |
|
I don't think Hillary wants that job. I don't know what her motivation is for hurting the Democratic party by staying in the race. I would think she would be more interested at this point in protecting her political reputation. She could become a powerful leader in the senate and I'm sure the Obama camp would pay her back for the ten million she lent herself and pay off her millions in campaign expenses if she backs out. She needs to take a lesson from Al Gore.
Obama needs a white woman on the ticket, but I think Hillary would hurt him more down the road than help him and he's smart enough to know that. There was an article in the AZ Republic the other day about who he might pick. I like Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius.
Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, 59, of Kansas.
Popular two-term Democrat found a way to win in the heart of Republican country. Seeking a second term, she named a former Republican state party chairman as her running mate for her second term and increased her winning percentage to 58 percent.
Ancestry is important in the Sebelius equation: Her father, John Gilligan, was governor of Ohio, a swing state in the fall. And her state of Kansas was Obama's mother's home.
Downside: She has no foreign policy or national security experience, and she shares with all potential female running mates the possible liability that adding a woman to a ticket headed by an African-American might be overloading it with too much change for America to swallow.
|
razenkn
Member
| Joined: | Thu Aug 31st, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1763 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat May 10th, 2008 07:48 pm |
|
Just heard that Obama has overtaken Hillary on Superdelegate votes. Does this mean the race is over for her and how do the Dems feel about an Obama/Clinton ticket because many of the pundits are predicting that is why she is staying in the race to force him into that scenario. True?
|
GEM127
Member
|
Posted: Sat May 10th, 2008 07:30 pm |
|
So basically what you are saying is Former President Bill Clinton got us into the war with Iraq, Bill Clinton gave the OK to all the oil companies in the world to jack the prices up so high that the lower and middle class people of this country would have to make a choice, buy gas to go to work or buy food?
Bill Clinton totally destroyed the earth with all the bills he passed to give auto makers a free hand as to whether to build fuel efficient cars or gas guzzlers. So it really must be the Democrats fault for everything that has, will be and is wrong with this country and probably the world.
Wow that is a lot of blame, for anyone.
Maybe the Democrats should just commit mass suicides and rid the world of all their mistakes.
|
ninuchy2
Member
| Joined: | Sun Jan 27th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 32 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat May 10th, 2008 03:25 pm |
|
| You DEMS really live in your own little fantasy world. History proves that each new president takes on the burdens of the prior president but yet we always blame the current President. Clinton was a bum, and did nothing during his presidency except perpetuate the circumstances that we are in now. If he had done something during his years as president instead of blowing up pill factorys we would not be in this war in two foreign countries. If you think for one minute that the people of this country be it perception or whatever you want to call it think the Obama is going to change anything you are truly living in a world with no reality. He isn't going to do anything except really mess up foreign policies because he has absolutely no experience in this area, anyone who thinks they are going to change the minds of the tyrants of the world is clueless. No one wants war, but we better go to war to protect our shores.
|
GEM127
Member
|
Posted: Sat May 10th, 2008 02:26 pm |
|
Dwig222
You are so right.
But unfortunately prayer really won't help us too much. We have to elect someone for a 8 year term and then pray for them to get us out of this mess. 4 years will not be enough time to get some of the situations cleared up.
We are as you might say, " between a rock and a hard place ".
But with McCain you will get 4 more years of the Bushman.
|
dwig222
Member
| Joined: | Wed Oct 18th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 410 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat May 10th, 2008 12:54 pm |
|
Take your blinders off people. It's all about perception. It's not about Democrats vs. Republicans any more. It's about the upper class vs. the middle and lower class. I know you didn't sign up for what the Republican Congress did to our country but it is a reality. We need to dig ourselves out of this. Do you really believe that two thirds of the American people are going to hire "the Bush team" to dig us out. This election is not about the war. This election is about money!
The upper class people see it. Bill Gates called Bush a retard. Trump called him the worst president in American history. The middle class have become the lower class and the lower class are going to turn into homeless people soon. Is Obama the one who can turn it around. I don't think so. But because of the destruction a Republican administration caused, the perception is that something needs to change. People remember what their lives were like when Clinton was president. They don't care about morals, they care about buying a Chevy Tahoe.
So Obama was very clever to become the "change" candidate. He's young, he's good looking and he knows how to rally the people. Put him next to an old, grumpy man who we saw time after time on TV standing next to Bush, hugging Bush and saying that the war could go on for 100 years and who do you think these struggling people will want as their leader. The Republicans picked the wrong candidate. They should have choosen someone who was young and vibrant. Someone who looked like they were going to roll up their sleeves and grab the shovel to start digging us out of this.
Now we most likely will elect a man who has no experience, but looks like what we need. If you think for one second that the majority of people in this country will care who his friends are or who he associated himself with, you're wrong. All we can do now is support him and pray that his team will turn this around.
|
ninuchy2
Member
| Joined: | Sun Jan 27th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 32 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat May 10th, 2008 04:28 am |
|
You could not be closer to the truth if it hit you in the head. The sad thing is that the democrats are falling for this bull about CHANGE. Neither Clinton or OBama are going to change things and neither is McCain. What choice do we really have. The only choice is McCain, because he will not risk our security. We may not like war but lets face facts, I would much rather have war on some foreign soil than in America. If we loose in this war on foreign soil now, it will be to our destruction in years to come. You may choose not to believe it now, but the cold hard truth is that you don't want to know what will happen to this country if war is brought to our soil. It will be to late then. What will you do then to protect your property and your loved ones. Think about it. You may not want to believe it can happen but it can. If you live in denial the rest of your life then you deserve what you get. I don't like war anymore than the next person, but I would much rather have it happen on foreign soil than in America and the only person running who will keep war out of our country is Mc Cain. I don't like my choice, but he is the only choice at this time in history.
razenkn wrote:
To me this isn't a democrat or republican issue any more because I really don't have a candidate per se. But, if people don't pay attention to the real "Barack Obama" and what he truly believes, not just his stump speeches to appeal to the voters, but what he reeeaaaalllllyyyyy thinks, then we might all be in for a huge surprise if we have a "President Obama". Listen closely to what he isn't saying and what he isn't doing and what his wife is saying and what his friends think and say. You guys are starting to scare me a little, surely you aren't going to just be gullible and buy into the "change" mantra. Do a little homework and find out exactly what the change consists of and what the motivation and belief system is behind that "change". There is still plenty of time before the real election, so take a few minutes and do your homework. Don't let that "Must Hate Republican's" bumper sticker overcome your common sense.
|
razenkn
Member
| Joined: | Thu Aug 31st, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1763 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat May 10th, 2008 04:05 am |
|
To me this isn't a democrat or republican issue any more because I really don't have a candidate per se. But, if people don't pay attention to the real "Barack Obama" and what he truly believes, not just his stump speeches to appeal to the voters, but what he reeeaaaalllllyyyyy thinks, then we might all be in for a huge surprise if we have a "President Obama". Listen closely to what he isn't saying and what he isn't doing and what his wife is saying and what his friends think and say. You guys are starting to scare me a little, surely you aren't going to just be gullible and buy into the "change" mantra. Do a little homework and find out exactly what the change consists of and what the motivation and belief system is behind that "change". There is still plenty of time before the real election, so take a few minutes and do your homework. Don't let that "Must Hate Republican's" bumper sticker overcome your common sense.
|
deuce
Member
| Joined: | Sun Feb 24th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 150 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat May 10th, 2008 01:39 am |
|
Obama's nomination is his to loose. Clinton doesn't know went to waive the white flag. That's called stubbornness, but who ever said she was insightful. Bull headed, maybe. Obama is charismatic, eloquent, articulate and believes in peace, love, and change, etc. Hey, stop it! You're making me sick. He's articulated proposed solutions to most of the major problems affecting are country. Besides, he thinks waiving the federal gasoline tax is a political ploy. I agree with him. Lower the price of gas, and more will be consumed and there will be less funds available to maintain and build new higways. McCain and Clinton are elevating pandering to a new level.
Last edited on Sat May 10th, 2008 01:58 am by deuce
|
sometimes rational
Member
| Joined: | Wed May 7th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 62 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri May 9th, 2008 09:55 pm |
|
dwig222 wrote: sometimes rational wrote: Let's see...we have covered this probably hundreds of times on the boards...Newsweek, Time, just about every American newspaper as well as foreign paper....all the networks, columnists, and 71% of Americans....all..saying... the.. same thing...Bush is an incompetent idiot...his policies have failed.....we're in a recession...Clinton left us with a surplus....our borders have never been more porous....the quality of life for most Americans has deteriorated drastically on Bush's watch...what part of that don't you get? and the thread is 08 election..tell us how wonderful McCain is It will be a much shorter posting than how awful Bush has been/
Thanks SR, I'm tired of this subject too. McCain has lost a lot of his credibility in the last eight years because of his association with George Bush. He's leaving us with the idea that the war could go on for many years - dead ender! He may get some evangelical christian votes, but not the support Bush got from them. He's too old, and when he speaks he acts old. His voting record is very conservative and that will be exposed to the Republicans by Obama. The Keating Five scandal will come out. He's got so much bad baggage because of his long, long politcal career. The Democrats will have a field day with him. Hillary would have been so much easier to beat because she has just as many problems with her political image. They would probably try to run a clean campaign out of fear.
Obama has made a couple of mistakes, but as I've said before, he's going to pull so many people out of hiding. He's going to get that young demographic the way Bush got the Christian demographic. He has so little baggage, no wonder McCain wants to run a clean campaign. I still haven't made up my mind, and I won't until I see their running mates.
Now all you Obama haters can list his faults, but the Wright thing has been beat to death so can please move on to something else because if that's all you have, get used to saying President Obama.
Yes!! and this country can move forward in Drive again....eight years on hold..all we have to thank Bush for is this damn war, crushed economy..and at this rate, breadlines. I'm not that sure he can get evangelical votes..I think we'll make a point of reminding them that McCain called them "agents' of intolerance"...maybe due to his age, mcCain doesn't get that he can't speak out of both sides of his mouth without there being a video of it...if he didn't have his war record, his candidacy would be joke.
|
cindisue_g
Member
| Joined: | Wed Feb 22nd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 977 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri May 9th, 2008 01:29 pm |
|
razenkn wrote:
That is a very good point Cindi, what have the democrats done this past 8 years. Oh I know, renamed Post Offices and trumped up some ridiculous anti war legislation they knew would never pass. But it's hard to get much done when you only work Tuesday through Thursday's. Didn't Ms Speaker say she was going to work them five days a week as a campaign promise? Guess they don't really need five day work weeks if you don't do anything though. How about putting forth some real legislation that would actually help the energy crisis, or the housing crisis or the declining US dollar, or the health care crisis, or the education crisis.....did I miss something or are they basically just collecting their big fat paychecks and riding around in their private jets producing a big fat carbon imprint on our environment?
Pelosi is starting to make Denny Hassert look good and you would have to work at that..... 
raz, that is the only conclusion I could have come to. The only other one was that the Democrats were sleeping on the job; kinda like Obama has convinced some very gullible, easily fooled people that he was sleeping in the pew instead of listening to his much admired and revered Reverend, that by the way he never disagreed with in 20 years. Oh I take this back, he disagreed with him, when Wright got on all the news channels...wonder why. If you can come up with any other reason why a poster would say on this site that the Republicans wouldn't let the Democrats do anything, please let me know. The only other thing I can think of is that the Democrats lied about that as well; just like they lied that they would do something about the price of gas, cost of college education, end ear marking, etc. to get people to vote for them.
|
dwig222
Member
| Joined: | Wed Oct 18th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 410 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri May 9th, 2008 12:18 pm |
|
sometimes rational wrote: Let's see...we have covered this probably hundreds of times on the boards...Newsweek, Time, just about every American newspaper as well as foreign paper....all the networks, columnists, and 71% of Americans....all..saying... the.. same thing...Bush is an incompetent idiot...his policies have failed.....we're in a recession...Clinton left us with a surplus....our borders have never been more porous....the quality of life for most Americans has deteriorated drastically on Bush's watch...what part of that don't you get? and the thread is 08 election..tell us how wonderful McCain is It will be a much shorter posting than how awful Bush has been/
Thanks SR, I'm tired of this subject too. McCain has lost a lot of his credibility in the last eight years because of his association with George Bush. He's leaving us with the idea that the war could go on for many years - dead ender! He may get some evangelical christian votes, but not the support Bush got from them. He's too old, and when he speaks he acts old. His voting record is very conservative and that will be exposed to the Republicans by Obama. The Keating Five scandal will come out. He's got so much bad baggage because of his long, long politcal career. The Democrats will have a field day with him. Hillary would have been so much easier to beat because she has just as many problems with her political image. They would probably try to run a clean campaign out of fear.
Obama has made a couple of mistakes, but as I've said before, he's going to pull so many people out of hiding. He's going to get that young demographic the way Bush got the Christian demographic. He has so little baggage, no wonder McCain wants to run a clean campaign. I still haven't made up my mind, and I won't until I see their running mates.
Now all you Obama haters can list his faults, but the Wright thing has been beat to death so can please move on to something else because if that's all you have, get used to saying President Obama.
|
sometimes rational
Member
| Joined: | Wed May 7th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 62 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri May 9th, 2008 05:13 am |
|
razenkn wrote:
That is a very good point Cindi, what have the democrats done this past 8 years. Oh I know, renamed Post Offices and trumped up some ridiculous anti war legislation they knew would never pass. But it's hard to get much done when you only work Tuesday through Thursday's. Didn't Ms Speaker say she was going to work them five days a week as a campaign promise? Guess they don't really need five day work weeks if you don't do anything though. How about putting forth some real legislation that would actually help the energy crisis, or the housing crisis or the declining US dollar, or the health care crisis, or the education crisis.....did I miss something or are they basically just collecting their big fat paychecks and riding around in their private jets producing a big fat carbon imprint on our environment?
Pelosi is starting to make Denny Hassert look good and you would have to work at that.....
You're saying the Dems have been in charge for the past 8 yrs...?? Incredible...
|
razenkn
Member
| Joined: | Thu Aug 31st, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1763 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri May 9th, 2008 05:03 am |
|
That is a very good point Cindi, what have the democrats done this past 8 years. Oh I know, renamed Post Offices and trumped up some ridiculous anti war legislation they knew would never pass. But it's hard to get much done when you only work Tuesday through Thursday's. Didn't Ms Speaker say she was going to work them five days a week as a campaign promise? Guess they don't really need five day work weeks if you don't do anything though. How about putting forth some real legislation that would actually help the energy crisis, or the housing crisis or the declining US dollar, or the health care crisis, or the education crisis.....did I miss something or are they basically just collecting their big fat paychecks and riding around in their private jets producing a big fat carbon imprint on our environment?
Pelosi is starting to make Denny Hassert look good and you would have to work at that.....
|
sometimes rational
Member
| Joined: | Wed May 7th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 62 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri May 9th, 2008 04:54 am |
|
razenkn wrote:
Dwig, what is all this damage the liberals keep talking about, what damage? The war? Well, you have your opinon on that and I have mine. We don't agree on that. Are you more right than me, no. We just disagree. Are you more correct than President Bush on this issue, no. You just disagree with him.
The economy? How is that Bush's fault? What did he do to create a down turn in today's economy? Clinton handed over a true recession to Bush, then he got smacked with 9/11. Thanks to him and the tax cuts he created we made it through a very tough time that could have put us under with different leadership. But we made it through, thank you President Bush. We are very lucky to be in as good of shape as we are today considering what could have happened following that life changing event.
The gas prices? What did President Bush to hike oil prices? What he didn't do was to push drilling in ANWAR, should have done that day one but he wanted to get along with YOU. Clinton didn't do that either. Neither took on the environmentals crazies who fight us on Nuclear energy. What did that get him? A big fat kick in the ass. Now he gets blamed for everything.
You can't blame everything in the world on President Bush. He is only one man and he has done an amazing job of keeping us safe and continues to move our country forward. Let's place blame where it belongs. As long as we allow the environmental nutjobs to dictate to our country what is in our best interest, nothing will ever be resolved on that issue no matter who gets into office. Creating green jobs is a political slogan.
So please tell me all the damage our Commander in Chief has done to our country. The only damage I see is when he constantly tries to appease those of you who will hate him no matter what he does. What a useless waste of effort on his part as far as I'm concerned.
Let's see...we have covered this probably hundreds of times on the boards...Newsweek, Time, just about every American newspaper as well as foreign paper....all the networks, columnists, and 71% of Americans....all..saying... the.. same thing...Bush is an incompetent idiot...his policies have failed.....we're in a recession...Clinton left us with a surplus....our borders have never been more porous....the quality of life for most Americans has deteriorated drastically on Bush's watch...what part of that don't you get? and the thread is 08 election..tell us how wonderful McCain is It will be a much shorter posting than how awful Bush has been/
|
cindisue_g
Member
| Joined: | Wed Feb 22nd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 977 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri May 9th, 2008 01:41 am |
|
| Oh my goodness, I think I have finally figured it out. I guess that the Democrats never voted on anything for the last 8 years, otherwise both parties would be to blame for any and all problems that people feel the United States is in. I have to say, I am not sure how the Republicans kept the Democrats from voting the last two years that the Democrats have had the majority, the Republicans are a lot more powerful than anyone ever thought.
|
razenkn
Member
| Joined: | Thu Aug 31st, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1763 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri May 9th, 2008 01:01 am |
|
Dwig, what is all this damage the liberals keep talking about, what damage? The war? Well, you have your opinon on that and I have mine. We don't agree on that. Are you more right than me, no. We just disagree. Are you more correct than President Bush on this issue, no. You just disagree with him.
The economy? How is that Bush's fault? What did he do to create a down turn in today's economy? Clinton handed over a true recession to Bush, then he got smacked with 9/11. Thanks to him and the tax cuts he created we made it through a very tough time that could have put us under with different leadership. But we made it through, thank you President Bush. We are very lucky to be in as good of shape as we are today considering what could have happened following that life changing event.
The gas prices? What did President Bush to hike oil prices? What he didn't do was to push drilling in ANWAR, should have done that day one but he wanted to get along with YOU. Clinton didn't do that either. Neither took on the environmentals crazies who fight us on Nuclear energy. What did that get him? A big fat kick in the ass. Now he gets blamed for everything.
You can't blame everything in the world on President Bush. He is only one man and he has done an amazing job of keeping us safe and continues to move our country forward. Let's place blame where it belongs. As long as we allow the environmental nutjobs to dictate to our country what is in our best interest, nothing will ever be resolved on that issue no matter who gets into office. Creating green jobs is a political slogan.
So please tell me all the damage our Commander in Chief has done to our country. The only damage I see is when he constantly tries to appease those of you who will hate him no matter what he does. What a useless waste of effort on his part as far as I'm concerned.
|
sometimes rational
Member
| Joined: | Wed May 7th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 62 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 8th, 2008 10:33 pm |
|
dwig222 wrote: cindisue_g wrote: raz, I rest my case. They only care about change, even if it will be to the detriment of the United States. Sad, how very sad.
Sad, but true. Thank George Bush and the Republicans!
By definition, conservatives are opposed to change...if things are going well, if we were at peace, if the economy was good, if problems were being solved, we'd wouldn't see this groundswell for change...that's why Bill got reelected..that's why it upset so many people, not just Americans, that Bush was reelected.
|
dwig222
Member
| Joined: | Wed Oct 18th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 410 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 8th, 2008 08:48 pm |
|
cindisue_g wrote: raz, I rest my case. They only care about change, even if it will be to the detriment of the United States. Sad, how very sad.
Sad, but true. Thank George Bush and the Republicans!
|
cindisue_g
Member
| Joined: | Wed Feb 22nd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 977 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 8th, 2008 08:20 pm |
|
cindisue_g wrote: razenkn wrote:
Unfortunately the "big change" strategy of Obama is to change who we are as a country. He surrounds himself with anti-American radicals and they encourage him to run for office so he can "change our country". Then maybe Michelle can be proud of her country for the first time in her adult life. When they speak, we need to listen to exactly what they are saying and not blow it off as political rhetoric. They fully believe America to be a flawed nation, not noble, but flawed. And they want to change us. He has been indoctrinated by the black liberation belief system who thinks basically White America sucks and they are angry.
To think for a second that the Obama's association with the terrorist Bill Ayers is a non-issue is naive. It's a huge issue and you can be assured there are many people investigating this issue as we speak to use in the general election. In fact, I would bet a weeks salary that is exactly what Hillary is telling the Super Delegates behind closed doors, Obama will not be electable because of his associations with the radical hard left. To think Obama is even more left than Hillary is amazing.
Remember he was named the most liberal Senator in Congress and I don't think the country is ready for that. They want a more mid stream leader and Obama definitely doesn't qualify. He's done nothing to "reach across the aisle" and when asked about that, he said he would listen to ideas. Translation: fat chance. 
raz, I believe some people want any kind of change. It does not matter to them what it is, just as long as it is different from what they are seeing now. Their hatred is so strong that to them change is change. This is really short sighted, because the type of change that Obama wants, is not the kind of change that will be good for America or its citizens, but as long as it is change, they will follow it like sheep. raz, I rest my case. They only care about change, even if it will be to the detriment of the United States. Sad, how very sad.
|
dwig222
Member
| Joined: | Wed Oct 18th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 410 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 8th, 2008 06:43 pm |
|
cindisue_g wrote:
raz, I believe some people want any kind of change. It does not matter to them what it is, just as long as it is different from what they are seeing now. Their hatred is so strong that to them change is change.
That's exactly right. Bush and the Republicans have done so much damage to this country that any kind of change looks like a step in the right direction. Millions have registered to vote this year who have never registered before. Not because of the issues, but because Obama has convinced them that what we need is change. Is that an intelligent way to pick your president? It's not how I do it. But I have five grown children who have spouses and thats how they and their friends feel. They want to go back to saying "I'm proud to be an American". They don't see McCain as a change.
All of you Republicans can laugh about it, but it's a reality. I just came from a club brunch and that was pretty much how everyone there saw it.
|
cindisue_g
Member
| Joined: | Wed Feb 22nd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 977 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 8th, 2008 03:35 pm |
|
razenkn wrote:
Unfortunately the "big change" strategy of Obama is to change who we are as a country. He surrounds himself with anti-American radicals and they encourage him to run for office so he can "change our country". Then maybe Michelle can be proud of her country for the first time in her adult life. When they speak, we need to listen to exactly what they are saying and not blow it off as political rhetoric. They fully believe America to be a flawed nation, not noble, but flawed. And they want to change us. He has been indoctrinated by the black liberation belief system who thinks basically White America sucks and they are angry.
To think for a second that the Obama's association with the terrorist Bill Ayers is a non-issue is naive. It's a huge issue and you can be assured there are many people investigating this issue as we speak to use in the general election. In fact, I would bet a weeks salary that is exactly what Hillary is telling the Super Delegates behind closed doors, Obama will not be electable because of his associations with the radical hard left. To think Obama is even more left than Hillary is amazing.
Remember he was named the most liberal Senator in Congress and I don't think the country is ready for that. They want a more mid stream leader and Obama definitely doesn't qualify. He's done nothing to "reach across the aisle" and when asked about that, he said he would listen to ideas. Translation: fat chance.
raz, I believe some people want any kind of change. It does not matter to them what it is, just as long as it is different from what they are seeing now. Their hatred is so strong that to them change is change. This is really short sighted, because the type of change that Obama wants, is not the kind of change that will be good for America or its citizens, but as long as it is change, they will follow it like sheep.
|
razenkn
Member
| Joined: | Thu Aug 31st, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1763 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 8th, 2008 03:13 pm |
|
Unfortunately the "big change" strategy of Obama is to change who we are as a country. He surrounds himself with anti-American radicals and they encourage him to run for office so he can "change our country". Then maybe Michelle can be proud of her country for the first time in her adult life. When they speak, we need to listen to exactly what they are saying and not blow it off as political rhetoric. They fully believe America to be a flawed nation, not noble, but flawed. And they want to change us. He has been indoctrinated by the black liberation belief system who thinks basically White America sucks and they are angry.
To think for a second that the Obama's association with the terrorist Bill Ayers is a non-issue is naive. It's a huge issue and you can be assured there are many people investigating this issue as we speak to use in the general election. In fact, I would bet a weeks salary that is exactly what Hillary is telling the Super Delegates behind closed doors, Obama will not be electable because of his associations with the radical hard left. To think Obama is even more left than Hillary is amazing.
Remember he was named the most liberal Senator in Congress and I don't think the country is ready for that. They want a more mid stream leader and Obama definitely doesn't qualify. He's done nothing to "reach across the aisle" and when asked about that, he said he would listen to ideas. Translation: fat chance.
|
dwig222
Member
| Joined: | Wed Oct 18th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 410 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 8th, 2008 02:34 pm |
|
razenkn wrote:
I think they are using the "October Surprise" as a metaphor. It could be the Bill Ayers connection which is pretty disturbing, probably more so than Rev Wright although in some ways the belief system is all connected. Who knows? He's so new on the scene and admits to some shady things in the past so there could be more to come or she is just being the drama queen to justify staying in.
How much more money are the dems willing to shell out for these two? Obama has raised to date $234 Million dollars and Hillary has raised $194 and yet Hillary just wrote herself another check for 6 Million to stay in the race. Neither have anything substantial to show for the enormous amount of cash, it's just gone. 
McCain wants to debate the issues, not get into mud throwing. His wife just said so on TV. She said he "absolutely won't run a nasty campaign". So the Ayers thing is going to be a non-issue. It's a non-issue now or Hillary would be on it. Hillary is not even talking to the people anymore, she's determined to convince the super delegates that she's the better candidate. I think it's over and she will go out in style. I think Obama will pick a much older VP and if McCain was smart he would pick a woman. A woman would give McCain the "change" factor.
The money will be there as long as it's so close. What can they do. Hillary has gotten over a million through her web site since Tuesday.
Just had breakfast with my hubby - a major Republican his whole life. I asked him if he was going to vote for McCain. He said he wasn't sure. He's sick of the same government year after year, president after president. He thinks it may be time for a big change.
|
razenkn
Member
| Joined: | Thu Aug 31st, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1763 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 8th, 2008 02:15 pm |
|
I think they are using the "October Surprise" as a metaphor. It could be the Bill Ayers connection which is pretty disturbing, probably more so than Rev Wright although in some ways the belief system is all connected. Who knows? He's so new on the scene and admits to some shady things in the past so there could be more to come or she is just being the drama queen to justify staying in.
How much more money are the dems willing to shell out for these two? Obama has raised to date $234 Million dollars and Hillary has raised $194 and yet Hillary just wrote herself another check for 6 Million to stay in the race. Neither have anything substantial to show for the enormous amount of cash, it's just gone.
|
dwig222
Member
| Joined: | Wed Oct 18th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 410 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 8th, 2008 01:17 pm |
|
razenkn wrote:
That could be her thinking but she does it with a little bit of a smirk so I'm more inclined to think it has to do with Obama.
Raz, why would she go after Obama in October? By that time, he will already have beat her. Do you think she would do it to see him defeated in November? I don't see that at all. I think she will work hard to get Obama elected. Bill wouldn't, but she will.
Most Democrats like both Hillary and Obama even though they voted for one or the other. I think the Dems are going to come together like never before. Obama is going to (already has) brought out the younger generation, the baby boomers an | | |