# Obama = Con



## Splash Log (Feb 19, 2008)

YouTube Video


----------



## maniclion (Feb 19, 2008)

Oh no where'd I put my tin foil hat?


----------



## Big Smoothy (Feb 19, 2008)

So Splash,

You think these people were planted by Obama?  Or, they were working outside of him to do this on purpose?

Politicians are politicians, but I would would how Obama would benefit from the fainters.

Makes him look more compassionate or populist?

I dunno.


----------



## FishOrCutBait (Feb 19, 2008)

Splash Log said:


> YouTube Video



that last one didnt sound right.

OH YEAH DUH SENAATORZ IS UN DOCTAR.

SHE GON' BE OKAY!!! SHI PROLLY LIEK DIDUNT EET LUNSH OR SUMDING


----------



## Splash Log (Feb 19, 2008)

Big Smoothy said:


> So Splash,
> 
> You think these people were planted by Obama?  Or, they were working outside of him to do this on purpose?
> 
> ...



Yes I do believe they were plants. I just cant imagine someone who is giving a speech to large crowds being able to pick out fainting people so often.  I mean people are packed in at these speeches so I am sire fainting does happen but no way Obama caught it so many times.


----------



## brogers (Feb 19, 2008)

He also rips words from other people's speeches.  So, not only does he say nothing, but the mindless crap he spews isn't even original.






YouTube Video


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 19, 2008)

brogers said:


> He also rips words from other people's speeches.  So, not only does he say nothing, but the mindless crap he spews isn't even original.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



People will give him a pass, it's remarkable.  This guy nothing more than talk, yet they are lining up to vote for him... 

Still, I think the country might look twice at him when he is challenged on policy.  McCain is probably going to lose, but he should have a pretty easy time painting Barack the ultra liberal that he is.


----------



## KentDog (Feb 19, 2008)

brogers said:


> He also rips words from other people's speeches.  So, not only does he say nothing, but the mindless crap he spews isn't even original.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




You don't honestly believe that all politicians write every word of every speech they give, do you?


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 19, 2008)

KentDog said:


> You don't honestly believe that all politicians write every word of every speech they give, do you?



big difference. this was blatant theft of rhetoric.  Since that's all he has to offer, he should probably should make it original.  He's getting cocky with all that drool all over him.. Plain & simple, he was busted.


----------



## KentDog (Feb 19, 2008)

busyLivin said:


> big difference. this was blatant theft of rhetoric.  Since that's all he has to offer, he should probably should make it original.  He's getting cocky with all that drool all over him.. Plain & simple, he was busted.


It may be hard to make sure everything he says is original, given that many politicians have speech writers (I know that Obama does).


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 19, 2008)

brogers said:


> He also rips words from other people's speeches. So, not only does he say nothing, but the mindless crap he spews isn't even original.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Still sounds better than Bush, is he a better orator than Obama?

Let's rip him for something more meaningful.


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 19, 2008)

min0 lee said:


> Still sounds better than Bush, is he a better orator than Obama?
> 
> Let's rip him for something more meaningful.



Of course he's a better speaker than Bush, but we all knew where Bush stood.  Obama's speeches are ridiculously empty.  I'm embarassed for these fools hanging on his every word.

People are making him out to be something he absolutely isn't.  Anyone who believes his claim to "bring us together" is simply kidding themselves.  

100% liberal rating.. don't see much wiggle room.  It's all fluff.


----------



## brogers (Feb 19, 2008)

min0 lee said:


> Still sounds better than Bush, is he a better orator than Obama?
> 
> Let's rip him for something more meaningful.



I'm ripping him for presenting NOTHING meaningful.

He can't even present NOTHING originally, he steals lines to do so.


----------



## danzik17 (Feb 19, 2008)

busyLivin said:


> Of course he's a better speaker than Bush, but we all knew where Bush stood.  Obama's speeches are ridiculously empty.  I'm embarassed for these fools hanging on his every word.
> 
> People are making him out to be something he absolutely isn't.  Anyone who believes his claim to "bring us together" is simply kidding themselves.
> 
> 100% liberal rating.. don't see much wiggle room.  It's all fluff.



Bush did a complete 180 on what he promised America - he is the worst example of a politician imaginable.  Does that count as "knowing" where he stood?


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 19, 2008)

It is amazing what a good sounding voice can do, people are calling him the Pied Piper.

Hillary is showing she can lose her composure, at least to me.


----------



## clemson357 (Feb 19, 2008)

Democrats are cons.  They buy votes by promising to redistribute wealth, which is exactly what they do.

Republicans are cons.  They con people into fearing for their safety.

Politicians are cons.  They've been conning Americans into giving away their rights for years.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 19, 2008)

clemson357 said:


> Democrats are cons.  They buy votes by promising to redistribute wealth, which is exactly what they do.



And now they're focusing on giving the US to chewies for a few votes.


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 19, 2008)

clemson357 said:


> Democrats are cons. They buy votes by promising to redistribute wealth, which is exactly what they do.
> 
> Republicans are cons. They con people into fearing for their safety.
> 
> Politicians are cons. They've been conning Americans into giving away their rights for years.


I hate it when I agree with you.


----------



## KelJu (Feb 20, 2008)

brogers said:


> He also rips words from other people's speeches.  So, not only does he say nothing, but the mindless crap he spews isn't even original.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Wow, could you dig any deeper? At least Obama can give a speech. Bush can't speak, remember a speech, now read the words on the cheat sheet that his speech writers wrote for him, and you still suck Bush's cock after each speech.


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 20, 2008)

KelJu said:


> Wow, could you dig any deeper? At least Obama can give a speech. Bush can't speak, remember a speech, now read the words on the cheat sheet that his speech writers wrote for him, and you still suck Bush's cock after each speech.



You've convinced me: He can give a good speech.. he should be president. 


You're missing the point entirely.  No one doubts he can give a good speech. The question is whether there is anything besides rhetoric.


----------



## KelJu (Feb 20, 2008)

busyLivin said:


> You've convinced me: He can give a good speech.. he should be president.
> 
> 
> You're missing the point entirely.  No one doubts he can give a good speech. The question is whether there is anything besides rhetoric.





Lawl all over the place. There isn't a point to any of this.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 20, 2008)

KelJu said:


> Lawl all over the place. There isn't a point to any of this.



I think he's saying that Obama isn't the "different" politician that he claims.


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 20, 2008)

KelJu said:


> Lawl all over the place. There isn't a point to any of this.


----------



## KelJu (Feb 20, 2008)

DOMS said:


> I think he's saying that Obama isn't the "different" politician that he claims.



None of them are the politicians they claim to be. None of them are honest. None of them write their own speeches. None of them do what they say 100%. Haven't we established this before?

"OMFG, call the press...Obama is saying what we want to hear to get votes. Its a conspiracy!"


----------



## DOMS (Feb 20, 2008)

KelJu said:


> None of them are the politicians they claim to be.



I take it that you've never actually listened to Obama?


----------



## DaMayor (Feb 20, 2008)

*Well, you get the gist of it, right?*

What IS the President anymore? I think everyone's concentrating on the wrong issue.


----------



## KelJu (Feb 20, 2008)

DOMS said:


> I take it that you've never actually listened to Obama?



I take it brogers and busyliven have never listened to Bush. 

All I'm saying is that is is pretty blind and dumb to call Obama on bullshit that is obvious and that every political candidate does.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 20, 2008)

KelJu said:


> I take it brogers and busyliven have never listened to Bush.
> 
> All I'm saying is that is is pretty blind and dumb to call Obama on bullshit that is obvious and that every political candidate does.



_Again_, the point is that Obama is presenting himself as breaking away from the standard political mold.  Which, at least in terms of his speeches, he's not.  He's using _the same rhetoric as the rest_.  Which brings into question the central theme of his campaign.


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 20, 2008)

KelJu said:


> I take it brogers and busyliven have never listened to Bush.



tell that busyliven guy he's infringing on my name.


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 20, 2008)

DOMS said:


> _Again_, the point is that Obama is presenting himself as breaking away from the standard political mold.  Which, at least in terms of his speeches, he's not.  He's using _the same rhetoric as the rest_.  Which brings into question the central theme of his campaign.



*Precisely.*


----------



## KelJu (Feb 20, 2008)

DOMS said:


> _Again_, the point is that Obama is presenting himself as breaking away from the standard political mold.  Which, at least in terms of his speeches, he's not.  He's using _the same rhetoric as the rest_.  Which brings into question the central theme of his campaign.






I give up.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 20, 2008)

KelJu said:


> I give up.



Bush didn't make "I'm a new and better type of politician by breaking the mold" the central theme to either of his campaigns.  Even Hitlery isn't doing that.  She's singing the usual Democrat tune of "Take from the rich, give to the poor".  And neither is McCain.  He's pushing the usual stuff, too.

Obama, however, is making that *the very point* of his campaign.  He's going on and on about how he's different, yet it turns out that a lot of what he's saying is interchangeable with what the other candidates are saying.

Don't you get it?  He's the only candidate saying how he's different, but he's not really different.

I think you're having one of those moments where you just not seeing the point.


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 20, 2008)

DOMS said:


> I think you're having one of those moments where you just not seeing the point.



Moment?


----------



## DOMS (Feb 20, 2008)

busyLivin said:


> Moment?


----------



## maniclion (Feb 20, 2008)

busyLivin said:


> You've convinced me: He can give a good speech.. he should be president.
> 
> 
> You're missing the point entirely.  No one doubts he can give a good speech. The question is whether there is anything besides rhetoric.


What else should they do besides "rhetoric"?  Shake some babies, kiss some hands?

I mean it's not a political campaign anymore, these days it's a marketing campaign.  Who can sell their product better?  It's all Pepsi, Coca Cola and Sam's Choice soda, barely distinguishable flavors but it's who makes the best commercials and exhibitions that wins.  And it takes a lot of money to get that image out their and just like any corporation you aren't going to risk it even a little by going off script....


----------



## DOMS (Feb 20, 2008)

maniclion said:


> What else should they do besides "rhetoric"?  Shake some babies, kiss some hands?
> 
> I mean it's not a political campaign anymore, these days it's a marketing campaign.  Who can sell their product better?  It's all Pepsi, Coca Cola and Sam's Choice soda, barely distinguishable flavors but it's who makes the best commercials and exhibitions that wins.  And it takes a lot of money to get that image out their and just like any corporation you aren't going to risk it even a little by going off script....



You're missing the point, too.  

The main theme of his "marketing campaign" is that he doesn't read from a script (so to speak).  Yet, there's clear evidence that he does just that.

Okay, it's all about marketing.  But if your main pitch is that you don't eat live babies, then you'd better not get caught eating live babies.


----------



## KelJu (Feb 20, 2008)

maniclion said:


> What else should they do besides "rhetoric"?  Shake some babies, kiss some hands?
> 
> I mean it's not a political campaign anymore, these days it's a marketing campaign.  Who can sell their product better?  It's all Pepsi, Coca Cola and Sam's Choice soda, barely distinguishable flavors but it's who makes the best commercials and exhibitions that wins.  And it takes a lot of money to get that image out their and just like any corporation you aren't going to risk it even a little by going off script....





Its "ok" to lie as long as you don't lie about about being a lier.  That is the basically what is being argued here, and there is no point to this. I got the point the second I read the point, but the point is dumb.


----------



## largepkg (Feb 20, 2008)

What if you really like the taste of live babies?


----------



## largepkg (Feb 20, 2008)

KelJu said:


> Its "ok" to lie as long as you don't lie about about being a lier.  That is the basically what is being argued here, and there is no point to this. I got the point the second I read the point, *but the point is dumb*.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 20, 2008)

largepkg said:


> What if you really like the taste of live babies?



Just don't get caught.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 20, 2008)

KelJu said:


> Its "ok" to lie as long as you don't lie about about being a lier.  That is the basically what is being argued here, and there is no point to this. I got the point the second I read the point, but the point is dumb.



Truly, you're having one of your moments.


----------



## DaMayor (Feb 20, 2008)

DOMS said:


> You're missing the point, too.
> 
> The main theme of his "marketing campaign" is that he doesn't read from a script




Or his OWN script, anyway.

I don't see the point in expending the energy needed to debate the qualities (or lack therof) of these candidates. The President has become a cardboard character, almost to the point that the position is more of a diversion from what is _really_ going on in Washington than anything else.

Being the relatively hopeful types we humans are, I think we are all drawn to the ideologies these guys are trying to sell....even though they rarely deliver on them....not that they would actually have the power to do so.

yada yada yada.


----------



## KelJu (Feb 20, 2008)

Moment of what? If anything, I am having a moment of lack of restraint.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 20, 2008)

KelJu said:


> Moment of what? If anything, I am having a moment of lack of restraint.



Lack?  I think you're being quite civil. 

But you really aren't getting the point.


----------



## largepkg (Feb 20, 2008)

Yep, he's definitely being civil. Maybe he's just tired?


----------



## DOMS (Feb 20, 2008)

largepkg said:


> Yep, he's definitely being civil. Maybe he's just tired?



Must be.  Or maybe he's hitting the good stuff?


----------



## largepkg (Feb 20, 2008)

puff puff pass


----------



## KelJu (Feb 20, 2008)

DOMS said:


> Lack?  I think you're being quite civil.
> 
> But you really aren't getting the point.



I got the point. I just think the point is ridiculous.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 20, 2008)

KelJu said:


> I got the point. I just think the point is ridiculous.



Every candidate but Obama is taking the usual stances and making the usual claims.

Obama, however, is basing his campaign on getting away from that.  That's the central theme, and main reason that he feels that you people should vote for him.   But it turns out that he's really saying what the rest are.  And *poof*, there goes his campaign.

His claim to fame is not being like the others.  But it turns out that he is.

It's not rocket science.


----------



## KelJu (Feb 20, 2008)

DOMS said:


> Every candidate but Obama is taking the usual stances and making the usual claims.
> 
> Obama, however, is basing his campaign on getting away from that.  That's the central theme, and main reason that he feels that you people should vote for him.   But it turns out that he's really saying what the rest are.  And *poof*, there goes his campaign.
> 
> ...



Hence, its fine to be a typical lying politician as long as you don't run on a campaign saying you are not a typical lying politician. 

I got it the first second I read it, but it doesn't change the fact that the point is dumb.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 20, 2008)

KelJu said:


> Hence, its fine to be a typical lying politician as long as you don't run on a campaign saying you are not a typical lying politician.
> 
> I got it the first second I read it, but it doesn't change the fact that the point is dumb.



Missed again.  

The other politicians aren't lying.  They're offering more of the same.  It's Obama that's saying that he has something new to offer, but he doesn't.


----------



## brogers (Feb 20, 2008)

Barack's wife:

 	 			    			  	 			    			 "Let me tell you something. For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country, because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback.  And let me tell you something. I need to believe that we live in that kind of nation, where hope and possibility and unity is still what drives us."



Ah, the harvard law graduate is finally proud of the country which has given her so much, we're all touched.  I wonder what tune she'll be singing if her hubby loses?  BTW, notice the empty rhetoric again.


----------



## KelJu (Feb 20, 2008)

brogers said:


> Barack's wife:
> 
> "Let me tell you something. For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country, because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback.  And let me tell you something. I need to believe that we live in that kind of nation, where hope and possibility and unity is still what drives us."
> 
> ...



I'll agree with you there. His wife is a dumb bitch, and I have never liked her.


----------



## DaMayor (Feb 20, 2008)

DOMS said:


> Missed again.
> 
> The other politicians aren't lying.  They're offering more of the same.  *It's Obama that's saying that he has something new to offer, but he doesn't*.



This from a clip of McCain on NBC this a.m.....

"I will work hard to make sure Americans aren't deceived by *an eloquent but empty call for change*," said McCain.

I'm not a McCain fan, but this is well worded, IMO.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 20, 2008)

DaMayor said:


> This from a clip of McCain on NBC this a.m.....
> 
> "I will work hard to make sure Americans aren't deceived by *an eloquent but empty call for change*," said McCain.
> 
> I'm not a McCain fan, but this is well worded, IMO.




Very well said.

I was going to vote for Obama, but as I looked at him with greater scrutiny, I realized that his words are mostly empty.

Not to mention that he's on the polar opposite on the issue that's most important to me: immigration.   He wants to legalize the chewies and possibly make it easier for them to come here.

Fuck no.


----------



## KelJu (Feb 20, 2008)

DOMS said:


> Very well said.
> 
> I was going to vote for Obama, but as I looked at him with greater scrutiny, I realized that his words are mostly empty.
> 
> ...





Well then maybe it will help my case to pony up the info that I am probably voting for McCain, also.


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 20, 2008)

brogers said:


> He also rips words from other people's speeches.  So, not only does he say nothing, but the mindless crap he spews isn't even original.
> 
> 
> 
> ...








I would not have thought that the coverage of the US presidential campaign could get more shallow and meaningless, and then, along comes the plagiarism story.

*OMG! Barack Obama, the silver-tongued front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, lifted a couple of lines and an idea from the black governor of Massachusetts, Deval Patrick. Patrick, himself something of a wordsmith, had been hit with the same attack by a wooden opponent, and responded by saying that words matter, and citing Martin Luther Kingâ€™s famous â€œI have a dreamâ€ line and the Declaration of Independenceâ€™s ringing â€œall men are created equal.â€

Obama, whose oratorical skills have left the robotic and monotonous Hillary Clinton sounding like a pull-string Barbie on the stump (remember â€œMath is hard!â€?), has had the Clinton campaign frantically casting around for a rejoinder, and the best they could come up with to date was a charge that heâ€™s â€œall hat and no cattleâ€ (itself a line lifted, uncredited, from Texas populist Jim Hightower, if I recall, though I think it has an older lineage among Texans, and has been appropriately applied to President Bush on numerous occasions). Obama decided to respond using some of Patrickâ€™s lines.
Now, one could argue that Obama would have been better advised to give fair attribution to Gov. Patrick, but since when have politicians gone around putting footnotes on their public speeches? Most political speeches are exercises in cut and paste, full of regurgitated pablum and lifted quotes. If plagiarism were a political crime, 90 percent of members of Congress would be out on their ears. (For that matter, if plagiarism were a crime, Hillary Clinton herself would be behind bars. Her book, â€œIt Takes a Village,â€ was largely written by Barbara Feinman, a Georgetown University journalism prof who was reportedly offered $120,000 for the job, but her name appeared nowhere in the volume, which Clinton still claims as her own work.).*

Besides, come on now! Weâ€™re not nominating an English professor, god knows. If we were, how the hell would we have had Bush for president for the last what seems like eternity, with his maddening use of the word â€œnukular,â€ his drunken â€œshâ€ slurs all over the place, his grammatical atrocities, and his mangled quotes (remember â€œif you fool me onceâ€¦â€?)?

Excuse me, but we have a criminal $1-trillion war raging in Iraq that is sucking the lifeblood out of the American economy, killing American troops by the day and slaughtering innocent Iraqis by the hundred thousands, we have an economy thatâ€™s racing for the toilet like a party-goer who ate too many bad shrimps, we have bridges collapsing, we have the North Pole ice vanishing faster than Bushâ€™s credibility, and the media are focussed laser-like on what? The momentious question of whether Obama lifted a quote from Gov. Patrick without acknowledgement?

We have Democrats trying to decide whether to select a woman senator who used insider information to make a killing in cattle futures, who has accepted massive donations from the healthcare industry and military contractors, who voted enthusiastically if cynically for George Bushâ€™s Iraq War, and whose husband wants nothing more than a new shot at some eager White House interns, or a black senator who spoke out against that war before it happened, when to do so was to risk being called a traitor by the Commander in Chief and his minions, and the best our vaunted â€œindependentâ€ media pundits can do is what? Accuse Obama of plagiarism?

We could use some reporting on Clintonâ€™s and Obamaâ€™s corporate backing, on the key people advising them on foreign affairs and domestic economic policy, some serious challenges on how each candidate will actually address climate change issues, and on how they can do anything without attacking the out-of-control military budget. Instead, we get this â€œbigâ€ plagiarism story as the main event of the Wisconsin primary.

Thank you, Fourth Estate, for making us a well-informed citizenry.




Just When You Thought the Corporate Media Couldn’t Get Any Worse - CommonDreams.org


----------



## DOMS (Feb 20, 2008)

KelJu said:


> Well then maybe it will help my case to pony up the info that I am probably voting for McCain, also.




I really liked what Obama is selling.  But it turned out to be a bait and switch.

So yeah, I'll take the least of the evils and vote for McCain, too.


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 20, 2008)

The demonization of Obama was bound to happen.  Just as predicted, everyone is buying into it.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 20, 2008)

BigDyl said:


> The demonization of Obama was bound to happen.  Just as predicted, everyone is buying into it.



I'm not really concerned with his campaign being a farce, it's his limp-dick stance on immigration that convinced me not to vote for him.

Mexico is a greater threat to this country that any Muslim country.


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 20, 2008)

DOMS said:


> I'm not really concerned with his campaign being a farce, it's his limp-dick stance on immigration that convinced me not to vote for him.
> 
> Mexico is a greater threat to this country that any Muslim country.




The biggest threat is the one most people don't know, or care about.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 20, 2008)

BigDyl said:


> The biggest threat is the one most people don't know, or care about.



I'm not so sure about that.  I think that the reason that Mexico isn't presented as the threat that it is, is that the politicians are afraid of losing the Mexican vote.  

Plus, in this politically correct climate, you can't say anything negative about non-whites without being labeled racist.  Which would be political death.


----------



## KelJu (Feb 20, 2008)

BigDyl said:


> The demonization of Obama was bound to happen.  Just as predicted, everyone is buying into it.



Some might be, but not me. I don't like many of his stances. I like Obama the best as a person of character, but I don't like some of his opinions on crucial topics. I might change my mind later. I have a while to contemplate.


----------



## KelJu (Feb 20, 2008)

DOMS said:


> I'm not really concerned with his campaign being a farce, it's his limp-dick stance on immigration that convinced me not to vote for him.
> 
> Mexico is a greater threat to this country that any Muslim country.



I stopped caring about the Mexicans. Immigration isn't even an issue to consider with the current election for me.


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 20, 2008)

The reason for Obama's popularity is because he's 'an emotional escape hatch from the Bush Era.'  Oh snap, I stole that quote.


----------



## maniclion (Feb 21, 2008)

DOMS said:


> You're missing the point, too.
> 
> The main theme of his "marketing campaign" is that he doesn't read from a script (so to speak).  Yet, there's clear evidence that he does just that.
> 
> Okay, it's all about marketing.  But if your main pitch is that you don't eat live babies, then you'd better not get caught eating live babies.


Don't all actors read from the script when they go in for a role?  doesn't the actor who does the best job of making it look like they aren't reciting the script get the part?  That's all these guys are doing.  And we are the casting directors and each of us has a different idea of which way this role should be portrayed, but after we've narrowed it down it really isn't in our hands anymore but in the hands of the main directors and producers....

Hell I didn't even vote in our primaries because I knew for a fact that Hawaii was going to vote for Obama.  All that i know is I am not upset this year I like Obama and McCain........way better than Kerry/Bush.  I just hope that whoever wins will get us back on track...


----------



## Big Smoothy (Feb 21, 2008)

DOMS said:


> Plus, in this politically correct climate, you can't say anything negative about non-whites without being labeled racist.  Which would be political death.



Yes, unfortunately.

The Hispanics (Almost exlusively Mexican) played the race card big-time in the mid-90s when an initiative about illegals came to a vote.

"La Raza," in Spanish means, "the race."

Hispanics and Mexicans use the race card repeatedly to justify their ruining of our country and their depleting our local treasuries.  

And they can be very racist themselves, as I found out traveling through Central America and Mexico. 

They've never done well in 500 years.  Why expect them to change by coming to the USA _Illegally?_


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 21, 2008)

I didn't bold the best part:

*"Excuse me, but we have a criminal $1-trillion war raging in Iraq that is sucking the lifeblood out of the American economy, killing American troops by the day and slaughtering innocent Iraqis by the hundred thousands, we have an economy thatâ??????s racing for the toilet like a party-goer who ate too many bad shrimps, we have bridges collapsing, we have the North Pole ice vanishing faster than Bushâ??????s credibility, and the media are focussed laser-like on what? The momentious question of whether Obama lifted a quote from Gov. Patrick without acknowledgement?"*


----------



## danzik17 (Feb 21, 2008)

BigDyl said:


> I didn't bold the best part:
> 
> *"Excuse me, but we have a criminal $1-trillion war raging in Iraq that is sucking the lifeblood out of the American economy, killing American troops by the day and slaughtering innocent Iraqis by the hundred thousands, we have an economy thatâ??????s racing for the toilet like a party-goer who ate too many bad shrimps, we have bridges collapsing, we have the North Pole ice vanishing faster than Bushâ??????s credibility, and the media are focussed laser-like on what? The momentious question of whether Obama lifted a quote from Gov. Patrick without acknowledgement?"*



Eh I fully believe the media are in collusion to keep things quiet.  There's no other explanation for why Paris Hilton trumps the Iraq war as a news story.


----------



## Irons77 (Feb 21, 2008)

BigDyl said:


> I didn't bold the best part:
> 
> *"Excuse me, but we have a criminal $1-trillion war raging in Iraq that is sucking the lifeblood out of the American economy, killing American troops by the day and slaughtering innocent Iraqis by the hundred thousands, we have an economy thatâ??????s racing for the toilet like a party-goer who ate too many bad shrimps, we have bridges collapsing, we have the North Pole ice vanishing faster than Bushâ??????s credibility, and the media are focussed laser-like on what? The momentious question of whether Obama lifted a quote from Gov. Patrick without acknowledgement?"*



Get fact your facts straight man. Show me your facts about the troops killing hundred thousands of innocent Iraqis. Tired of people trashing our troops. They die so you can talk this shit. They give us the freedom. One bridge out of a billion, it was freak accident. The North Pole is not going to disappear. The earth goes through cycles. We had a record breaking winter around the world this year. Explain that..... Global Warming???


----------



## KelJu (Feb 21, 2008)

Irons77 said:


> Get fact your facts straight man. Show me your facts about the troops killing hundred thousands of innocent Iraqis. Tired of people trashing our troops. They die so you can talk this shit. They give us the freedom. One bridge out of a billion, it was freak accident. The North Pole is not going to disappear. The earth goes through cycles. We had a record breaking winter around the world this year. Explain that..... Global Warming???



We had freedom already due to the sacrifice and fighting of our fathers and their fathers before them. We haven't fought for freedom in over 60 years, so cut patriotic bullshit. 

The troops are not to blame for the deaths of the innocent Iraqis. The administration for the past 8 years is to blame. The soldiers just did they job, and nobody is putting the blame on them, but none the less it did happen and is still happening.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 21, 2008)

KelJu said:


> The troops are not to blame for the deaths of the innocent Iraqis. The administration for the past 8 years is to blame. T*he soldiers just did they job, and nobody is putting the blame on them*, but none the less it did happen and is still happening.



  Talked to any Democrats lately?


----------



## KelJu (Feb 21, 2008)

DOMS said:


> Talked to any Democrats lately?



I mean here on IM. But then again, I think smoothy said some pretty harsh stuff when he was snafu. Really what I mean is that BigDyl wasn't blaming the troops, he was blaming the administration.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 21, 2008)

KelJu said:


> I mean here on IM. But then again, I think smoothy said some pretty harsh stuff when he was snafu. Really what I mean is that BigDyl wasn't blaming the troops, he was blaming the administration.



Ah, got it.

Big Smoothy (aka Mr. Snafu) said that he wanted the troops in Iraq to die, and then had the nerve to wish Witmaster (who is serving in Iraq) happy birthday.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Feb 22, 2008)

KelJu said:


> We had freedom already due to the sacrifice and fighting of our fathers and their fathers before them. We haven't fought for freedom in over 60 years, so cut patriotic bullshit.
> 
> The troops are not to blame for the deaths of the innocent Iraqis. The administration for the past 8 years is to blame. *The soldiers just did they job, and nobody is putting the blame on them, but none the less it did happen and is still happening.*



I use to buy this old line: the soldiers are just doing their job.  They are sent to these places.  They don't formulate policy, they just implement it.

But I have changed my opinion.

They are there.  They were in 'Nam, Panama, Iraq, Lebanon, Guatemala, Hawaii, and many other places.

They are not immune.  They are equally, a part of the problem.  

The entire (MIC) Military-Industrial Complex is a big part of the problem.  The MIC now is powerful enough to influence spending and foreign policy.  This is something the Dwight D. Eisenhower, specifically _warned_ us about.


----------



## KelJu (Feb 22, 2008)

Big Smoothy said:


> I use to buy this old line: the soldiers are just doing their job.  They are sent to these places.  They don't formulate policy, they just implement it.
> 
> But I have changed my opinion.
> 
> ...




I have considered that too, but I came to the conclusion that if American soldiers made moral decisions on the battlefield, we would be speaking German right now, and I would be dead. Soldiers are put through a powerful reprogramming and reconditioning program to turn them into fighting machines. They take orders and do their job the best they can. 

No, I don't but any blame for the mistakes made by our government onto the troops. I don't think you understand what they have to go through to be what they are.


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 22, 2008)

Irons77 said:


> Get fact your facts straight man. Show me your facts about the troops killing hundred thousands of innocent Iraqis. Tired of people trashing our troops. They die so you can talk this shit. They give us the freedom. One bridge out of a billion, it was freak accident. The North Pole is not going to disappear. The earth goes through cycles. We had a record breaking winter around the world this year. Explain that..... Global Warming???



This doesn't even deserve a response...


However, I'll take the bait.


A former reaganite who is as conservative as the current administration admitted two things:

1.  He estimates the Iraqi civilian death count at 1.2 million.

2.  The war was primarily for resource (oil) control, and secondarily is a strategic location to build US military bases in the region.


Greenspan admits Iraq was about oil, as deaths put at 1.2m | World news | The Observer


Oh, and the earth goes through cycles every couple hundred thousand years, NOT IN 10 YEARS.


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 22, 2008)

Don't mind BigDyl. He's our resident anti-American conspiracy theorist whacko.  He's not to be taken seriously.


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 22, 2008)

Irons77 said:


> Get fact your facts straight man. Show me your facts about the troops killing hundred thousands of innocent Iraqis. Tired of people trashing our troops. They die so you can talk this shit. They give us the freedom. One bridge out of a billion, it was freak accident. The North Pole is not going to disappear. The earth goes through cycles. We had a record breaking winter around the world this year. Explain that..... Global Warming???



He doesn't do well with facts.  He prefers illogical conspiracies.  I.E. Global Warming, 9/11 was an inside job, Aliens abducting him.. that kind of thing.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 22, 2008)

busyLivin said:


> Don't mind BigDyl. He's our resident anti-American conspiracy theorist whacko.  He's not to be taken seriously.



No shit.  1.2 million people?  There are journalists from all over the world in Iraq.  There's no way that you could hide the deaths of that many people. 250,000 people were killed in Rwanda, a place that few people cared about, and they came out rather quickly.

And Greenspan?  I'm sure the former _Fed Chairman_ knows exactly why the White House made a _military_ decision.


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 22, 2008)

DOMS said:


> No shit.  1.2 million people?  There are journalists from all over the world in Iraq.  There's no way that you could hide the deaths of that many people. 250,000 people were killed in Rwanda, a place that few people cared about, and they came out rather quickly.
> 
> And Greenspan?  I'm sure the former _Fed Chairman_ knows exactly why the White House made a _military_ decision.





The government has nothing to gain by keeping the public informed.  They have alot to gain by lying when it suits them, and they certainly have the money and resources to do so.  Do you disagree?


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 22, 2008)

busyLivin said:


> Don't mind BigDyl. He's our resident anti-American conspiracy theorist whacko.  He's not to be taken seriously.



Alan Greenspan is hardly a conspiracy theory.  Infact there are quite a few sources that back that claim up.


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 22, 2008)

busyLivin said:


> He doesn't do well with facts.  He prefers illogical conspiracies.  I.E. Global Warming, 9/11 was an inside job, Aliens abducting him.. that kind of thing.



It's much easier to call someone crazy than to put forth critical thought towards the subject.




busyLivin's sensational hyperbole's:

BL: "He believes there could be other intelligent life in the universe, he's crazy!  From this I can deduce that everything else he believes is incorrect!  Did I mention he's crazy?!"


Logical sane counter arguement:

BD: "No, I think it's a good possibility that we are not alone in one galaxy out of hundreds of billions stretching across a 4 dimensional space/time of 15 billion light years.  Your argument is actually an ad hominem attack designed to discredit me because I believe or have said something you disagree with.  It's really a logical fallacy.  Who is the crazy one here?"


----------



## DOMS (Feb 22, 2008)

BigDyl said:


> The government has nothing to gain by keeping the public informed.  They have alot to gain by lying when it suits them, and they certainly have the money and resources to do so.  Do you disagree?



I agree with that, but the reporters over there aren't just from the US.  If that body count was real, someone would have come forward with the evidence of it.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 22, 2008)

BigDyl said:


> Alan Greenspan is hardly a conspiracy theory.  Infact there are quite a few sources that back that claim up.



Other sources as non-credible as him?


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 22, 2008)

BigDyl said:


> It's much easier to call someone crazy than to put forth critical thought towards the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's bullshit.. I never would have said it that way at all. While I don't believe in intelligent life outside this planet, I certainly wouldn't call someone crazy for doing so. 

Case in point, he's taking pieces of what I said on an entirely different topic & coming up with a ridiculous argument. This is why I don't argue with you anymore BD.. *you* are ridiculous.  

I think anyone who actually believes 9/11 was an inside job is crazy.


----------



## Irons77 (Feb 22, 2008)

There is no thought towards this subject. If our government is so awful and hate it so much why do you live here? Move like Johnny Depp did.Your a left-wing nut.


----------



## KelJu (Feb 22, 2008)

Irons77 said:


> There is no thought towards this subject. If our government is so awful and hate it so much why do you live here? Move like Johnny Depp did.Your a left-wing nut.



And your sound like a right-wing nut, and I'm a radical nut. In the end, we are all just a variety of nuts.


----------



## Irons77 (Feb 22, 2008)

Amen bro!


----------



## DOMS (Feb 22, 2008)

Irons77 said:


> There is no thought towards this subject. If our government is so awful and hate it so much why do you live here? Move like Johnny Depp did.Your a left-wing nut.



So many liberals failed to follow through with that threat.  They're like a bunch of children.


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 22, 2008)

busyLivin said:


> That's bullshit.. I never would have said it that way at all. While I don't believe in intelligent life outside this planet, I certainly wouldn't call someone crazy for doing so.
> 
> Case in point, he's taking pieces of what I said on an entirely different topic & coming up with a ridiculous argument. This is why I don't argue with you anymore BD.. *you* are ridiculous.
> 
> I think anyone who actually believes 9/11 was an inside job is crazy.





And I think anyone who can make blanket statements like "I believe anyone who believes this is crazy!" ... is crazy.  Especially without evidence to back their claims up.  


The situation that occured is so complex and there are so many variables, that it could be the perfect mess to cover something up with.  The complexity is why I don't discount that scenario.  Could there be other scenarios?  Sure, but I've watched alot of documentaries, and they aren't using 'special effects' to invent things.  Everything in the video is legit footage, and so far no one can explain these things without a reasonable doubt.  

You say it's factual that global warming is incorrect, when really the only thing that can be agreed on is that most people agree to disagree.  There are natural cycles, but that doesn't mean we aren't helping speed up the process.  That is a compromise in beliefs if I've ever given one.


----------



## Irons77 (Feb 22, 2008)

And we all enjoy picking on each other aboutit


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 22, 2008)

Irons77 said:


> There is no thought towards this subject. If our government is so awful and hate it so much why do you live here? Move like Johnny Depp did.Your a left-wing nut.



It's futile to try to explain to someone who is indoctrinated.  Nothing will ever change your rudimentary mindset.

It is interesting to note, however, that patriotism DOES NOT mean blindingly supporting your government no matter how bad they are fucking your country up.  That's called nationalism, and it's usually paired with a dictatorship.  Rather, patriotism is a voice of dissent, or a consumer advocate calling the governments bluff on their poorly made descisions, and OVERALL looking out for the best interest of the nation.

Asking someone to leave because they disagree with poor descisions while there friends are getting blown up is incompetent.  That's why there are elections and we live in a democracy(republic), so if you don't like something, you can have a chance to change it.


----------



## KelJu (Feb 22, 2008)

BigDyl said:


> It's futile to try to explain to someone who is indoctrinated.  Nothing will ever change your rudimentary mindset.
> 
> It is interesting to note, however, that patriotism DOES NOT mean blindingly supporting your government no matter how bad they are fucking your country up.  That's called nationalism, and it's usually paired with a dictatorship.  Rather, patriotism is a voice of dissent, or a consumer advocate calling the governments bluff on their poorly made descisions, and OVERALL looking out for the best interest of the nation.
> 
> Asking someone to leave because they disagree with poor descisions while there friends are getting blown up is incompetent.  That's why there are elections and we live in a democracy(republic), so if you don't like something, you can have a chance to change it.






Well said. It gets old and tiring to constantly hear the mindless dribble "you don't like the way things are, then leave". I guess people forgot that we became what we are because we didn't like the way things were being run. That is our America was formed. I think people who put their government on the spot for the stupid shit being done are the true patriots. The mindless right-wing machine that has hailed George Bush as a good leader are the cancer of America.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 22, 2008)

KelJu said:


> Well said. It gets old and tiring to constantly hear the mindless dribble "you don't like the way things are, then leave".



Remember, it's liberals like _you_ that started it.


----------



## KelJu (Feb 22, 2008)

DOMS said:


> Remember, it's liberals like _you_ that started it.



I'm not liberal.


----------



## maniclion (Feb 22, 2008)

KelJu said:


> I'm not liberal.


If you're not with us then you're against us...


----------



## DOMS (Feb 22, 2008)

KelJu said:


> I'm not liberal.



Your nipple rings say otherwise.


----------



## brogers (Feb 22, 2008)

BigDyl said:


> And I think anyone who can make blanket statements like "I believe anyone who believes this is crazy!" ... is crazy.  Especially without evidence to back their claims up.
> 
> 
> The situation that occured is so complex and there are so many variables, that it could be the perfect mess to cover something up with.  The complexity is why I don't discount that scenario.  Could there be other scenarios?  Sure, but I've watched alot of documentaries, and they aren't using 'special effects' to invent things.  Everything in the video is legit footage, and so far no one can explain these things without a reasonable doubt.
> ...



You've demonstrated your ignorance on this subject in the last thread on it, Mr. "steel buildings can't be destroyed by fire."  Why don't you cease embarrassing yourself and stop talking about it.  You have no background in engineering, you have no background in physics, you're in no position to say jack squat about explanations for the building's collapse.  You call others "sheep" for believing the "official story" meanwhile you're getting your information from teenagers' youtube accounts.  Nuff said.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 22, 2008)

brogers said:


> You've demonstrated your ignorance on this subject in the last thread on it, Mr. "steel buildings can't be destroyed by fire."  Why don't you cease embarrassing yourself and stop talking about it.  You have no background in engineering, you have no background in physics, you're in no position to say jack squat about explanations for the building's collapse.  You call others "sheep" for believing the "official story" meanwhile you're getting your information from teenagers' youtube accounts.  Nuff said.



In all fairness, he did read it on the Interweb.  So it must be true.

Joking aside, I had my doubts too.  But, after a bit of my own research, I've come to the conclusion that there really isn't anything amiss.

Well, other than some fucking camel jockeys flying planes into buildings.


----------



## brogers (Feb 22, 2008)

DOMS said:


> In all fairness, he did read it on the Interweb.  So it must be true.
> 
> Joking aside, I had my doubts too.  But, after a bit of my own research, I've come to the conclusion that there really isn't anything amiss.
> 
> Well, other than some fucking camel jockeys flying planes into buildings.



Yeah, just normal dark-age behavior, as usual from the arabs.


----------



## danzik17 (Feb 22, 2008)

Again, I don't think the government had a hand in 9/11, rather I think they know things that they aren't telling us.  Namely that the country that the attack originated from sell us oil, lots of oil.  Can't go attacking them.

There are a LOT of unexplained things, but I just can't bring myself to believe that people in our own government would be a part of this event.


----------



## KelJu (Feb 22, 2008)

DOMS said:


> Your nipple rings say otherwise.



Only radicals have a 10 gauge spike driven through our nipples and dick.


----------



## brogers (Feb 22, 2008)

danzik17 said:


> Again, I don't think the government had a hand in 9/11, rather I think they know things that they aren't telling us.  Namely that the country that the attack originated from sell us oil, lots of oil.  Can't go attacking them.
> 
> There are a LOT of unexplained things, but I just can't bring myself to believe that people in our own government would be a part of this event.



Everyone knows where the terrorists came from, the vast majority being from saudi arabia, the government provided this information.  I'm not sure what gave you any idea otherwise.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 22, 2008)

KelJu said:


> Only radicals have a 10 gauge spike driven through our nipples and dick.



You have a Prince Albert?


----------



## lucifuge (Feb 22, 2008)

KelJu said:


> Only radicals have a 10 gauge spike driven through our nipples and dick.



Why man.... why?
Seriously, what the hell inspired you to ram a frikkin spike through your dick?
The nipples I guess I can understand but..... WHY?


----------



## DOMS (Feb 22, 2008)

lucifuge said:


> Why man.... why?
> Seriously, what the hell inspired you to ram a frikkin spike through your dick?
> The nipples I guess I can understand but..... WHY?



So he can do three golden showers at once.


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 22, 2008)

brogers said:


> You've demonstrated your ignorance on this subject in the last thread on it, Mr. "steel buildings can't be destroyed by fire."  Why don't you cease embarrassing yourself and stop talking about it.  You have no background in engineering, you have no background in physics, you're in no position to say jack squat about explanations for the building's collapse.  You call others "sheep" for believing the "official story" meanwhile you're getting your information from teenagers' youtube accounts.  Nuff said.




I don't have to be an expert, the experts do the work for me hypocrite:

How Hot Did The Jet Fuel Heat The World Trade Center?

*"In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900??° C (1,500-1,700??° F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600??° C (1,100??° F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments."*


By the way, it's not my fault if you can't understand the formula's presented in the article.  It must mean you're not an expert yourself.


----------



## Irons77 (Feb 22, 2008)

This should be a poll ?. Do liberals think there are terrorists trying to kill us  Americans?


----------



## Irons77 (Feb 22, 2008)

BigDyl said:


> I don't have to be an expert, the experts do the work for me hypocrite:
> 
> How Hot Did The Jet Fuel Heat The World Trade Center?
> 
> ...



Are you speaking for yourself here?


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 22, 2008)

BigDyl said:


> I don't have to be an expert, the experts do the work for me hypocrite:
> 
> How Hot Did The Jet Fuel Heat The World Trade Center?
> 
> ...



You've convinced me.


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 22, 2008)

Irons77 said:


> This should be a poll ?. Do liberals think there are terrorists trying to kill us  Americans?



You do realize there are more political belief systems than 'republican' and 'liberal.'  Not everything fits into your narrow little spectrum.  The world isn't black and white.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 22, 2008)

BigDyl said:


> I don't have to be an expert, the experts do the work for me hypocrite:
> 
> How Hot Did The Jet Fuel Heat The World Trade Center?
> 
> ...



"Simulated" being the key word.


----------



## Irons77 (Feb 22, 2008)

BigDyl said:


> You do realize there are more political belief systems than 'republican' and 'liberal.'  Not everything fits into your narrow little spectrum.  The world isn't black and white.



Don't want to answer?


----------



## brogers (Feb 22, 2008)

Unfortunately for you and your conspiracy theorist friend who apparently runs a website completely dedicated to "9/11 Troof,"  Popular Mechanics provides information related to all of your various conspiracy theories, but hey, they're probably just pushing the "official story."

Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report - Popular Mechanics

Or you could read the National Institute of Science and Technology's report:

NIST's Investigation of the Sept. 11 World Trade Center Disaster - Frequently Asked Questions

Of course, they're pushing the official story too, I'm sure.  I'm also sure that the website you're looking at is reputable and bases their articles on solid science.  Let's examine some other articles from the same site.  Indeed, what a group of experts that website has.

A few gems I found:

So, why do people believe in the holocaust, anyway?
A Quick Proof that the Holocaust Story is a Lie.
The Jews Declare War on Germany (in 1933).

Osama bin Laden denies any part in 9/11.
Israelis arrested on suspicion of 9/11 involvement.
Many 9/11 "Hijackers" are Alive and Well.

"*"In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900° C (1,500-1,700° F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments."*"

Let's review:  Steel loses ~half its strength at about 600 C.  It's at about 10% at 1,000C.  Fires in the WTC were estimated by NIST to be 1,000C.  I guess the British building simulation had a FOS of 9.  Amazing, must be the first of its kind.  Oh, but your nut friend says the temperatures were something else.  I'll just take his word rather than NIST.  I'll also take his word that the Holocaust is a myth and that the Jews actually declared war on Germany.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 22, 2008)

pwned.


----------



## brogers (Feb 22, 2008)

Just to be clear:  You're insane.  You trust the work of random ass people on the internet, who also think they can prove the holocaust didn't happen, and call them "experts" while ignoring any other source that doesn't promote your "unofficial story"


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 22, 2008)

brogers said:


> Unfortunately for you and your conspiracy theorist friend who apparently runs a website completely dedicated to "9/11 Troof,"  Popular Mechanics provides information related to all of your various conspiracy theories, but hey, they're probably just pushing the "official story."
> 
> Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report - Popular Mechanics
> 
> ...



Ok, now he's convinced me.


----------



## brogers (Feb 22, 2008)

busyLivin said:


> Ok, now he's convinced me.



That the Holocaust was just a fabrication of the evil Zionists?


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 22, 2008)

brogers said:


> That the Holocaust was just a fabrication of the evil Zionists?



That 9/11 wasn't a conspiracy. BigDyl convinced me a few posts ago that it was.


----------



## Irons77 (Feb 22, 2008)

KelJu said:


> Well said. It gets old and tiring to constantly hear the mindless dribble "you don't like the way things are, then leave". I guess people forgot that we became what we are because we didn't like the way things were being run. That is our America was formed. I think people who put their government on the spot for the stupid shit being done are the true patriots. The mindless right-wing machine that has hailed George Bush as a good leader are the cancer of America.



Bush has done a hell of job keeping are our asses from getting hit again has he not?


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 22, 2008)

Irons77 said:


> Bush has done a hell of job keeping are our asses from getting hit again has he not?



they'll never give him credit for that, but would blame him if we were attacked.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 22, 2008)

busyLivin said:


> they'll never give him credit for that, but would blame him if we were attacked.



Bingo.

I think he's an asshat, but he's not a 100% fuck-up.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Feb 22, 2008)

Irons77 said:


> Bush has done a hell of job keeping are our asses from getting hit again has he not?



Maybe; maybe not.

It's not all about the President.

The USA cannot even patrol it's own borders effectively.

Preventing terrorism is a police, and intelligence operation.  It's set up.  The people are doing their jobs.  They've been trained.

There will be another attack in the U.S. in the future.  When and where we don't know.   

If there is any credit to be given at the Executive level, it ought to be doled out to Cheney (whom I don't like).  He has his 1% theory/rule.


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 22, 2008)

DOMS said:


> Bingo.
> 
> I think he's an asshat, but he's not a 100% fuck-up.



Pretty good dancer, too. 






YouTube Video


----------



## danzik17 (Feb 22, 2008)

brogers said:


> Everyone knows where the terrorists came from, the vast majority being from saudi arabia, the government provided this information.  I'm not sure what gave you any idea otherwise.



True - and yet we attack Iraq?

What I was referring to was the question of whether Pakistani officials financed the attacks or not.

That and there are a few things that don't add up, like the passports being entirely intact after the planes burst into flames.  What kind of a fire incinerates absolutely everything, but not paper?


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 22, 2008)

brogers said:


> Unfortunately for you and your conspiracy theorist friend who apparently runs a website completely dedicated to "9/11 Troof,"  Popular Mechanics provides information related to all of your various conspiracy theories, but hey, they're probably just pushing the "official story."
> 
> Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report - Popular Mechanics
> 
> ...





You posted some evidence, and I'll review it.  However, don't gloat over your google searching effort like you just won some sort of contest.


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 22, 2008)

brogers said:


> Just to be clear:  You're insane.  You trust the work of random ass people on the internet, who also think they can prove the holocaust didn't happen, and call them "experts" while ignoring any other source that doesn't promote your "unofficial story"



"Random" is hardly clear.  That's a very subjective way to present your case.  You trust "random" people.  What you and I consider random differs.  You may trust 'mainstream,' and I may not.


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 22, 2008)

BigDyl said:


> However, don't gloat over your google searching effort like you just won some sort of contest.



that's some funny shit


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 22, 2008)

Irons77 said:


> Don't want to answer?



Not going to play your game.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 22, 2008)

BigDyl said:


> You posted some evidence, and I'll review it.  However, don't gloat over your google searching effort like you just won some sort of contest.



Pffft.  I prefer to get all of my facts about 9/11 from the Uncyclopedia.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 22, 2008)

BigDyl said:


> Not going to play your game.



Gonna take your ball and go home?


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 22, 2008)

Irons77 said:


> Bush has done a hell of job keeping are our asses from getting hit again has he not?



Yeah he's kept us safe, except for that whole 911 thing that happened under his watch.


----------



## Irons77 (Feb 22, 2008)

BigDyl said:


> Not going to play your game.



Why don't you liberals ever answer the simple questions?


----------



## DOMS (Feb 22, 2008)

BigDyl said:


> Yeah he's kept us safe, except for that whole 911 thing that happened under his watch.



Okay, this is bullshit.  

9/11 happened because Slick Willy was limp-wristed like all liberals.  Bush had just gotten in office and hadn't been in long enough to really affect any significant policy.

But if you helps you feel better, as an aforementioned liberal, to lay it in on Bush, knock yourself out.


----------



## Irons77 (Feb 22, 2008)

BigDyl said:


> Yeah he's kept us safe, except for that whole 911 thing that happened under his watch.



Clinton fucked up there. Sudan offered Bin Laden to him and he passed it up. It' s not all of Bush's fault.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 22, 2008)

Irons77 said:


> Clinton fucked up there. Sudan offered Bin Laden to him and he passed it up. It' s not all of Bush's fault.



How about his ineffectual bombing of an aspirin factory.  You can't just blow that off!


----------



## Irons77 (Feb 22, 2008)

DOMS said:


> How about his ineffectual bombing of an aspirin factory.  You can't just blow that off!


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 23, 2008)

Irons77 said:


> Clinton fucked up there. Sudan offered Bin Laden to him and he passed it up. It' s not all of Bush's fault.



It happened under his watch though, and the buck stops there.  


Your flawed logic:

Anything bad that happens isn't Bush's fault.

Anything good that happens is because of Bush.


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 23, 2008)

BigDyl said:


> It happened under his watch though, and the buck stops there.



And that is seriously pathetic logic.


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 23, 2008)

BigDyl said:


> Your flawed logic:
> 
> Anything bad that happens isn't Bush's fault.
> 
> Anything good that happens is because of Bush.



Who said that, and where? 


If you read his post, he said "It's not all Bush's fault."  Is your post reading really that selective?


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 23, 2008)

BigDyl said:


> It happened under his watch though, and the buck stops there.



So by your logic, the inability for terrorists to strike here is all due to Bush?  Are you willing to say that?  You know, the buck stops there, right?


----------



## maniclion (Feb 23, 2008)

DOMS said:


> Pffft.  I prefer to get all of my facts about 9/11 from the Uncyclopedia.


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 23, 2008)

busyLivin said:


> Who said that, and where?
> 
> 
> If you read his post, he said "It's not all Bush's fault."  Is your post reading really that selective?



It's sad that you have to stick up for that guy because he can't do it for himself.  He makes comments and then waits for 4-5 people to back him up.


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 23, 2008)

busyLivin said:


> So by your logic, the inability for terrorists to strike here is all due to Bush?  Are you willing to say that?  You know, the buck stops there, right?



Bush is the biggest terrorist in the world.  Starting illegal and immoral wars that kill at the least hundreds of thousands of people for resource and region control.  You have no grounds to say he is protecting us from them when he is one.


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 23, 2008)

DOMS said:


> How about his ineffectual bombing of an aspirin factory.  You can't just blow that off!



I'm not defending Clinton.  For some reason you think I like Clinton...?

None of the guys in the White House of late have supported the citizens of the country.  They are elitists with corporate ties who serve their financiers.

In any case, an aspirin factory bombing is hardly an Iraq, or Afganistan for that matter.


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 23, 2008)

busyLivin said:


> So by your logic, the inability for terrorists to strike here is all due to Bush?  Are you willing to say that?  You know, the buck stops there, right?



They did attack us already.  Too late, he let it happen.  He's 0-1.  Sure they can invent all these attempts to attack us.  It also lets them use fear mongering to pass shitty legislation like the Patriot Act, and suspend habeas corpus.

It works for him if they do or don't.  If someone sucessfully attacks us, he can wear the flag and cry for everyone to be patriotic again and support whatever insane fucking war he wants to start.

If nothing happens, it means he did something right.


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 23, 2008)

BigDyl said:


> Bush is the biggest terrorist in the world.  Starting illegal and immoral wars that kill at the least hundreds of thousands of people for resource and region control.  You have no grounds to say he is protecting us from them when he is one.



I try not to be mean, but you really are a complete fool.

You just get done telling irons that, well here's your quote




BigDyl said:


> It happened under his watch though, and the buck stops there.
> 
> 
> Your flawed logic:
> ...




So would exactly is your logic that blasts Bush for everything bad & offers no praise for anything good? You're a hypocrite!

Forget it, I'm not getting into another argument with you.  You are void of any sense.


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 23, 2008)

BigDyl said:


> Sure they can invent all these attempts to attack us.


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 23, 2008)

BigDyl said:


> It's sad that you have to stick up for that guy because he can't do it for himself.  He makes comments and then waits for 4-5 people to back him up.



I'm not sticking up for anyone, I'm calling you out on your bullshit.


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 23, 2008)

busyLivin said:


> I try not to be mean, but you really are a complete fool.
> 
> You just get done telling irons that, well here's your quote
> 
> ...



In order to argue your delisional points I have to play your game and humor what you said.


----------



## nartic (Feb 24, 2008)

I can't stand Obama. I don't want to start a political fued but Obama can jump off a cliff for all I care puff daddy look a like fag.


----------



## kbm8795 (Feb 25, 2008)

busyLivin said:


> Of course he's a better speaker than Bush, but we all knew where Bush stood.  Obama's speeches are ridiculously empty.  I'm embarassed for these fools hanging on his every word.
> 
> People are making him out to be something he absolutely isn't.  Anyone who believes his claim to "bring us together" is simply kidding themselves.
> 
> 100% liberal rating.. don't see much wiggle room.  It's all fluff.



Seems to me that the American people were told that the President was annointed by God to lead this Nation. And could there have been anything more empty and fluff than the infamous "I'm a uniter....not a divider" crap he fed this nation on the campaign trail? 

Yep - Obama is a better speaker than Bush. For one thing, it appears from the size of his crowds that he inspires people, something no one has ever accused George W. Bush of doing in a public speech. 

Apparently you only like fluff when it comes from the Right.


----------



## KelJu (Feb 25, 2008)

kbm8795 said:


> Apparently you only like fluff when it comes from the Right.




Yeah, but that goes for every republican here almost. 

It doesn't matter what you say or how you sound, only what team you play for. George Bush was the worst speaker I have ever seen give a speech in my life. I saw better speeches in 4th grade 4-H student council.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 25, 2008)

What's funny is that even those GWB is a moron and left a horrible legacy for the Republicans, you liberals are still going to lose the next election.   I swear, it's as if you guys want a Republican president.


----------



## danzik17 (Feb 25, 2008)

How about we all agree that almost every president since Thomas Jefferson has been a douchebag?

Except Teddy Roosevelt and Andrew Jackson.  They were badasses.


----------



## kbm8795 (Feb 25, 2008)

DOMS said:


> What's funny is that even those GWB is a moron and left a horrible legacy for the Republicans, you liberals are still going to lose the next election.   I swear, it's as if you guys want a Republican president.




Interesting...from what I gather from the wingnut gallery, they don't believe McCain is a true Republican.
Why, Ann Coulter just said a couple of weeks ago that she'd rather have Hillary than McCain, cuz she'd be stronger on national defense. And even ole Rush whined that he'd campaign for Hillary if McCain becomes the nominee. 

Actually, it looks like conservatives are left out in the cold, even with McCain trying desperately to pander to their pet issues to drum up more money and support. I don't think most people are too interested in more-of-the-same.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 25, 2008)

kbm8795 said:


> Interesting...from what I gather from the wingnut gallery, they don't believe McCain is a true Republican.



You can "gather" that.  I simply don't care. 



kbm8795 said:


> Actually, it looks like conservatives are left out in the cold, even with McCain trying desperately to pander to their pet issues to drum up more money and support. I don't think most people are too interested in more-of-the-same.



"conservatives are left out in the cold"?  You're from the party that can't front a winning candidate.


----------



## lucifuge (Feb 25, 2008)

DOMS said:


> You can "gather" that.  I simply don't care.
> "conservatives are left out in the cold"?  You're from the party that can't front a winning candidate.






so funny, and yet so true


----------



## DOMS (Feb 25, 2008)

lucifuge said:


> so funny, and yet so true


----------



## Irons77 (Feb 25, 2008)

busyLivin said:


> I'm not sticking up for anyone, I'm calling you out on your bullshit.



There is no point in talking to him about this anymore. He's to far gone in nutland. You give him facts and he's not bright enough to understand. Just let it go. We all have at least thing in common and that is lifting weights and looking damn good.


----------



## kbm8795 (Feb 25, 2008)

DOMS said:


> You can "gather" that.  I simply don't care.
> 
> 
> 
> "conservatives are left out in the cold"?  You're from the party that can't front a winning candidate.



I think the "not caring" is one of the reasons conservatives are being left out in the cold. 

We'll see what happens as the election season unfolds. But if we look at the primary voting numbers so far, the Democrats have had far more participants in nearly every primary than Republicans. The RNC is struggling to raise money, not only for the presidential race, but for the congressional campaigns. Republicans have far more Senate seats up this year than the Democrats and a high number of incumbents retiring from the House. 

Doesn't look too good for the 'cons.


----------



## Irons77 (Feb 25, 2008)

DOMS said:


>


----------



## DOMS (Feb 25, 2008)

kbm8795 said:


> I think the "not caring" is one of the reasons conservatives are being left out in the cold.



As always, you're getting it wrong.  I don't care, not because of apathy, but because McCain is a shoo-in.  Neither Obama or Hitlery is going to win.  It's a foregone conclusion.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.


----------



## danzik17 (Feb 25, 2008)

We'll be even more bankrupt with McCain in office 

Then again Obama and Hillary want to spend shit tons of money too.

Fuck.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Feb 25, 2008)

danzik17 said:


> We'll be even more bankrupt with McCain in office
> 
> Then again Obama and Hillary want to spend shit tons of money too.
> 
> Fuck.



IMO, all 3 candidates will not act to fix the coming financial mess.

And, all 3 will add to it.


Check out the former GAO, David Walker.  He just started a foundation.

We'll be hearing more of him.  But will anyone listen or act?


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 25, 2008)

kbm8795 said:


> Seems to me that the American people were told that the President was annointed by God to lead this Nation. And could there have been anything more empty and fluff than the infamous "I'm a uniter....not a divider" crap he fed this nation on the campaign trail?
> 
> Yep - Obama is a better speaker than Bush. For one thing, it appears from the size of his crowds that he inspires people, something no one has ever accused George W. Bush of doing in a public speech.
> 
> Apparently you only like fluff when it comes from the Right.



He inspires fools who are too lazy to research the guy.  Go look at the two videos I posted earlier in this topic.. It's indictive of 80% of his support, I guarantee you.

Obama surged & hasn't undergone any scrutiny.  It would only take one thing & he would fall apart. Anyone remember him crying when his ears were made fun of? Dems are taking a chance with him.. at least with Hillary you knew what you were getting.

Just a matter of time.  His campaign should crash & burn.

I agree with you though, it's the Dem's election to lose & it will be pretty pathetic if they do.


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 25, 2008)

Wrong topic, sorry.  here are the two videos.  (Before these videos, they were all drooling over Obama)


Take 1 (All Democrats):





YouTube Video











Take 2 (Week Later, Different Group of Democrats):





YouTube Video


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 25, 2008)

Plus, don't kid yourself, kbm. When the general election comes around, conservatives are going to vote for McCain.  They are making a point, but they will not hand the presidency to the ultra liberal Obama.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 25, 2008)

busyLivin said:


> Plus, don't kid yourself, kbm. When the general election comes around, conservatives are going to vote for McCain.  They are making a point, but they will not hand the presidency to the ultra liberal Obama.



Additionally, a lot of people who would not usually vote, will take the time to vote against a black or woman president.


----------



## danzik17 (Feb 25, 2008)

Interesting videos but I won't believe them outright considering they come from Fox which has a known die-hard right wing republican bias.  I'll bet CNN shows a completely different story with their more left-wing bias (no I'm not going to research this since I don't even like him that much).


----------



## Big Smoothy (Feb 25, 2008)

busyLivin said:


> Plus, don't kid yourself, kbm. When the general election comes around, conservatives are going to vote for McCain.  They are making a point, but they will not hand the presidency to the ultra liberal Obama.



Totally agree, BL.

They're are making a point, and taking a stand.  But they will go to McCain.  Not much of a choice.  I also see McCain picking a conservative VP who's in his 40s or 50s.


----------



## kbm8795 (Feb 25, 2008)

busyLivin said:


> Wrong topic, sorry.  here are the two videos.  (Before these videos, they were all drooling over Obama)
> 
> 
> Take 1 (All Democrats):
> ...




Uh....they say they are Democrats. Hannity and Colmes? 

You do realize that Faux News was caught early in the campaign season using the same individuals as "independents" for a candidate focus group in two separate states.

By the way, the interviewer shows a pretty subjective reporting style.


----------



## kbm8795 (Feb 25, 2008)

busyLivin said:


> Plus, don't kid yourself, kbm. When the general election comes around, conservatives are going to vote for McCain.  They are making a point, but they will not hand the presidency to the ultra liberal Obama.




I don't think the Presidency will be decided on the basis of how the minority conservatives vote - especially those posturing on the Right. If the primaries have shown anything, it is how weak conservatives are, even in the Republican Party. McCain was their least favorite candidate, with the exception of Ron Paul. They can claim to make all the "points" they want, but all of the whining and gnashing and threatening from the favorite wingnut broadcasters hasn't slowed McCain down at all. Conservative columnists are furious, conservative broadcasters are livid - in their own words, there is no conservative candidate. There are even hints that Flip-floppin Mitt will rejoin the battle. He might have endorsed McCain, but he hasn't released his convention delegates. And the Huckster is still praying for a miracle, since he's this year's self-appointed representative from God. 

It really doesn't matter if the hard-core conservative base votes for McCain. Judging from primary participation and inability of the RNC to raise money, the Republican party is in major trouble. And conservatives alone cannot elect a President - they couldn't even get one of their own through the primaries.


----------



## kbm8795 (Feb 25, 2008)

Big Smoothy said:


> Totally agree, BL.
> 
> They're are making a point, and taking a stand.  But they will go to McCain.  Not much of a choice.  I also see McCain picking a conservative VP who's in his 40s or 50s.



So do I. . .and it will only help him with the Far Right, who have no candidates anyway. It will hurt him with moderate Republicans and independent voters. . .and some of the evangelicals already don't like him. So he'll have to pander to the Right - and in doing so, will make himself look like "more of the same." 

And more-of-the-same support right now is around 19%.


----------



## kbm8795 (Feb 25, 2008)

DOMS said:


> Additionally, a lot of people who would not usually vote, will take the time to vote against a black or woman president.



And you don't believe there won't be people taking the time to vote against another old white man?


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 26, 2008)

danzik17 said:


> Interesting videos but I won't believe them outright considering they come from Fox which has a known die-hard right wing republican bias.  I'll bet CNN shows a completely different story with their more left-wing bias (no I'm not going to research this since I don't even like him that much).



Fox News catches too much shit.  Without a doubt they are conservative, but the difference is that they do give the other side a shot.  

As far as the videos go, it's absolutely the case.  Ask any Obama supporter what they like about him. I've done it to several of them & they all say "He's inspirational'.  That's his appeal, there's really no denying that.


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 26, 2008)

kbm8795 said:


> I don't think the Presidency will be decided on the basis of how the minority conservatives vote - especially those posturing on the Right. If the primaries have shown anything, it is how weak conservatives are, even in the Republican Party. McCain was their least favorite candidate, with the exception of Ron Paul. They can claim to make all the "points" they want, but all of the whining and gnashing and threatening from the favorite wingnut broadcasters hasn't slowed McCain down at all. Conservative columnists are furious, conservative broadcasters are livid - in their own words, there is no conservative candidate. There are even hints that Flip-floppin Mitt will rejoin the battle. He might have endorsed McCain, but he hasn't released his convention delegates. And the Huckster is still praying for a miracle, since he's this year's self-appointed representative from God.
> 
> It really doesn't matter if the hard-core conservative base votes for McCain. Judging from primary participation and inability of the RNC to raise money, the Republican party is in major trouble. And conservatives alone cannot elect a President - they couldn't even get one of their own through the primaries.



McCain was the least favorite of the conservatives (our slate sucked), but don't discount their importance.  The evangelicals were credited with Bush's election in 2004 & 2008. They have excellent organization & are successful in getting out the vote.  With how close this election will be, their support will very much be key.  

McCain didn't win the conservative vote until just recently.  He was getting far less than a majority.  You can't say they aren't important.  

I don't really think McCain will pander too much more to the right.. really not necessary.  Unlike Obama who claims to "reach across the aisle" when he NEVER has, McCain has a clear history of doing so... he should do well with the Independants.    

For the far right, it's going to come down to the judges. Their problem with him is his stance on stem cell research & not supporting a Constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. But again, against Obama or Clinton, the choice is pretty clear.

Primary participation does make me a little nervous, but like you said, we weren't happy with our candidates.  That doesn't mean we will gift wrap the presidency. 

You must have seen the support & donations McCain got after the New York Times published that pathetic story on him.  He's going to rally the base, especially if Clinton pulls off an upset next week . It may be unlikely, but you'd would be foolish to count her out.  She's leading in Texas & Ohio.  Either way, Clinton will drive us to the polls, and when Obama is properly scrutinized, he will do the same.

Again, I agree this year doesn't look good for us, but I have hope: not Obama's kind of empty hope, but substantive hope.


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 26, 2008)

kbm8795 said:


> And you don't believe there won't be people taking the time to vote against another old white man?



No. Only extreme liberals will.. not exactly a Republican stronghold or a threat anyway.


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 26, 2008)

Big Smoothy said:


> Totally agree, BL.
> 
> They're are making a point, and taking a stand.  But they will go to McCain.  Not much of a choice.  I also see McCain picking a conservative VP who's in his 40s or 50s.



I think he's going to take Romney or Charlie Crist to appease conservatives & then move back to the center.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 26, 2008)

kbm8795 said:


> And you don't believe there won't be people taking the time to vote against another old white man?



Not in any appreciable number.  Simply because "another old white man" is not a threat.  It's the status quo.


----------



## danzik17 (Feb 26, 2008)

busyLivin said:


> Fox News catches too much shit.  Without a doubt they are conservative, but the difference is that they do give the other side a shot.
> 
> As far as the videos go, it's absolutely the case.  Ask any Obama supporter what they like about him. I've done it to several of them & they all say "He's inspirational'.  That's his appeal, there's really no denying that.



I'm not saying you're wrong here.  The only reason I'm voting for Obama is that Ron Paul is effectively out unfortunately.  I think McCain is a douchebag, and I do not want the same two families to have run the United States for almost two decades.  What's next, Jeb Bush running in 2012?


----------



## Big Smoothy (Feb 26, 2008)

danzik17 said:


> I'm not saying you're wrong here.  The only reason I'm voting for Obama is that Ron Paul is effectively out unfortunately.  I think McCain is a douchebag, and I do not want the same two families to have run the United States for almost two decades.  *What's next, Jeb Bush running in 2012?*



Agree.  I don't like two families in for so long.  It doesn't represent stamina, skills, or competence, but represents a lack of candidates who are positive and good, to even run for the office or Prez.

Jeb Bush is a lot smarter and a lot more fiscally responsible than, GWB.  Jeb should have been the one to run in 2000.  But it's too late now.  Jeb's last name is Bush.  As Jeb stated recently:

"No tengo futuro."


----------



## kbm8795 (Feb 26, 2008)

DOMS said:


> As always, you're getting it wrong.  I don't care, not because of apathy, but because McCain is a shoo-in.  Neither Obama or Hitlery is going to win.  It's a foregone conclusion.
> .
> .
> .
> ...




And that's where you are missing the point. The evidence so far has been in the primary voting numbers. In nearly every state (with the exception of Florida and Michigan, where the Democratic primary was penalized by the DNC and the delegates won't count), the numbers of people voting for either Clinton OR Obama have generally been higher than the top three Republican contenders combined. 

Now either conservatives aren't voting in their primaries (which isn't true, because their participation numbers have risen) or people aren't too interested in their candidates. 

If you are depending on people voting for the old white man because of gender and race issues, one has to remember that the pool of voters who would vote in that manner represent a minority, and that minority was already voting for the GOP clown car of old white men in their own primaries. And the primaries at this point indicate that huge numbers of independents have turned out to vote for the woman or the mixed race candidate - not the old white men. When the three leading GOP candidates can't get as many votes as the single winner of a Dem primary, there's a party in trouble.


----------



## kbm8795 (Feb 26, 2008)

busyLivin said:


> He inspires fools who are too lazy to research the guy.  Go look at the two videos I posted earlier in this topic.. It's indictive of 80% of his support, I guarantee you.
> 
> Obama surged & hasn't undergone any scrutiny.  It would only take one thing & he would fall apart. Anyone remember him crying when his ears were made fun of? Dems are taking a chance with him.. at least with Hillary you knew what you were getting.
> 
> ...



So the American people are suddenly fools, but weren't foolish for electing the "annointed by God" candidate who now is the most unpopular president in American history? How much "research" did you conservatives do on George Bush and John McCain during the 2000 primaries? Enough to launch a fear-and-smear campaign on McCain which cost him the South Carolina primary, and conservatives fell right in line behind Bush. 

Now you are trying to tell us that the GOP's rejected candidate in 2000 is a much better choice in 2008. Does this mean that Republicans were fools in 2000, didn't do enough research on Bush, and the American people are supposed to believe they aren't fools now?


----------



## kbm8795 (Feb 26, 2008)

busyLivin said:


> McCain was the least favorite of the conservatives (our slate sucked), but don't discount their importance.  The evangelicals were credited with Bush's election in 2004 & 2008. They have excellent organization & are successful in getting out the vote.  With how close this election will be, their support will very much be key.
> 
> *But Obama is an evangelical of sorts - just not a conservative. That reduces the numbers and influence of the televangelist American Taliban crowd. James Dobson despises McCain and has already proclaimed he will sit out the election.*
> 
> ...



The only way the GOP has any hope is if they refrain from the fear-and-smear tactics - and it doesn't look like the party is gonna do that unless the moderates take control.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 26, 2008)

kbm8795 said:


> And that's where you are missing the point. The evidence so far has been in the primary voting numbers. In nearly every state (with the exception of Florida and Michigan, where the Democratic primary was penalized by the DNC and the delegates won't count), the numbers of people voting for either Clinton OR Obama have generally been higher than the top three Republican contenders combined.



Do you have the absolute numbers?



kbm8795 said:


> Now either conservatives aren't voting in their primaries (which isn't true, because their participation numbers have risen) or people aren't too interested in their candidates.



Or, like me, they figure that the Republican primary was sealed from the get-go and are waiting for the actual election.  The Democrats however, are split on who they want for a candidate and are trying to push their preferred person.



kbm8795 said:


> If you are depending on people voting for the old white man because of gender and race issues, one has to remember that the pool of voters who would vote in that manner represent a minority, and that minority was already voting for the GOP clown car of old white men in their own primaries.



So very, very flawed.  

Primaries are where you only vote* for* your party, not where you vote *against* the other party.  That happens in the actual election.  The "anti" voters won't show up until then.

Add to that the fact that no minority or woman has made it past the primaries before.  So you have no idea yet what backlash, anti-voting, that can spur.  

Plus, I think that there are a lot of Democrats who don't want a black or women president and will stay home on the premise that at least McCain isn't GWB.  This election, there's no anti-GWB campaign to rally around for the Dems.

In the end, we're both left to our opinions, so we'll have to wait and see how much of an affect that this will have on the voter turn-out.


----------



## kbm8795 (Feb 26, 2008)

DOMS said:


> Do you have the absolute numbers?
> 
> *You can visit any state's primary results.*
> 
> ...



And there are certainly a whole lot of people who don't want a Republican of any color as President. I doubt many Democrats will stay home - they are well aware that McCain isn't much of a "maverick," and has a reputation for a hot temper. A lot of Republicans are aware of that as well, especially his own colleagues in the Senate. 

There are tons of pictures of McCain embracing the Dubya, and GOP policies under Bush are a major issue for many people in this election. If people become aware of how often McCain kissed the Dubya's butt, particularly after he was steamrolled by a smear campaign in South Carolina, his own baggage will come out.


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 26, 2008)

kbm8795 said:


> The only way the GOP has any hope is if they refrain from the fear-and-smear tactics - and it doesn't look like the party is gonna do that unless the moderates take control.



that's ridiculous.  mccain would beat clinton, and obama is only ahead by a small margin.

Don't forget about Iraq.  If things are as good as they look like they might, McCain will have a hell of an argument that had Obama been elected, Iraq would still look the same with Saddam in power & threatening us.  I know you may like that, but the majority of people that you like to speak for won't. A democratic Iraq is a pretty big deal.


both races would be close.. you're predicting a blowout which doesn't look likely at all. It's way too early.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 26, 2008)

kbm8795 said:


> That's funny...since McCain was in the toilet at the beginning of the primary process. He had no money and his campaign was getting nowhere. Huckabee won Iowa and Romney was second.



And you're *still* missing the point. All of the Republican candidates were acceptable to the majority of the Republicans.  It really didn't matter which made it though.  There simply wasn't the division that the Democrats sufferd from. 



kbm8795 said:


> That isn't necessarily true. Many states have open primaries, which invite any voter to cast a ballot. You just walk in and request either a Republican or Democratic ballot - it doesn't matter which one you took in 2004.
> 
> If it has been appearing, it hasn't been benefiting the Republicans. And it didn't help John Edwards or Bill Richardson very much, either. One would think the anti-race/gender vote would have rushed into the primaries to eliminate Clinton and Obama. They didn't. And while GOP participation in their own primaries rose, it wasn't for the conservative white men.



You really do reach, don't you?  

"Not necessarily".   That's exactly_ how it is_.  The primaries are all about choosing the candidate that you want.  But if it makes you feel better to think otherwise, knock yourself out.  And the anti-minority/anti-woman crowd won't show until the actual election, which is when it counts.

But I'm sure they also showed up for the primaries.  So that they could vote against the Obama (thus supporting Hitlery) or vote against Hitlery (thus supporting Obama).  Yeah, that sounds right. 



kbm8795 said:


> There are tons of pictures of McCain embracing the Dubya, and GOP policies under Bush are a major issue for many people in this election. If people become aware of how often McCain kissed the Dubya's butt, particularly after he was steamrolled by a smear campaign in South Carolina, his own baggage will come out.



True, and you may not be aware of this, but McCain isn't Bush.  He simply won't be the same enemy to rally against.  Bush garnered a very special kind of hate.


----------



## kbm8795 (Feb 26, 2008)

busyLivin said:


> that's ridiculous.  mccain would beat clinton, and obama is only ahead by a small margin.
> 
> *McCain couldn't beat George Bush 2000. Is there some kind of renewed love for Republicans that would rush to embrace the last GOP reject candidate?*
> 
> ...



There is not much motivation for anyone to vote Republican this year. Voter registration is way up, participation in the primaries is way up, and that isn't breaking toward Republicans.


----------



## KelJu (Feb 26, 2008)

busyLivin said:


> would still look the same with Saddam in power & threatening us.




The FBI said that Saddam was not a threat after all, and that he postured the way he did to keep his other enemies at bay. Everything he did was to keep Iran and others at check. He had no weapons, but acted as if he did while saying he didn't. He didn't believe Bush would actually invade. His fatal flaw of planning was that he under estimated George Bush's stupidity, and the gullibility of the republican Americans. 



So, far the hundredth time, Saddam was a dickhead, but he was not a threat.


----------



## kbm8795 (Feb 26, 2008)

DOMS said:


> And you're *still* missing the point. All of the Republican candidates were acceptable to the majority of the Republicans.  It really didn't matter which made it though.  There simply wasn't the division that the Democrats sufferd from.
> 
> *Not according to conservative pundits and the conservative media cabal. They loathe McCain. *
> 
> ...



Except that is gonna be rather hard to project. Republicans rejected McCain in 2000. Bush swiftboated McCain and easily gained Republican support for doing so. . .and now Republicans are attempting to pass off their old discarded candidate as a "good" alternative to Bush. Yet there are tons of photographs of McCain embracing Bush and lots of votes with McCain supporting Bush policies. You don't look like  much of a "maverick" when you kiss the butt of the man who engineered a personal smear campaign.

McCain has plenty of baggage.


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 26, 2008)

KelJu said:


> and the gullibility of the republican Americans.


 That's a strange statment...


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 26, 2008)

kbm8795 said:


> There is not much motivation for anyone to vote Republican this year.



I know you like to believe that, but it's not realistic.

Again.. it's 8 months away. It's foolish to suggest you have any idea what the state of the world will be, or what will motivate people.


----------



## KelJu (Feb 26, 2008)

busyLivin said:


> That's a strange statment...



Don't get me wrong, the nation as a whole is gullible. Democrats are gullible too, just not about war as much as republicans. You can just about talk republicans into going to war over almost anything.


----------



## Arnold (Feb 26, 2008)

sorry guys, but Obama is our next president, deal with it.


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 26, 2008)

KelJu said:


> Don't get me wrong, the nation as a whole is gullible. Democrats are gullible too, just not about war as much as republicans. You can just about talk republicans into going to war over almost anything.



No.


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 26, 2008)

Prince said:


> sorry guys, but Obama is our next president, deal with it.



Probably, but at least we got to watch Hillary get her butt kicked !


----------



## DOMS (Feb 26, 2008)

kbm8795 said:


> Not according to conservative pundits and the conservative media cabal. They loathe McCain.



A source that you said you don't trust.   The pundits may not like him, but the voters seem to.  But feel free to ignore that fact.




kbm8795 said:


> But conservatives haven't chosen the "candidate" they wanted. They lost.



The voters lost by voting for the candidate the candidate that wanted?  I guess you've already taken my previous advice. 



kbm8795 said:


> McCain has plenty of baggage.



And?  Pretty much every recent president had baggage.  Bush started a war, was (wrongfully) blamed for 9/11, and racked up trillions in debt; and your jackass political party still lost.  And he wasn't even a minority or female.  Like I pointed out before, he's not going to be around to rally against.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 26, 2008)

Prince said:


> sorry guys, but Obama is our next president, deal with it.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 26, 2008)

busyLivin said:


> I know you like to believe that, but it's not realistic.



Denial,  it's not just a river in Egypt.  It's also the rallying cry of the liberal.


----------



## Arnold (Feb 26, 2008)

DOMS said:


>



I am willing to put money on it.


----------



## kbm8795 (Feb 26, 2008)

DOMS said:


> A source that you said you don't trust.   The pundits may not like him, but the voters seem to.  But feel free to ignore that fact.
> 
> 
> *Hey...they are your pundits. I'm just surprised that you are discovering they aren't credible. Which is another reason why conservatives are out in the cold. *
> ...



Actually, the "jackass" party didn't lose in 2006. And they had more Senate seats up than the Republicans. This year, the situation is reversed. Republicans have much more to lose all around. 

It's going to be hard to divorce the entire Republican party, which has pretty much rubber-stamped Bush's policies, as not part of this election. McCain is part of that legacy.


----------



## kbm8795 (Feb 26, 2008)

DOMS said:


> Denial,  it's not just a river in Egypt.  It's also the rallying cry of the liberal.




Spoken like  a member of the political party which caters to people who believe that man rode around on dinosaurs (I suppose that came from watching "The Flintstones").


----------



## Arnold (Feb 26, 2008)

DOMS said:


> Denial,  it's not just a river in Egypt.  It's also the rallying cry of the liberal.




dude, I am not a liberal, I just hate Bush. (as in the president)


----------



## KelJu (Feb 26, 2008)

Prince said:


> dude, I am not a liberal, I just hate Bush. (as in the president)



Don't feel bad. He called me one too.


----------



## tucker01 (Feb 26, 2008)

You are all fucking liberals... you fucking commie bastards


----------



## DOMS (Feb 26, 2008)

kbm8795 said:


> Hey...they are your pundits. I'm just surprised that you are discovering they aren't credible. Which is another reason why conservatives are out in the cold.



I didn't say that they weren't credible.  I said that they are not the voters.  Sorry if this is confusing to you. 



kbm8795 said:


> The voters apparently didn't want McCain. . .so why recycle him when you can't even re-invent the rejected package?



The voters voted for him this time.  As a party member, of either party, you don't vote against the incumbent.  Your guy is already in.  Just because they voted for the incumbent, doesn't mean that they didn't like him.  But feel free to keep reaching.



kbm8795 said:


> Actually, the "jackass" party didn't lose in 2006. And they had more Senate seats up than the Republicans. This year, the situation is reversed. Republicans have much more to lose all around.



This shows that you're either in denial (like a good little Democrat) or that you don't really have an understanding of the political system;  or both.  In the second term of any president, the opposing party always does well in the Senate.  Go back and look at the Senate winners during Slick Willies second election.



kbm8795 said:


> It's going to be hard to divorce the entire Republican party, which has pretty much rubber-stamped Bush's policies, as not part of this election. McCain is part of that legacy.



But he's still not GWB.   It's simply not the same.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 26, 2008)

Prince said:


> I am willing to put money on it.



We're on for $50.


----------



## Arnold (Feb 26, 2008)

KelJu said:


> Don't feel bad. He called me one too.



I just can't wait, I am going to laugh my ass off when Obama beats McCain!


----------



## DOMS (Feb 26, 2008)

Prince said:


> dude, I am not a liberal, I just hate Bush. (as in the president)





KelJu said:


> Don't feel bad. He called me one too.



It's funny that you seem insulted.


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 26, 2008)

That whole thing with Obama not wearing the pin was very indicitive of his character.  He's willing to wear the turbin "out of respect for his host", but he won't wear an American flage for his own country?

It sends a bad message.. this guy is bad news.  I honestly believe he is Anti-American & hope it will become more evident.  His wife is helping, so is his church


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 26, 2008)

Prince said:


> I just can't wait, I am going to laugh my ass off when Obama beats McCain!



See that's the thing.. he is supposed to win, so what will be funny about that? What would be hilarious is if McCain won & shocked the "movement"


----------



## KelJu (Feb 26, 2008)

DOMS said:


> It's funny that you seem insulted.




It is an insult. It is as much of an insult as calling me a conservative. Both are biased and completely blind of any reality, and neither can think for themselves.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 26, 2008)

KelJu said:


> It is an insult. It is as much of an insult as calling me a conservative. Both are biased and completely blind of any reality, and neither can think for themselves.



Sure...  If you follow a political party, you're not a free thinker, but if you don't follow one, you're a free thinker.  Sounds pretty close-minded to me.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 26, 2008)

Prince said:


> I just can't wait, I am going to laugh my ass off when Obama beats McCain!



Good luck with that.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 26, 2008)

busyLivin said:


> That whole thing with Obama not wearing the pin was very indicitive of his character.  He's willing to wear the turbin "out of respect for his host", but he won't wear an American flage for his own country?
> 
> It sends a bad message..



Yep, this sort of shit is going to kill him when things get really hot during the election.


----------



## danzik17 (Feb 26, 2008)

busyLivin said:


> That whole thing with Obama not wearing the pin was very indicitive of his character.  He's willing to wear the turbin "out of respect for his host", but he won't wear an American flage for his own country?
> 
> It sends a bad message.. this guy is bad news.  I honestly believe he is Anti-American & hope it will become more evident.  His wife is helping, so is his church



Do you even know what it is to be American?  Or all you seriously going to try and call someone out based on what they did or did not wear, rather than focusing on policy?

That's like saying if you don't have an American flag bumper sticker, you support the terrorists.  Well, DO YOU?


----------



## danzik17 (Feb 26, 2008)

DOMS said:


> Yep, this sort of shit is going to kill him when things get really hot during the election.



I don't doubt it, and that is one reason I am pretty disgusted with politics in America.  The election has become just another reality show with everyone waiting to see who gets voted off of the island rather than really sitting down and choosing the person who will do the right things for this country.


----------



## Arnold (Feb 26, 2008)

and the way the GWB dodged the war was "American"? he has no problem starting a useless war and getting thousands killed for nothing, but he did not have the balls to join the real military and go to war himself.


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 26, 2008)

danzik17 said:


> Do you even know what it is to be American?  Or all you seriously going to try and call someone out based on what they did or did not wear, rather than focusing on policy?
> 
> That's like saying if you don't have an American flag bumper sticker, you support the terrorists.  Well, DO YOU?



He's the one that decided to make an issue out of it... that's my problem.  He was making a public statement.  

Read the story before you accuse me of this shit.


----------



## Arnold (Feb 26, 2008)

DOMS said:


> Sure...  If you follow a political party, you're not a free thinker, but if you don't follow one, you're a free thinker.  Sounds pretty close-minded to me.



no, otherwise you would realize how awful GWB is, when you subscribe to a party you get biased because you have to support the views of those that represent your party.


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 26, 2008)

Prince said:


> and the way the GWB dodged the war was "American"? he has no problem starting a useless war and getting thousands killed for nothing, but he did not have the balls to join the real military and go to war himself.



for nothing?  seriously Rob.. that's just not the case.


----------



## Arnold (Feb 26, 2008)

busyLivin said:


> for nothing?  seriously Rob.. that's just not the case.



yes, and it is the case...nothing positive is going to come out of this war.


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 26, 2008)

Prince said:


> yes, and it is the case...nothing positive is going to come out of this war.



a democratic Iraq would mean nothing?


----------



## DOMS (Feb 26, 2008)

Prince said:


> no, otherwise you would realize how awful GWB is, when you subscribe to a party you get biased because you have to support the views of those that represent your party.



I have realized what sort of a douche bag he is.  I also acknowledge that the Dems (who you're not apart of ) have nothing better to offer.

And, unlike *some* people out there, I also realize that GWB is not running in this election.


----------



## Arnold (Feb 26, 2008)

busyLivin said:


> a democratic Iraq would mean nothing?



oh boy...


----------



## kbm8795 (Feb 26, 2008)

IainDaniel said:


> You are all fucking liberals... you fucking commie bastards





I sent that post to Mr. Harper for use in the next election.


----------



## kbm8795 (Feb 26, 2008)

DOMS said:


> I have realized what sort of a douche bag he is.  I also acknowledge that the Dems (who you're not apart of ) have nothing better to offer.
> 
> And, unlike *some* people out there, I also realize that GWB is not running in this election.




The President is leader of his Party. And the party is running again.


----------



## danzik17 (Feb 26, 2008)

DOMS said:


> I have realized what sort of a douche bag he is.  I also acknowledge that the Dems (who you're not apart of ) have nothing better to offer.
> 
> And, unlike *some* people out there, I also realize that GWB is not running in this election.



That's sort of my dilemma.  My candidate is effectively out of the race, and I believe all three of the remaining major candidates are douchebags.

My only choice is to try and find the candidate who will fuck over America the least.  I have no illusions about magical changes, I just want the candidate who will have the common courtesy to use lube this go around.


----------



## Arnold (Feb 26, 2008)

DOMS said:


> I have realized what sort of a douche bag he is.  I also acknowledge that the Dems (who you're not apart of ) have nothing better to offer.
> 
> And, unlike *some* people out there, I also realize that GWB is not running in this election.



so you realize he is an idiot now, yet for years you've been defending him here, but now that his term is almost up you admit this? 

I knew Bush was idiot before he was elected and I made sure to tell everyone I knew, and sure enough most of them now agree with me, I am now telling everyone that Obama will win and he will do a good job in office, and in a few years once again everyone will agree with me.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 26, 2008)

Prince said:


> so you realize he is an idiot now, yet for years you've been defending him here, but now that his term is almost up you admit this?
> 
> I knew Bush was idiot before he was elected and I made sure to tell everyone I knew, and sure enough most of them now agree with me, I am now telling everyone that Obama will win and he will do a good job in office, and in a few years once again everyone will agree with me.



I quit defending him quite some time ago.

Obama isn't that bad, he's your normal political fare.  It's funny that you think he's some sort of three course meal. 

Besides, he's very weak on the topic that matters most to me: immigration.  If he wins like you hope he will, you'll be seeing a lot more chewies where you live.


----------



## Arnold (Feb 26, 2008)

danzik17 said:


> That's sort of my dilemma.  My candidate is effectively out of the race, and I believe all three of the remaining major candidates are douchebags.
> 
> My only choice is to try and find the candidate who will fuck over America the least.  I have no illusions about magical changes, I just want the candidate who will have the common courtesy to use lube this go around.



I just want to see Obama end this stupid war and turn the economy around, basically get things back to where they were before Bush took over and fucked everything up.


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 26, 2008)

Prince said:


> I just want to see Obama end this stupid war and turn the economy around, basically get things back to where they were before Bush took over and fucked everything up.



oh boy


----------



## kbm8795 (Feb 26, 2008)

DOMS said:


> I didn't say that they weren't credible.  I said that they are not the voters.  Sorry if this is confusing to you.
> 
> *Well, they certainly are voters. They just didn't like the fact that suddenly conservatives weren't running the primaries*.
> 
> ...



It isn't? Why, I haven't seen too many votes where McCain has deviated from Bush policies. . .and all of those warm embraces of the President who swiftboated McCain out of his campaign. That sure doesn't make him look like he has much character.


----------



## Arnold (Feb 26, 2008)

DOMS said:


> I quit defending him quite some time ago.
> 
> Obama isn't that bad, he's your normal political fare.  It's funny that you think he's some sort of three course meal.
> 
> Besides, he's very weak on the topic that matters most to me: immigration.  If he wins like you hope he will, you'll be seeing a lot more chewies where you live.



No, Obama is much more, he acts and speaks like a leader, he charismatic, speaks well, is influential, likable, and all of that is very important. Bush is no leader, I am sure he is intelligent despite how inarticulate he is, but he lacks leadership qualities, that is not all he lacks, but why beat a dead horse.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 26, 2008)

busyLivin said:


> oh boy



I figure that either way I'll win.  If McCain wins, we'll have another Republican president and I can laugh at the Dems.  If Obama wins (or even Hitlery), he'll do nothing of value (for various reasons) and I'll get to laugh at the Dems.

It's a win-win for me.


----------



## Arnold (Feb 26, 2008)

busyLivin said:


> oh boy



at least DOMs admits Bush is a fuck-up.

I could only imagine if a democrat were in office doing what Bush has done, you would be singing a different tune.


----------



## danzik17 (Feb 26, 2008)

Prince said:


> I just want to see Obama end this stupid war and turn the economy around, basically get things back to where they were before Bush took over and fucked everything up.



I agree with that, but I don't think Obama can pull it off.  In order to begin to reverse some of the damage, we would need to have some massive reforms of laws, Obama would need to rescind almost every single signing statement made by Bush (which he SHOULD DO), and most of all he would need to cut spending drastically.

With all of the new programs that Obama wants to implement, I can't see him spending much less, if any, than Bush is right now.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 26, 2008)

Prince said:


> No, Obama is much more, he acts and speaks like a leader, he charismatic, speaks well, is influential, likable, and all of that is very important. Bush is no leader, I am sure he is intelligent despite how inarticulate he is, but he lacks leadership qualities, that is not all he lacks, but why beat a dead horse.



Obama is a politician and will do what politicians from his party have been doing.  There will be nothing new or special.  What he will do is to continue to pander to the chewies and open our borders.

That is what he stands for.

It's cute that you believe otherwise, just make sure not to look behind the curtain.


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 26, 2008)

Prince said:


> No, Obama is much more, he acts and speaks like a leader, he charismatic, speaks well, is influential, likable



*Exactly.*


----------



## Arnold (Feb 26, 2008)

DOMS said:


> I figure that either way I'll win.  If McCain wins, we'll have another Republican president and I can laugh at the Dems.  If Obama wins (or even Hitlery), he'll do nothing of value (for various reasons) and I'll get to laugh at the Dems.
> 
> It's a win-win for me.



what do you think that McCain will do differently than Bush if he were elected?


----------



## kbm8795 (Feb 26, 2008)

busyLivin said:


> That whole thing with Obama not wearing the pin was very indicitive of his character.  He's willing to wear the turbin "out of respect for his host", but he won't wear an American flage for his own country?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Oh yes - any American who doesn't run as a "conservative" is "anti-American."


----------



## DOMS (Feb 26, 2008)

busyLivin said:


> *Exactly.*



Yeah, he "speaks well".


----------



## Arnold (Feb 26, 2008)

DOMS said:


> Obama is a politician and will do what politicians from his party have been doing.  There will be nothing new or special.  What he will do is to continue to pander to the chewies and open our borders.
> 
> That is what he stands for.
> 
> It's cute that you believe otherwise, just make sure not to look behind the curtain.



it's cute that you defended Bush for all of these years.


----------



## Arnold (Feb 26, 2008)

DOMS said:


> Yeah, he "speaks well".



yeah, sorry but effective communication is a very important quality in a leader.


----------



## kbm8795 (Feb 26, 2008)

DOMS said:


> Obama is a politician and will do what politicians from his party have been doing.  There will be nothing new or special.  What he will do is to continue to pander to the chewies and open our borders.
> 
> That is what he stands for.
> 
> ...



Conservatives always hyperventilate when any candidate suggests spending American tax money on. . . . . America.


----------



## Arnold (Feb 26, 2008)

let's define what "anti-American" is please.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 26, 2008)

Prince said:


> it's cute that you defended Bush for all of these years.



And I'll be happy to point out the same about you if we're unlucky enough to get Obama as a president.  I'll have a chewie deliver the letter to you.


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 26, 2008)

Prince said:


> yeah, sorry but effective communication is a very important quality in a leader.



yes, a quality... not THE quality.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 26, 2008)

Prince said:


> yeah, sorry but effective communication is a very important quality in a leader.





You need to watch more of Chris Rock.

"... he speaks so well. He's so well spoken. He speaks so well. 'Speaks so well' is not a compliment!!! 'Speaks so well' is something you say about retarded people who can talk!" - Chris Rock talking about the perception of Colin Powell.


----------



## danzik17 (Feb 26, 2008)

kbm8795 said:


> Oh yes - any American who doesn't run as a "conservative" is "anti-American."



American is more than a nationality, it is an ideology.  Freedom from needless government intervention, a government that serves the people, true justice for all, checks against the powers of any one segment of the government.

It is that and more.  So when people say someone is being un-American for not wearing a flag, I say that person is a moron and is focusing on unimportant details.

Those beliefs are what I look for in a candidate, and not a single one embodies them save for RP.  Unfortunately in the present, being a patriotic American is viewed as being un-American


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 26, 2008)

kbm8795 said:


> Oh yes - any American who doesn't run as a "conservative" is "anti-American."



I don't care what he wears. again,* he's the one that made it an issue.*  he was trying to make a statement.  that's the part that pisses me off.  Did you just skip right over that?

We send our soldiers into battle with a flag on their uniform & he decides to make that a statement? in my book, that's an asshole move, and again, indicitive.


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 26, 2008)

danzik17 said:


> So when people say someone is being un-American for not wearing a flag, I say that person is a moron and is focusing on unimportant details.



Do I really need to spell out everything I say?


----------



## kbm8795 (Feb 26, 2008)

danzik17 said:


> American is more than a nationality, it is an ideology.  Freedom from needless government intervention, a government that serves the people, true justice for all, checks against the powers of any one segment of the government.
> 
> It is that and more.  So when people say someone is being un-American for not wearing a flag, I say that person is a moron and is focusing on unimportant details.
> 
> Those beliefs are what I look for in a candidate, and not a single one embodies them save for RP.  Unfortunately in the present, being a patriotic American is viewed as being un-American



While I'm not a supporter of Ron Paul's candidacy, I was appalled that he was silenced and censored so much during Republican debates. . .and one network refused to even include him in New Hampshire. The American people should have the right to expect our media, particularly those companies granted a license to use the public airwaves, grant all candidates who have met the filing qualifications a chance to make their case. I didn't think most Americans ever had any opportunity to get much information about Paul. In the debates he was participating in, he was regularly cut off and passed over for the more "favored" candidates, even before any voting. 

We deserved to hear what he had to say.


----------



## kbm8795 (Feb 26, 2008)

busyLivin said:


> I don't care what he wears. again,* he's the one that made it an issue.*  he was trying to make a statement.  that's the part that pisses me off.  Did you just skip right over that?
> 
> 
> We send our soldiers into battle with a flag on their uniform & he decides to make that a statement? in my book, that's an asshole move, and again, indicitive.



I think our soldiers would have been much happier going into battle with decent body armor and helmets.

Again - there is no tradition or custom requiring any American to wear some flag lapel pin. Just because conservatives view image as more important than substance doesn't mean that the American people agree with that assessment. And I think that was Obama's statement, wasn't it? That he wanted to let his patriotism speak for itself in his words and ideas. How frightening! 

So it becomes this....intentional "asshole" move because...not wearing a flag lapel pin means that he must not support the soldiers, who happen to wear a cloth flag on their uniforms. 

OMG. . .conservative meltdown.


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 26, 2008)

kbm8795 said:


> I think our soldiers would have been much happier going into battle with decent body armor and helmets.
> 
> Again - there is no tradition or custom requiring any American to wear some flag lapel pin. Just because conservatives view image as more important than substance doesn't mean that the American people agree with that assessment. And I think that was Obama's statement, wasn't it? That he wanted to let his patriotism speak for itself in his words and ideas. How frightening!
> 
> ...



Many people see it as a gesture. To make it an issue (where it clearly would be) I think is just a stupid move & I question the motive.

I guess we'll just disagree on the topic (too).


----------



## danzik17 (Feb 26, 2008)

Just throwing two things out there, both related to this video:
abc_obama_anthem_071022a.flv - Video - Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

1.  As someone pointed out earlier, Obama is the only one singing the national anthem while on stage.  If you wanted symbolism, I think that is a much more powerful one than wearing a pin.

2.  WILL PEOPLE STOP FUCKING DOING CRAZY SHIT WITH THE ANTHEM.  I can't emphasize enough how much this pisses me off.  Sing it like it is meant to be sung, as a group of Americans; don't sing it like some cracked up whore.


----------



## Arnold (Feb 26, 2008)

busyLivin said:


> yes, a quality... not THE quality.



that is why I listed several leadership qualities that are important, all of which Obama possesses and Bush does not.

what exactly do you think a good leader does?


----------



## Arnold (Feb 26, 2008)

DOMS said:


> You need to watch more of Chris Rock.
> 
> "... he speaks so well. He's so well spoken. He speaks so well. 'Speaks so well' is not a compliment!!! 'Speaks so well' is something you say about retarded people who can talk!" - Chris Rock talking about the perception of Colin Powell.



no, I don't think he is that funny and he hates white people, why would you like him?


----------



## Arnold (Feb 26, 2008)

DOMS said:


> And I'll be happy to point out the same about you if we're unlucky enough to get Obama as a president.  I'll have a chewie deliver the letter to you.



yeah but the difference is if Obama starts doing stupid irresponsible shit like Bush did and continues to do, I will not defend and support Obama any longer, as I said I don't subscribe to any political party therefore I don't defend leaders based on theirs.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 26, 2008)

Prince said:


> yeah but the difference is if Obama starts doing stupid irresponsible shit like Bush did and continues to do, I will not defend and support Obama any longer, as I said I don't subscribe to any political party therefore I don't defend leaders based on theirs.



Okay.


----------



## Arnold (Feb 26, 2008)

danzik17 said:


> I agree with that, but I don't think Obama can pull it off.  In order to begin to reverse some of the damage, we would need to have some massive reforms of laws, Obama would need to rescind almost every single signing statement made by Bush (which he SHOULD DO), and most of all he would need to cut spending drastically.
> 
> With all of the new programs that Obama wants to implement, I can't see him spending much less, if any, than Bush is right now.



ending the war alone is going to save billions (it's running about $300 million per day, but hey we're going to change them Iaqi's to think like us!), but yes it will probably take 8 years or more to repair his damage.


----------



## Arnold (Feb 26, 2008)

*What $1.2 Trillion Can Buy*
By DAVID LEONHARDT
Published: January 17, 2007

The human mind isn’t very well equipped to make sense of a figure like $1.2 trillion. We don’t deal with a trillion of anything in our daily lives, and so when we come across such a big number, it is hard to distinguish it from any other big number. Millions, billions, a trillion — they all start to sound the same.

The way to come to grips with $1.2 trillion is to forget about the number itself and think instead about what you could buy with the money. When you do that, a trillion stops sounding anything like millions or billions.

For starters, $1.2 trillion would pay for an unprecedented public health campaign — a doubling of cancer research funding, treatment for every American whose diabetes or heart disease is now going unmanaged and a global immunization campaign to save millions of children’s lives.

Combined, the cost of running those programs for a decade wouldn’t use up even half our money pot. So we could then turn to poverty and education, starting with universal preschool for every 3- and 4-year-old child across the country. The city of New Orleans could also receive a huge increase in reconstruction funds.

The final big chunk of the money could go to national security. The recommendations of the 9/11 Commission that have not been put in place — better baggage and cargo screening, stronger measures against nuclear proliferation — could be enacted. Financing for the war in Afghanistan could be increased to beat back the Taliban’s recent gains, and a peacekeeping force could put a stop to the genocide in Darfur.

All that would be one way to spend $1.2 trillion. Here would be another:

The war in Iraq.

In the days before the war almost five years ago, the Pentagon estimated that it would cost about $50 billion. Democratic staff members in Congress largely agreed. Lawrence Lindsey, a White House economic adviser, was a bit more realistic, predicting that the cost could go as high as $200 billion, but President Bush fired him in part for saying so.

These estimates probably would have turned out to be too optimistic even if the war had gone well. Throughout history, people have typically underestimated the cost of war, as William Nordhaus, a Yale economist, has pointed out.

But the deteriorating situation in Iraq has caused the initial predictions to be off the mark by a scale that is difficult to fathom. The operation itself — the helicopters, the tanks, the fuel needed to run them, the combat pay for enlisted troops, the salaries of reservists and contractors, the rebuilding of Iraq — is costing more than $300 million a day, estimates Scott Wallsten, an economist in Washington.

That translates into a couple of billion dollars a week and, over the full course of the war, an eventual total of $700 billion in direct spending.

The two best-known analyses of the war’s costs agree on this figure, but they diverge from there. Linda Bilmes, at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, and Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate and former Clinton administration adviser, put a total price tag of more than $2 trillion on the war. They include a number of indirect costs, like the economic stimulus that the war funds would have provided if they had been spent in this country.

Mr. Wallsten, who worked with Katrina Kosec, another economist, argues for a figure closer to $1 trillion in today’s dollars. My own estimate falls on the conservative side, largely because it focuses on the actual money that Americans would have been able to spend in the absence of a war. I didn’t even attempt to put a monetary value on the more than 3,000 American deaths in the war.

Besides the direct military spending, I’m including the gas tax that the war has effectively imposed on American families (to the benefit of oil-producing countries like Iran, Russia and Saudi Arabia). At the start of 2003, a barrel of oil was selling for $30. Since then, the average price has been about $50. Attributing even $5 of this difference to the conflict adds another $150 billion to the war’s price tag, Ms. Bilmes and Mr. Stiglitz say.

The war has also guaranteed some big future expenses. Replacing the hardware used in Iraq and otherwise getting the United States military back into its prewar fighting shape could cost $100 billion. And if this war’s veterans receive disability payments and medical care at the same rate as veterans of the first gulf war, their health costs will add up to $250 billion. If the disability rate matches Vietnam’s, the number climbs higher. Either way, Ms. Bilmes says, “It’s like a miniature Medicare.”

In economic terms, you can think of these medical costs as the difference between how productive the soldiers would have been as, say, computer programmers or firefighters and how productive they will be as wounded veterans. In human terms, you can think of soldiers like Jason Poole, a young corporal profiled in The New York Times last year. Before the war, he had planned to be a teacher. After being hit by a roadside bomb in 2004, he spent hundreds of hours learning to walk and talk again, and he now splits his time between a community college and a hospital in Northern California.

Whatever number you use for the war’s total cost, it will tower over costs that normally seem prohibitive. Right now, including everything, the war is costing about $200 billion a year.

Treating heart disease and diabetes, by contrast, would probably cost about $50 billion a year. The remaining 9/11 Commission recommendations — held up in Congress partly because of their cost — might cost somewhat less. Universal preschool would be $35 billion. In Afghanistan, $10 billion could make a real difference. At the National Cancer Institute, annual budget is about $6 billion.

“This war has skewed our thinking about resources,” said Mr. Wallsten, a senior fellow at the Progress and Freedom Foundation, a conservative-leaning research group. “In the context of the war, $20 billion is nothing.”

As it happens, $20 billion is not a bad ballpark estimate for the added cost of Mr. Bush’s planned surge in troops. By itself, of course, that price tag doesn’t mean the surge is a bad idea. If it offers the best chance to stabilize Iraq, then it may well be the right option.

But the standard shouldn’t simply be whether a surge is better than the most popular alternative — a far-less-expensive political strategy that includes getting tough with the Iraqi government. The standard should be whether the surge would be better than the political strategy plus whatever else might be accomplished with the $20 billion.

This time, it would be nice to have that discussion before the troops reach Iraq.


----------



## danzik17 (Feb 26, 2008)

Prince said:


> ending the war alone is going to save billions (it's running about $300 million per day, but hey we're going to change them Iaqi's to think like us!), but yes it will probably take 8 years or more to repair his damage.



Maybe I'm overestimating the cost of some of his programs then, I don't really know.  All I know is that this country doesn't have the money for universal healthcare right now, we are quite literally bankrupt.


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 26, 2008)

busyLivin said:


> He inspires fools who are too lazy to research the guy.



One large demographic that supports him are white educated, white male, so bad point.



busyLivin said:


> Go look at the two videos I posted earlier in this topic.. It's indictive of 80% of his support, I guarantee you.




80%?  File this under the 'pulling numbers out of your ass catagory.'



busyLivin said:


> Obama surged & hasn't undergone any scrutiny.




On the contrary, he endures quite a bit of scruitiny, and your following sentence backs that up when you mentioned his appearence.  His race, looks, and politics are all undergoing attacks and scruitiny.


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 26, 2008)

busyLivin said:


> No. Only extreme liberals will.. not exactly a Republican stronghold or a threat anyway.



You do realize there are extremes on both sides, right?

I can name quite a number of groups of people who are to the left of your so called "extreme" liberals.  How many can you name that are to the right of the current Neo-Conservative administration?  1?  None?


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 26, 2008)

busyLivin said:


> Iraq would still look the same with Saddam in power & threatening us.  I know you may like that, but the majority of people that you like to speak for won't. A democratic Iraq is a pretty big deal.



Ironically there would be less dead people in Iraq with Saddam still in power.  Now we know unequivicobly that he had no weapons that would threaten us.  So the situation would actually be better, albeit not ideal.

Define 'democratic Iraq.'  One that had democracy forced on it?  Or the current administration running the country vicariously through a puppet government?  Do you understand the dynamics of what just happened in that country?  Do you know there are three warring tribes, and the country is sorrounded by enimies, and theocracries that all have their own interests?

Exactly how simple do you think it is?


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 26, 2008)

danzik17 said:


> Just throwing two things out there, both related to this video:
> abc_obama_anthem_071022a.flv - Video - Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting
> 
> 1.  As someone pointed out earlier, Obama is the only one singing the national anthem while on stage.  If you wanted symbolism, I think that is a much more powerful one than wearing a pin.



I'm actually surprised you posted that video. Didn't you hear all the complaints about him being the only one with his hand not on his heart, honoring our flag?  Kind of shoots down your argument.. 

And Hillary did sing before.. we all know how that turned out


----------



## Dale Mabry (Feb 26, 2008)

busyLivin said:


> I'm actually surprised you posted that video. Didn't you hear all the complaints about him being the only one with his hand not on his heart, honoring our flag?  Kind of shoots down your argument..
> 
> And Hillary did sing before.. we all know how that turned out



Who puts their hand on their heart during the anthem?  That shit's done during the pledge.


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 26, 2008)

DOMS said:


> I figure that either way I'll win.  If McCain wins, we'll have another Republican president and I can laugh at the Dems.  If Obama wins (or even Hitlery), he'll do nothing of value (for various reasons) and I'll get to laugh at the Dems.
> 
> It's a win-win for me.



That's because republicans are expected to fuck up, and democrats aren't?  At least that's how you're portraying it.  And in either case you laugh at other peoples misery?  Wow, you're a nice guy.


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 26, 2008)

Prince said:


> that is why I listed several leadership qualities that are important, all of which Obama possesses and Bush does not.



you posted personality traits:

  acts and speaks like a leader, 
  charismatic, 
  speaks well, 
  influential, 
  likable

Not one mention of what makes him a good president, or one accomplishment which would make him worthy.

A president, especially in these times, has to be a hell of a lot more than likeable.  His foreign policy is nothing less than scary.  Unconditional talks with Iran & Cuba? Give me a break... even Hillary knows better than that.

He's inexperienced & grossly arrogant.


----------



## Arnold (Feb 26, 2008)

busyLivin said:


> Didn't you hear all the complaints about him being the only one with his hand not on his heart, honoring our flag?



I don't either, I don't need to "honor a flag", what does that really mean anyway? As far as I am concerned nothing.

The way in which you measure one's patriotism is silly.


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 26, 2008)

Dale Mabry said:


> Who puts their hand on their heart during the anthem?  That shit's done during the pledge.



I thought it was a stupid argument myself.. just was surprised he'd bring that video up as a defense of his patriotism after all the shit he caught for it...


----------



## Arnold (Feb 26, 2008)

Dale Mabry said:


> Who puts their hand on their heart during the anthem?  That shit's done during the pledge.



good point!  although I don't do that either.


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 26, 2008)

Prince said:


> I don't either, I don't need to "honor a flag", what does that really mean anyway? As far as I am concerned nothing.
> 
> The way in which you measure one's patriotism is silly.



see previous post   But, yes I do think we should honor the flag.


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 26, 2008)

Prince said:


> I don't either, I don't need to "honor a flag", what does that really mean anyway? As far as I am concerned nothing.
> 
> The way in which you measure one's patriotism is silly.



Exactly.

Bush can fuck up, but as long as he wears a pin, he's invulnerable.

If obama cleans up his mess, but doesn't wear a pin, he's a pariah.


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 26, 2008)

busyLivin said:


> see previous post   But, yes I do think we should honor the flag.



The flag is a symbol, and patriotism is an idea (doing what's in the best interest for your country).  It's easy to confuse the two....


----------



## DOMS (Feb 26, 2008)

BigDyl said:


> You do realize there are extremes on both sides, right?



I doubt that you do.


----------



## Arnold (Feb 26, 2008)

busyLivin said:


> you posted personality traits:
> 
> acts and speaks like a leader,
> charismatic,
> ...



here, read all about him: Barack Obama - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 26, 2008)

DOMS said:


> I doubt that you do.



I'll 'extreme' you.


----------



## Arnold (Feb 26, 2008)

busyLivin said:


> But, yes I do think we should honor the flag.



"honor the flag" ...again I ask you what exactly does that mean?


----------



## DOMS (Feb 26, 2008)

BigDyl said:


> That's because republicans are expected to fuck up, and democrats aren't?  At least that's how you're portraying it.  And in either case you laugh at other peoples misery?  Wow, you're a nice guy.



As always, you amuse me.  

No, I fully expect the Dem candidate to fuck up.  It'll be the look on your (and Prince's) face that will be unexpected.  Well, to you, anyway.

People's misery?  There will be a lot of people in this country in the "not miserable" group if McCain wins.  Which will includes me.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 26, 2008)

Dale Mabry said:


> Who puts their hand on their heart during the anthem?



A lot of people.  Never been to a  baseball game?


----------



## DOMS (Feb 26, 2008)

BigDyl said:


> I'll 'extreme' you.



KY?


----------



## danzik17 (Feb 26, 2008)

busyLivin said:


> I thought it was a stupid argument myself.. just was surprised he'd bring that video up as a defense of his patriotism after all the shit he caught for it...



I am not defending his patriotism.  I do not consider him patriotic due to his support of the ironically named Patriot Act.  While it's true he spoke out against it to a degree, his actions tell a different story.

I am simply pointing out the idiocy in judging a person's patriotism or stance on an issue based on a freaking pin, whether that person sung, put his or her hand on the heart during the anthem, etc.


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 26, 2008)

Prince said:


> "honor the flag" ...again I ask you what exactly does that mean?



The flag is a symbol of our country.  Do I think it's "necessary" for Obama to wear it? No.  Do I think it's a nice gesture? Yes.  

The point is, he deliberately took it off to make a statement that I just do not understand.  He said he would show his patriotism in "other ways." In what way would that be?   Regardless, people died carrying the flag into war & he can't be bothered to show a little respect by wearing it?  That has to be the subject of his statement?

It sends a bad message. No, I don't condemn him for it, I just think it's an indictation of his arrogance & lack of respect for American traditions & what they mean.

Honoring the flag is honoring what it took to get this country. Take off your hat, bow your head & thank those who died giving it to us. Maybe that's a little dramatic to some, but isn't that the idea?

That's the problem with the youth of America: they've had it so incredibly good their entire lives that they have no concept of how bad it could be. They don't appreciate how great this country is & they are going to sacrifice it.  One week under Saddam & they would all be whistling another tune.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Feb 26, 2008)

Prince said:


> and the way the GWB dodged the war was "American"? he has no problem starting a useless war and getting thousands killed for nothing, but he did not have the balls to join the real military and go to war himself.



Yes, GWB dodged the draft, and played the National Guard card.  Those with connections get to do  that.

So, why would anyone even make note of Obama's not wearing the American flag pin?

When did this phony display of fake patriotism beginning by _politicians_ wearing flag pins on their jackets?

I don't remember this being done in the 1990s or 1980s.


Nation-state flags and flag symbols have _nothing to do with patriotism._


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 26, 2008)

danzik17 said:


> I am simply pointing out the idiocy in judging a person's patriotism or stance on an issue based on a freaking pin, whether that person sung, put his or her hand on the heart during the anthem, etc.



I've said it several times now. It's not about the fricking pin!  AHHH!


----------



## Big Smoothy (Feb 26, 2008)

busyLivin said:


> Unconditional talks with Iran & Cuba? Give me a break... even Hillary knows better than that.



Why does Hillary play so tough on Cuba?

Because they are 2 million Cuban voters in Florida and Florida is a pivotal state in this election.  Politicians have to cater to anti-Castro crowd in SoFL.

Cuba?  Who cares.  Not a threat.  

We could be investing there now, like Europe and Canada.

Iran?  Who cares.  A threat to.....USrael?  No.


----------



## danzik17 (Feb 26, 2008)

I'm just going based off of your previous posts here relating to symbolism.  Just a few posts up, you mentioned how honoring the flag is to honor America;  I disagree completely.  In order to honor the men and women who have given their lives for America, we should be fighting to preserve the liberties and rights that they died to preserve.

The way in which we completely disregard the Constitution, the rule of law, and our essential liberties is the ultimate slap in the face to those who gave their lives; not honoring a symbolic flag by taking off a pin minuscule in comparison.  Again, Obama is not a patriot due to his actions and the votes he has cast, not due to any silly symbols.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Feb 26, 2008)

danzik17 said:


> The way in which we completely disregard the Constitution, the rule of law, and our essential liberties is the ultimate slap in the face to those who gave their lives; not honoring a symbolic flag by taking off a pin minuscule in comparison.  Again, Obama is not a patriot due to his actions and the votes he has cast, not due to any silly symbols.



I believe that people should not wear their patriotism on their sleeves, like some kind of fashion statement.  It's phony, also.

The Constitution is what matters.

And remember, the Americans that have died have mostly died in _foreign countries_.  Did the represent the US flag?  Or did they represent US _interests?_ 

Except for the Union soldiers of the Civil War.


----------



## lucifuge (Feb 26, 2008)

danzik17 said:


> I disagree   In order to honor the men and women who have given their lives for America, we should be fighting to preserve the liberties and rights that they died to preserve.
> 
> The way in which we completely disregard the Constitution, the rule of law, and our essential liberties is the ultimate slap in the face to those who gave their lives; not honoring a symbolic flag by taking off a pin minuscule in comparison.  Again, Obama is not a patriot due to his actions and the votes he has cast



I agree with this, however, I do not view the American Flag as a silly symbol.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Feb 26, 2008)

lucifuge said:


> I agree with this, however, I do not view the American Flag as a silly symbol.



I don't think it's a silly symbol either - it's just used as a symbol by silly people.


----------



## lucifuge (Feb 26, 2008)

Big Smoothy said:


> I don't think it's a silly symbol either - it's just used as a symbol by silly people.



Admittedly, alot of the people who 'rally' around it are jack fuck retards. It's a sad fact, but a fact none the less.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Feb 26, 2008)

lucifuge said:


> Admittedly, alot of the people who 'rally' around it are jack fuck retards. It's a sad fact, but a fact none the less.



Good, we agree.

Same goes for other shallow, fake attempts, by people to pretend they are "patriotic."

The Constitution, and knowing one's nation's history is what's important, IMO.


----------



## danzik17 (Feb 26, 2008)

lucifuge said:


> I agree with this, however, I do not view the American Flag as a silly symbol.



I was referring to Obama taking the pin off, not the flag itself.  However on the list of things a true patriot honors, the flag is no where near the top imo.


----------



## lucifuge (Feb 26, 2008)

The Constitution is the single most important thing about this country.
That being said, I do not agree with the concept of 'interpreting' the Constitution. There is nothing to be interpreted. Leave it the hell alone and just follow it.
I've said for years that if the founding fathers would've had ANY idea how fucked up this country and it's political system would become, they would have just shut the fuck up and went back to England.


----------



## lucifuge (Feb 26, 2008)

danzik17 said:


> I was referring to Obama taking the pin off, not the flag itself.  However on the list of things a true patriot honors, the flag is no where near the top imo.


agreed
however, I also understand the point busylivin's trying to make on the subject.
Obama did it to deliberately draw attention to it. It doesn't make any sense to me either.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Feb 26, 2008)

lucifuge said:


> The Constitution is the single most important thing about this country.
> That being said, I do not agree with the concept of 'interpreting' the Constitution. There is nothing to be interpreted. Leave it the hell alone and just follow it.



Ask these Americans with flag pins, flag hat, flag bumper stickers and flag t-shirts to tell you about the Bill of Rights, sometimes.

"Hey Mr. Patriot, tell me about the 6th Amendment, the 10th, 14th, or any others."

Watch them squirm.

The same goes for the "Freedom is not Free" bumper stickers.

What do these refer to? 

The Patriot Acts I and II?

The Total Information and Awareness Act.

Wire-tapping.


----------



## lucifuge (Feb 26, 2008)

Big Smoothy said:


> Ask these Americans with flag pins, flag hat, flag bumper stickers and flag t-shirts to tell you about the Bill of Rights, sometimes.
> 
> "Hey Mr. Patriot, tell me about the 6th Amendment, the 10th, 14th, or any others."
> 
> ...



actually, you might be surprised by some of the responses to those questions... but I'm assuming that you're referring to the ones who also have the big Dale Earnhardt 3 plastered on their rear window.


----------



## kbm8795 (Feb 26, 2008)

busyLivin said:


> you posted personality traits:
> 
> acts and speaks like a leader,
> charismatic,
> ...



Isn't every President inexperienced, since they pretty much can't have been president before they run for election? 
Maybe it is time you read the Constitution, which clearly sets down the qualifications for being President. Remember, conservatives believe in a LITERAL reading of the Constitution. 

As for accomplishments, I don't recall any conservatives having any reservations about running George W. Bush for President, even though his own vitae was pretty skimpy on individual accomplishment. What had Abe Lincoln done before President? What had Dwight Eisenhower done (besides being a general) before running for President? Heck, Eisenhower had never held any elected office at all. 

Prince is right about one thing - a good president is one who knows how to communicate and can stir people to believe in his leadership. Bush was an utter failure in that regard, squandering so much support from this country following 9/11. 

So now we are supposed to believe that McCain will be a "good" president, because the GOP says so? After they tossed him under the bus in favor of Bush eight years ago?


----------



## Arnold (Feb 26, 2008)

kbm8795 said:


> Prince is right about one thing - a good president is one who...



damn, I thought I was right about at least two things.


----------



## danzik17 (Feb 26, 2008)

Prince said:


> damn, I thought I was right about at least two things.



Nope, that was a man.  Don't get so drunk next time.


----------



## Splash Log (Feb 26, 2008)

You know whats scary? If Clinton wins it will be 24 years of bush / cliton. Only two families running our country is kinda scary when you think about it.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Feb 27, 2008)

Splash Log said:


> You know whats scary? If Clinton wins it will be 24 years of bush / cliton. Only two families running our country is kinda scary when you think about it.



The elitist machine has always run the USA.

In recent years, it just so happens to be that they are related.

In general, about 3,000 people run the USA.  

Check out C. Wright Mills book on Amazon.com.  "The Power Elite."

Eerily modern - but written in the 1950s.


----------



## brogers (Feb 27, 2008)

Obama is a fraud.  He goes to a black separatist church which cares more about africa than America.  He voted against requiring hospitals to care for babies that survive abortions--preferring to let them die in a utility room alone (even NARAL supported this legislation).  He is the most far-left candidate we have ever had.  He's also a moron who said we should just start bombing pakistan, and thereby undermine General Musharraf whose government is the only thing standing between islamists and nuclear weapons.

His speeches are utter garbage too, only an intellectual infant would be impressed.  He says NOTHING of substance.  He even steals other people's speeches to say nothing.  It's utter insanity that he has more than 1% of the vote.


----------



## kbm8795 (Feb 27, 2008)

brogers said:


> Obama is a fraud.  He goes to a black separatist church which cares more about africa than America.
> 
> *Thank goodness we've never had any white presidents who went to white separatist churches who cared more about European wars than America. *
> 
> ...



But he can at least pronounce the words. Now tell us again what "intellectual infants" were so easily sucked into Bush's eloquent speaking abilities? It's not like conservatives have any high standards when it comes to public speaking - and certainly no commitment to any substance, with their preoccupation with symbols and political campaigns of fear-and-smear. Substance? 

Well hell, it's good to know Republicans at least suddenly remember the name Osama. Even if Osama bin Forgotten has been replaced by their very substance-filled references to Barack "Osama."


----------



## Arnold (Feb 27, 2008)

kbm8795 said:


> But he can at least pronounce the words. Now tell us again what "intellectual infants" were so easily sucked into Bush's eloquent speaking abilities? It's not like conservatives have any high standards when it comes to public speaking - and certainly no commitment to any substance, with their preoccupation with symbols and political campaigns of fear-and-smear. Substance?


----------



## Dale Mabry (Feb 27, 2008)

brogers said:


> Obama is a fraud.  He goes to a black separatist church which cares more about africa than America.



As opposed to the current administration that cares more about Iraq than Americans?



brogers said:


> He's also a moron who said we should just start bombing pakistan, and thereby undermine General Musharraf whose government is the only thing standing between islamists and nuclear weapons.



Imagine that, bombing people just for the hell of it, without a good, plausible reason.  

Let's face it, the only thing preventing Islam from nuclear weapons is us blowing the living hell out of them, and that's the way it should be.

I am not for either side.  4 and 8 years ago I would have voted for McCain.  He didn't give a shit about social issues and was for a strong military and low taxes.  Let's face it, taxes are going up, do you want them to go up forever with this shitty war or over a shorter time period?  Of the 2 options stay at war for 100 years or immediate withdrawal, I go for immediate withdrawal.  Pull our boys out of there and save taxpayer money.  Sure, the region is destabilized forever, but let them kill each other, and not our boys.  Open our borders to the Mexicans?  Don't care either way on that one.  Educate the ones here illegally?  Why not, we've spent trillions on a worthless war?  The cream is going to rise to the top, the shit will sink to the bottom, regardless of what color it is.  

We haven't had more than 12 years of the same party for a reason, because both parties are fucked methodologically to opposite extremes.


----------



## danzik17 (Feb 27, 2008)

Dale Mabry said:


> As opposed to the current administration that cares more about Iraq than Americans?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The war would never last for 100 years.  After 5 more years China will just go "give us our fucking money".


----------



## maniclion (Feb 27, 2008)

I almost pissed my pants laughing when I heard Hillary whining about the "media" loving Barack more than her and then bringing up Saturday Night Live........what does she think they are a News Agency?  Next thing you know she'll be saying the Colbert Report is totally unfair.....What a ding-bat....I could give 2 shits about who wins as long as it's not her......


----------



## Splash Log (Feb 28, 2008)




----------



## BigDyl (Feb 28, 2008)

kbm8795 said:


> But he can at least pronounce the words. Now tell us again what "intellectual infants" were so easily sucked into Bush's eloquent speaking abilities? It's not like conservatives have any high standards when it comes to public speaking - and certainly no commitment to any substance, with their preoccupation with symbols and political campaigns of fear-and-smear. Substance?
> 
> Well hell, it's good to know Republicans at least suddenly remember the name Osama. Even if Osama bin Forgotten has been replaced by their very substance-filled references to Barack "Osama."





That was ownage.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Feb 29, 2008)

Well, the subtle smear campaign has begun.

It started with Hillary noting Farrakhan's endorsement, and Hillary bringing....the Jews....

Then the Tennessee Republican Party (whatever that mean) used the Obama dress picture to try to alarm Jews and Zionist Jews that Obama will harm Israel or not support Israel enough.  (Israel get more aid than any other country in the world from the US.)

And then there is the middle "Hussein."

Most - not all - of the American public are ignorant sheep.

And the smear campaigners are playing to them.

The question is: will this work?


----------



## busyLivin (Mar 1, 2008)

Big Smoothy said:


> Well, the subtle smear campaign has begun.
> 
> It started with Hillary noting Farrakhan's endorsement, and Hillary bringing....the Jews....
> 
> ...




If it has to be a dem President, I actually find myself preferring Hillary now over Obama by a wide margin.  


I can't believe I'm saying that, but I know what's going to happen with Hillary.  Obama is an unknown... his foreign policy/inexperience makes me nervous.  

That's not just because we have a better shot of beating her..


----------



## Big Smoothy (Mar 1, 2008)

busyLivin said:


> ....his foreign policy/inexperience makes me nervous.



Why be nervous?

The Cold War is over.

The Soviet Union and Eastern Europe collapsed.

No need to be nervous.

Is there a New threat?


Oh, dear...........


----------



## DOMS (Mar 1, 2008)

Big Smoothy said:


> Why be nervous?
> 
> The Cold War is over.
> 
> ...



What a dumb ass.

Bill Clinton's "bend over and take it in the ass" foreign policy culminated in 9/11.

And Bush's "bring democracy to the desert monkeys" foreign policy has led to thousands of dead US troops and billions upon billions of wasted money.

A bad foreign policy can do a lot of damage.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Mar 1, 2008)

DOMS said:


> Bill Clinton's "bend over and take it in the ass" foreign policy culminated in 9/11.



I agree, DOMS.  Bill Clinton could have done a lot more, especially after 1993, and using intelligence.



> And Bush's "bring democracy to the desert monkeys" foreign policy has led to thousands of dead US troops and billions upon billions of wasted money.
> 
> A bad foreign policy can do a lot of damage.



What is so surprising is that the official American policy in the middle east for 80 yeas has been to support dictatorships to provide stability.  Keeping the radical groups and elements at bay.

Then George W. Bush and Ari Fleischer and others in the administration came along and started saying they wanted "democracy in the middle east."  Especially in the many press conferences leading up to the invasion.

This is when I knew they were lying, and deceiving the public.

I thought Mainstream Media (MSM) would jump all over the administration and criticize them, but they never said a word.  In fact, they just repeated the propaganda of "democracy in the middle east."

At the same time the US suppors Mubarak, the dictator in Egyps, the Saud family in Saudi Arabia, and is doing oil deals with Qaddaffi in Libya.  

Americans are sheep.


----------



## danzik17 (Mar 1, 2008)

DOMS said:


> What a dumb ass.
> 
> Bill Clinton's "bend over and take it in the ass" foreign policy culminated in 9/11.
> 
> ...



Agreed, except I think 9/11 had a lot more to do with past policy towards the middle east.  I will agree that Bill Clinton being a pussy allowed 9/11 to happen, but I don't think he entirely caused the tension that led to it.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Mar 1, 2008)

danzik17 said:


> Agreed, except I think 9/11 had a lot more to do with past policy towards the middle east.



The political aspect of 9/11 is greater than most think, IMO.

I worked with some very moderate Muslims and they said "look, the US did 9/11 to themselves."  

In a way, this sentiment spot-on.  

Blind and unconditional support of Israel is noted by Muslims all over the world, even in the UK.  

Also, overthrowing Mossadegh in 1953 in Iran over oil and putting the Shah in power again.

Also, carving up these nation-states (by the UK).

Bill Clinton was weak in the 90s as the attack (12 attacks) were going on.

Would the 9/11 hijackers been allowed to enter the US and learn how to fly planes, and get financing?

I think they still could have pulled off 9/11 even if Bill Clinton was tougher.

Unfortunately, there will be another terrorist attack in the USA.  We don't know when it will happen or where, but eventually some attack will be pulled off.  They methodically plan, they have patience, they have financing, and they are willing to die. 

 I will agree that Bill Clinton being a pussy allowed 9/11 to happen, but I don't think he entirely caused the tension that led to it.[/QUOTE]


----------



## DOMS (Mar 1, 2008)

Big Smoothy said:


> What is so surprising is that the official American policy in the middle east for 80 yeas has been to support dictatorships to provide stability.  Keeping the radical groups and elements at bay.



And this is the only way to deal with Arabs.  Well, aside form nuking their whole shitty region into a giant mirror.

Bush had no right to change that policy.


----------



## DOMS (Mar 1, 2008)

danzik17 said:


> Agreed, except I think 9/11 had a lot more to do with past policy towards the middle east.  I will agree that Bill Clinton being a pussy allowed 9/11 to happen, but I don't think he entirely caused the tension that led to it.



I completely agree.


----------



## maniclion (Mar 2, 2008)

DOMS said:


> And this is the only way to deal with Arabs.  Well, aside form nuking their whole shitty region into a giant mirror.
> 
> Bush had no right to change that policy.


Clinton had better reasons to go into Iraq than Bush's unsubstantiated rumors about WMD's because there were some metal tubes.  I know Clinton did because I saw the actual intelligence coming out of that area during 97-98 but I can't go into detail....


----------



## DOMS (Mar 2, 2008)

Big Smoothy said:


> Americans are sheep.



Most people, the world over, are sheep.


----------



## lucifuge (Mar 2, 2008)

Holy Crap... people actually admitted that 9/11 was NOT Bush's fault.


----------



## brogers (Mar 2, 2008)

The muslim fanatics are going to be a thorn in our side until we adopt the 1940's mentality that we had against the Japanese, who were nearly as insane as the muslim fanatics are now, (think running planes into stuff is new?)  We need to stop ignoring the fact that the Saudis and other arab nations are pumping money into radical mosques all over the world and training radical clerics and hold those nuts accountable.

I'm generally a very market-solutions oriented person, but I would have absolutely no problem if the government launched a massive public works project to construct nuclear plants (to produce hydrogen from excess power) and a hydrogen gas infrastructure network so we can have the freedom to put those dark-age throwbacks in their place.  We would probably save money by doing this, since we can cut most, if not all foreign aid and cut back our military presence there.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Mar 2, 2008)

brogers said:


> The muslim fanatics are going to be a thorn in our side until we adopt the 1940's mentality that we had against the Japanese, who were nearly as insane as the muslim fanatics are now....



The Japanese were completely different in their aims and objectives.
There is no correlation among Hirojito and the modern day Muslim fanatics.

Please cite your sources when you state these claims. I've never read this anywhere. 



> I'm generally a very market-solutions oriented person, but I would have absolutely no problem if the government launched a massive public works project to construct nuclear plants (to produce hydrogen from excess power) and a hydrogen gas infrastructure network so we can have the freedom to put those dark-age throwbacks in their place.  We would probably save money by doing this, since we can cut most, if not all foreign aid and cut back our military presence there.



I did not know that domestic energy sources were the heart of the matter.

Again, cite your sources on this.


----------



## brogers (Mar 2, 2008)

What source needs to be cited?  The Japanese were nearly just as fanatical, completely willing to sacrifice their lives in the fight and used suicide tactics.  I made NO comparison about their aims/objectives, merely their mindset, perhaps you should learn to read before you reply.  We broke them by using massive bombing campaigns against their cities (Hiroshima was NOTHING compared to what we did to the rest of the country).

Domestic energy is not the problem, the use of excess power from nuclear plants, which are much better being run at full capacity, to make hydrogen for hydrogen powered vehicles, which gain about a factor of 3 in efficiency over combustion engines as a side bonus, would reduce our middle eastern oil demands to near zero.  I think this could be done for less than the 300 billion or whatever we're spending now in Iraq.


----------



## danzik17 (Mar 2, 2008)

brogers said:


> What source needs to be cited?  The Japanese were nearly just as fanatical, completely willing to sacrifice their lives in the fight and used suicide tactics.  I made NO comparison about their aims/objectives, merely their mindset, perhaps you should learn to read before you reply.  We broke them by using massive bombing campaigns against their cities (Hiroshima was NOTHING compared to what we did to the rest of the country).
> 
> Domestic energy is not the problem, the use of excess power from nuclear plants, which are much better being run at full capacity, to make hydrogen for hydrogen powered vehicles, which gain about a factor of 3 in efficiency over combustion engines as a side bonus, would reduce our middle eastern oil demands to near zero.  I think this could be done for less than the 300 billion or whatever we're spending now in Iraq.



Probably for much less, but then the oil companies wouldn't keep breaking record profit levels.


----------



## danzik17 (Mar 2, 2008)

lucifuge said:


> Holy Crap... people actually admitted that 9/11 was NOT Bush's fault.



I never did say it was Bush's fault.  What I'm saying is Bush responded to 9/11 like a retard and has been nothing but a catastrophe for this country.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Mar 2, 2008)

brogers said:


> What source needs to be cited?  The Japanese were nearly just as fanatical, completely willing to sacrifice their lives in the fight and used suicide tactics.



The Kamikazes?

The Kamikaze suicide missions started in 1944, after the Japanese ran out of oil, and therefore, airplane fuel.  

They couldn't even train pilots to use navigation equipment.

You fill up the tank of the plane, and say, "follow the leader."  

"Go that way."

But yes, suicide is a phenomenon in Japan, and soldier would cut disembowel themselves with their sword and die with "honor," whatever that mean.


----------



## brogers (Mar 3, 2008)

Obama's platform:  Disarm America.






YouTube Video











honestly, frightening that he even has a chance to be CNC.


----------



## DOMS (Mar 3, 2008)

Obama's stance on NAFTA.


----------



## min0 lee (Mar 10, 2008)




----------



## danzik17 (Mar 10, 2008)

OH GOD.  Why Mino.  Why?!?!?


----------



## brogers (Mar 13, 2008)

Obama's spiritual adviser, pastor, inspiration for his book's title, and the man who baptized his children.  Both of these are short and worth a watch.






YouTube Video
















YouTube Video


----------



## brogers (Mar 13, 2008)

Theres tons more of those gyms on Youtube.


----------



## BigDyl (Mar 14, 2008)

Nobody is replying because you've already convinced them that Obama is a muslim with a strange name.  Don't worry, everyone's voting for McCain now.


----------



## DOMS (Mar 14, 2008)

Almost well said, BigDyl! 

I thought that since Obama's mother is white and his father is a Kenyan, that he wouldn't have the black American's sense of entitlement, but it appears that is not the case. 

Just another reason not to vote for Obama.


----------



## lucifuge (Mar 14, 2008)

DOMS said:


> Just another reason not to vote for Obama.



Here's another one for ya DOMS'

Obama to Sun-Times: Rezko 'a significant fundraiser' :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: Barack Obama

I'm sure it's just a coincidence though...Obama can't really be just as corrupt as all the other politicians.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Mar 14, 2008)

BigDyl said:


> Nobody is replying because you've already convinced them that Obama is a muslim with a strange name.  Don't worry, everyone's voting for McCain now.



I'm not saying McCain is dumb, but he's not the most sophisticated guy around.

He's too old, and he has Neo-Con tendencies, based upon his statements, IMO.

His real chance was in 2000, and GWB used racist push polling to screw him in South Carolina.


----------



## Splash Log (Mar 15, 2008)

Why to vote McCain:

In 1995, Sen. McCain Had A "Scuffle" With 92-Year-Old Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-SC) On The Senate Floor. "In January 1995, McCain was midway through an opening statement at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing when chairman Strom Thurmond asked, 'Is the senator about through?' McCain glared at Thurmond, thanked him for his 'courtesy' (translation: buzz off), and continued on. McCain later confronted Thurmond on the Senate floor. A scuffle ensued, and the two didn't part friends." (Harry Jaffe, "Senator Hothead," The Washingtonian, 2/97)

No sarcasm, I think thats badass.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Mar 15, 2008)

Here is a link to Pastor Hagee, who has been linked with McCain:

John Hagee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## brogers (Mar 15, 2008)

I suppose McCain has been sitting in his pews for 20 years, was married by him, takes his children to go see him on Sundays?

No?  That's what B. H. Obama has been doing with our friend Jeremiah Wright, mr. US of KKA, God damnn america, Jesus was a black man, etc, etc, etc."


----------



## BigDyl (Mar 15, 2008)

Obama's reply:

Controversial minister off Obama's campaign - CNN.com


----------



## kbm8795 (Mar 15, 2008)

brogers said:


> I suppose McCain has been sitting in his pews for 20 years, was married by him, takes his children to go see him on Sundays?
> 
> No?  That's what B. H. Obama has been doing with our friend Jeremiah Wright, mr. US of KKA, God damnn america, Jesus was a black man, etc, etc, etc."



Oh puh-leeze. Millions of Americans are married by their "ministers," and attend churches where they don't always agree or follow the absolute dictates of the preacher. 

It is interesting to note that conservatives kept their lips closed during the Catholic child abuse scandals, never mentioning that the same priests that were marrying millions of Americans, giving last rites at funerals, and baptizing their children were molesting them down the road. By association, those millions of Americans must have implicitly endorsed the behavior of those priests and participated in that epic criminal coverup. 

Considering the ridiculous rants of conservative "religious" clowns like Robertson, Falwell, Rev. Moon, McSame's other "spiritual" advisor Rod Parsley, Dobson, and Hutcherson, this selective little sermon is pretty tame. Weren't conservatives concerned about those "religious" extremists on speed dial to the White House? 

Besides, I thought the conservative line was that Obama was a Muslim. You mean he's not? Well WTF? Why would a wingnut repeat an intentional falsehood over and over again to fellow Americans, especially when they love their country so much? 

Well now I'm confused. You mean the little white baby Jesus, born in a Middle Eastern country, who is shoved onto the town square nativity scene each holiday season might not have really been a white European?  Shocking.


----------



## kbm8795 (Mar 15, 2008)

BigDyl said:


> Obama's reply:
> 
> Controversial minister off Obama's campaign - CNN.com





Hmm...now let's see what McSame does with Hagee and Parsley. . .


----------



## kbm8795 (Mar 15, 2008)

brogers said:


> I suppose McCain has been sitting in his pews for 20 years, was married by him, takes his children to go see him on Sundays?



I'd like to know whose pews McSame was sitting in when he was screwing around with not-yet-wife #2 while still married to wife #1.


----------



## DOMS (Mar 15, 2008)

kbm8795 said:


> It is interesting to note that conservatives kept their lips closed during the Catholic child abuse scandals



And a lot of conservatives didn't keep the mouths shut.  Beside, that garbage wasn't preached from the pulpit.

But feel free to keep trying to reach.


----------



## brogers (Mar 15, 2008)

DOMS said:


> And a lot of conservatives didn't keep the mouths shut.  Beside, that garbage wasn't preached from the pulpit.
> 
> But feel free to keep trying to reach.



The guy is honestly deranged.  Too far gone.


----------



## lucifuge (Mar 15, 2008)

DOMS said:


> And a lot of conservatives didn't keep the mouths shut.  Beside, that garbage wasn't preached from the pulpit.
> 
> But feel free to keep trying to reach.




I agree, this is completely unrelated.


----------



## DOMS (Mar 15, 2008)

brogers said:


> The guy is honestly deranged.  Too far gone.



Oh, he is, but it's fun to watch his run around like a hamster in a box.  Or maybe it's more like a gerbil...


----------



## DOMS (Mar 15, 2008)

lucifuge said:


> I agree, this is completely unrelated.



When you're a liberal wingnut, you don't have to worry about that sort of thing.


----------



## kbm8795 (Mar 15, 2008)

DOMS said:


> And a lot of conservatives didn't keep the mouths shut.  Beside, that garbage wasn't preached from the pulpit.
> 
> But feel free to keep trying to reach.



They didn't?  Interesting, particularly since there were lots of cases where conservative public officials knew for decades about child abuse and turned the other cheek because they didn't want to run up against the Catholic hierarchy. 

As for garbage preached from the pulpit, I suppose we'll get to see some video clips from McSame's "spiritual" advisers, including wingnut nutcases Hagee, who screeched that Hurricane Katrina was a punishment from God, and Rod Parsley, who, among other things, claims that "America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion {of Islam} destroyed." 

Now that conservatives have finally established that Obama really isn't a Muslim (gosh, y'all were just clowning around when ya started that rumor, right?) maybe we'll get to see some video of Falwell blaming 9/11 on women's rights and da gays. . .or Pat Robertson, who has been on speed dial to the current White House, proclaiming that the State Department should be nuked. 

But since conservatives are attempting to claim that there is a difference between being an appointed spiritual leader (like McSame's crazy-ass wingnut ministers) and being planted in a pew for so many years, does this mean we'll get to see clips of McSame's minister spewing forth damnation about adultery? Or aren't Americans entitled to know the "religious" connections of Republican candidates and how they obviously must follow every directive spewed forth from the pulpit. 

Let's see here. . .Rev. Wright was about 23 years old in 1963. So what was America like for him? Why. . .separate drinking fountains, separate waiting rooms, separate bathrooms, separate seating (or none) in movie theaters and lunch counters. I'd be damning America too if my history was of witnessing that ridiculous story of white-only entitlement, especially 100 years after the Emancipation Proclamation. Y'all don't think there were any Presidents (since they've all been white males) attending all-white churches with featured pulpit pronouncements from some of the the finest wingnut ministers?


----------



## kbm8795 (Mar 15, 2008)

brogers said:


> The guy is honestly deranged.  Too far gone.




This coming from a self-appointed spokesmodel for a political party financially supported by a South Korean "religious" cultist who not only owns one of the wingnut's most beloved "conservative" newspapers, but claims he is the "monarch of America."


----------



## kbm8795 (Mar 15, 2008)

lucifuge said:


> I agree, this is completely unrelated.




Yes, we understand. Conservatives aren't responsible for the sermons of their ministers.


----------



## lucifuge (Mar 15, 2008)

kbm8795 said:


> Yes, we understand. Conservatives aren't responsible for the sermons of their ministers.



I don't think anyone is responsible for the sermons of anyone's minister. That has nothing to do with it ya dingus. I'll try to keep this simple, even though I'm sure you'll spin off into one of your rants about a completely different individual.

first, re-read the title of this thread... ok, now that we have that established, can we agree that it has absolutely nothing to do with George Bush, John McCain, Bill or Hillary Clinton, catholicism, homosexuals, etc.

O.K., here it is:

Obama is trying to pass himself off as the 'candidate of change' (which I still consider a fucking ignorant statement) and he is going to unite the country.
He has all these pretty and inspirational speeches and a bunch of idiots drooling all over every thing that comes out of his mouth.

As time passes, it become known that the 'candidate of change' has been 'friends' with Tony Rezko (indicted for strong arm campaign financing) for 17 years.
Barack Obama and his slumlord patron :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: Metro & Tri-State
 Not only concerning campaign financing, but also some questionable land deals. That is not _change_, that's politics as usual.

As for Jerimiah White... He's racist and anti american, and _Obama knew it_. How the hell does that illustrate his claim of 'uniting the country'. He's been a memeber of a radical segregationist church for 20 years. His pastor inspired him so much he wrote a book about it. Then, knowing full well his pastors political views, he had him onboard his campaign staff. Now, some of good ol Jerimiah's comments are really being scrutinized, Obama goes into damage control mode. To put it simply, *Barack Obama is a fraud*.


----------



## kbm8795 (Mar 15, 2008)

lucifuge said:


> I don't think anyone is responsible for the sermons of anyone's minister. That has nothing to do with it ya dingus. I'll try to keep this simple, even though I'm sure you'll spin off into one of your rants about a completely different individual.
> 
> first, re-read the title of this thread... ok, now that we have that established, can we agree that it has absolutely nothing to do with George Bush, John McCain, Bill or Hillary Clinton, catholicism, homosexuals, etc.
> 
> ...



It must be quite disturbing to consider a candidate might set a goal of uniting a country - especially during a time when conservatives claim we are at "war." Everyone knows that a divided country - a nation at odds with itself - always wins wars, so any candidate promoting unity and change MUST be a fraud. 

I suppose we could blame George Bush for that, since he campaigned on being a "uniter, not a divider" and then had to deliver to the most divisive elements of the Right after election. So the country got wars in AfghanLand and Iraq abroad, and "culture" and economic wars at home. And no one took any responsibility, because the dividers don't believe in responsibility - only perpetuation of power. 

So aren't you leaving out a few details? Those "other individuals" you don't want brought up - meaning GOP "religious" and "spiritual" advisers, have openly and publicly damned America repeatedly. So who is McSame's minister, anyway? I'd like to hear his sermons promoting infidelity, since the contention here is that a candidate must endorse everything his minister says, and we already know McSame is an adulterer. Will McSame be properly branded "un-Christian" or "anti-Christian" for committing adultery against the views of his church? Or will McSame be touting a promotion of adultery because his minister said it was all-American in a sermon attacking the American family? Does McSame change churches as soon as he wants to commit a "sin" his minister doesn't like? Is his church "segregationist" if they don't have more than a couple of almost-white members? Was Eisenhower's church "radical segregationist?" Was Bushes "church" racist and segregationalist? What about Clinton? Johnson? Kennedy? Surely one of those churches had more than just lily-white people in them, right. . .and always a white preacher too. And wasn't Kennedy expected to be a direct stooge of the Pope? You should be able to answer all of those questions - after reading the part of the U.S. Constitution which says there is to be no "religious" litmus test for holding public office. 

So who says Obama is a member of a "radical segregationist church for 20 years?" Who declared he (or his minister) was "racist and anti-American?" Is he as anti-American as Pat Robertson? As anti-American as Rod Parsley? As anti-American as Jerry Falwell?  It looks like a neighborhood United Church of Christ denomination....unlike the non-denominational political action committees passing for "churches" used by the GOP. If you are lamely attempting to claim that Obama is responsible for the opinions of a retired minister of his 6,000-member church, then I suppose we should be holding conservatives responsible for the opinions of the Religious Right - or at the very least, questioning the "religious" nature of their own beliefs when they went against those ministers (like in McSame's infidelity). When you make the claim that a minister's beliefs must be transferred 100% to a member of the congregation, then the other candidates must be subjected to the same level of scrutiny. 

Did you forget to include what capacity Wright was serving on Obama's campaign? It wasn't as "spiritual advisor" in the manner McSame describes his rightwing evangelical snakehandlers, was it? Are there videos showing Obama speaking about policies in the same manner as Wright, echoing his words? Is Wright running for President? How is his "church" segregationist? Do they not let whites join the congregation? And how can Republicans whine about "radical" when they have to kiss the ass of people like Robertson and Dobson, two of the most "radical" theocrats in the country? 

Did I miss the part where Obama was indicted by a federal court for a friendship with Rezko? 


Conservatives have been running around in their typically "we-love-America-so-much-that-any-lie-to-get-what-we-want-from-her" mode for months now. I thought the Right told us that Obama was supposed to be a Muslim. Why yep. . .there it is, in Ann Coulter's columns, on Rush's talk radio program, along with the "Barack, the Magic Negro" song. But then the Right told us that Bush would be a representative from God - in fact some state Republican parties declared "God" as their chairman - and then railed against fellow Americans for daring to question that contention.

So now you are saying that, apparently, Americans should reject Obama as incapable of offering any sort of change, because you don't like the "religious" views of his retired minister and you don't like that he knew Tony Rezko. Of course, you weren't going to vote for Obama anyway, because you are all about more-of-the-McSame - but yet pretend to be acutely concerned about the "religious" beliefs of a candidate you didn't like anyway. 

But let's just say that it really is just "politics as usual". . .that Obama's tenure in public office is only mildly less corrupt than McSame and Clinton because he hasn't been around as long. We'll just eliminate Obama as a serious candidate because you have such a high standard for ethical politics - or - at least don't like the idea of any sort of real change and expect America to accept corruption-as-usual since conservatives have offered nothing more. That would leave us McSame, who next week has to file his FEC reports - reports that might leave him vulnerable for indictment for violating his own touted campaign finance regulations - yet he claims exemption from them now. . .a candidate who rails against lobbyists but who is surrounded by them managing his own campaign. Or that leaves Hillary Clinton, who has already shown an amazing ability to be as duplicitous as any Republican. 

So your goal here was to desperately try to demonstrate why Obama is just as much slime as McSame and Clinton because you claim his minister is racist and segregationist. And because the man mentored and was friendly with him, Obama MUST share the same opinions. After all, isn't that what real individual conservative Americans share with their ministers - if they are REALLY "Christians?" 

Now we'll just forget that conservatives have already tried pretending that Obama is a "muslim." And we'll just forget that their own candidate is one they fear-and-smeared under the bus in order to give us the amazingly popular and effective George W. Bush and now they want to present him to us as a "hero" and a "centrist." And we'll sure forget that the issues in this presidential election are about real grown-up problems like the economy and the war and the crumbling infrastructure so we can let the grade school playground bullies haul out video clips of a man's minister and declare he is a "radical segregationist" who will. . ..gasp. . .destroy America. We'll even forget the magnificent job Republicans have already done in causing that destruction, and the multiple times they invoked "God" as justification for their failed policies. Let's just even forget the Constitution and the "no religious litmus test" clause because conservatives suddenly declared that presidential candidates (except theirs) are clones of their church ministers. 

We'll just all tell ourselves that conservatives "love" America SOOOO much. . .


----------



## brogers (Mar 15, 2008)

lucifuge said:


> I don't think anyone is responsible for the sermons of anyone's minister. That has nothing to do with it ya dingus. I'll try to keep this simple, even though I'm sure you'll spin off into one of your rants about a completely different individual.
> 
> first, re-read the title of this thread... ok, now that we have that established, can we agree that it has absolutely nothing to do with George Bush, John McCain, Bill or Hillary Clinton, catholicism, homosexuals, etc.
> 
> ...



It's really best to just ignore him.  He gave up on reality and reason a long time ago.  Doesn't matter what the thread is about, he'll manage to turn it into some type of rant about heterosexual white Christians or Republicans.


----------



## lucifuge (Mar 15, 2008)

brogers said:


> It's really best to just ignore him.  He gave up on reality and reason a long time ago.  Doesn't matter what the thread is about, he'll manage to turn it into some type of rant about heterosexual white Christians or Republicans.




Yeah, you're probably right...
However,

KBM8795, I am neither a repulican or a christian.
You simply refuse to accept the fact that I am not talking about anyone else other than Barack Obama. I don't know why you can't accept that, but you obviously cannot. I am not going to sit here and debate with you.


----------



## kbm8795 (Mar 15, 2008)

brogers said:


> It's really best to just ignore him.  He gave up on reality and reason a long time ago.  Doesn't matter what the thread is about, he'll manage to turn it into some type of rant about heterosexual white Christians or Republicans.




Ignoring is always easier than engaging in a reality and reason discussion with substance.

Now why do you care so much about Obama anyway? It isn't like you were planning on voting for him. . .wait. . .don't tell me....it's your undying love of country. 


Now just because you aren't capable of coming up with better arguments to support the thread's intention, don't pick up your ball and run home with your lip stuck out.


----------



## kbm8795 (Mar 15, 2008)

lucifuge said:


> Yeah, you're probably right...
> However,
> 
> KBM8795, I am neither a repulican or a christian.
> You simply refuse to accept the fact that I am not talking about anyone else other than Barack Obama. I don't know why you can't accept that, but you obviously cannot. I am not going to sit here and debate with you.



And you simply refuse to actually discuss Barack Obama beyond making pretty shallow accusations about his character. So, that's actually all you intended to do here - you weren't seeking a discussion about Barack Obama - you were seeking a choir to sing along.

At least come up with some better research to support the points.


----------



## DOMS (Mar 15, 2008)

kbm8795 said:


> Ignoring is always easier than *engaging in a reality* and reason discussion with substance.


----------



## kbm8795 (Mar 15, 2008)

DOMS said:


>




I thought you'd appreciate that . .


----------



## busyLivin (Mar 16, 2008)

kbm8795 said:


> .don't tell me....it's your undying love of country.




Pretty much my reasoning for being worried about a President Obama. Is it really that funny to love your country?


----------



## danzik17 (Mar 16, 2008)

busyLivin said:


> Pretty much my reasoning for being worried about a President Obama. Is it really that funny to love your country?



Just out of curiosity, if you really love your country, what is your rationale for supporting Bush at all?  He has called the very foundation of our country "just a goddamned piece of paper".  That alone is impeachable and convictable in my eyes when you are in a position such as his, not to mention his thousands of verifiable crimes.


----------



## kbm8795 (Mar 16, 2008)

busyLivin said:


> Pretty much my reasoning for being worried about a President Obama. Is it really that funny to love your country?



It is when you seem to be so disinterested in it's history and the multiple experiences of her people.


----------

