Why has this Not been discussed?

[olevetonahill]

Obama says Now That he wont used the 85 Mil in matching campaign funds .
Doesnt that show he has Integrity and stuff ?

[Soonerus]

Obama says Now That he wont used the 85 Mil in matching campaign funds .
Doesnt that show he has Integrity and stuff ?

I think maybe he has changed his mind...

[olevetonahill]

I think maybe he has changed his mind...

He did
He was gonna take em, NOW he says Nay.

[Soonerus]

I'll bet he takes it...

[olevetonahill]

I'll bet he takes it...

So your sayin he will Flip Flop ?

[Soonerus]

So your sayin he will Flip Flop ?

flip flop then flip and flop...

[mdklatt]

I'll bet he takes it...

If he accepts public funding there will be restrictions on the amount of money he can spend. He's got a lot more money than McCain right now, so why handicap himself?

[mdklatt]

Obama says Now That he wont used the 85 Mil in matching campaign funds .
Doesnt that show he has Integrity and stuff ?

That depends on whether or not you think he reneged on an earlier pledge to accept public funding. McCain has accepted public funding, probably not out of any integrity on his own part but because he needs the money.

[Soonerus]

That depends on whether or not you think he reneged on an earlier pledge to accept public funding. McCain has accepted public funding, probably not out of any integrity on his own part but because he needs the money.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:...

[olevetonahill]

That depends on whether or not you think he reneged on an earlier pledge to accept public funding. McCain has accepted public funding, probably not out of any integrity on his own part but because he needs the money.

So wheres obama getting all these Bucks ?he can turn down 85 Mil . Plus he said he was gonna hep ole hillary pay off her debts ?

[Blue]

He sells rocks in Southside Chicago, while rollin in his escalade with spinners on his way to his yellow house with purple shutters. Keep up! :D

[KC//CRIMSON]

Obama opens up 15 point lead over McCain.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/142465

The meltdown is going to be EPIC!

[mdklatt]

So wheres obama getting all these Bucks ?

The innerweb.


http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/20/obama.financing/


The presumptive Democratic nominee has smashed fundraising records this cycle by harnessing the power of the Internet to raise the once unimaginable sum of almost $266 million from more than 1.5 million donors through the end of April.

...

Sen. John McCain, on the other hand, has raised $93 million through April.

[mdklatt]

Obama opens up 15 point lead over McCain.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/142465



The new poll finds that only 14 percent of Americans say they are satisfied with the direction of the country.

And I think all of them post here. :D

[Rogue]

I can't tell if this is a big deal or not.
Talking heads keep saying he's the first to decline public $$ "SINCE WATERGATE" as if that's relevant somehow.

Go ahead and keep making the point about flip-flopping. See which candidate that sticks to this time.

[Scott D]

Well with the media, anything that hasn't happened in nearly 4 decades is very newsworthy.

[Jerk]

When George Soros is backing you, you don't need taxpayer dollars.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

When George Soros is backing you, you don't need taxpayer dollars.Who didn't know that?...Olevet?

[Jerk]

Who didn't know that?...Olevet?

George Soros is living proof that there is no 'right wing conspiracy.' If there were such a thing, then he'd be dead.

[SleestakSooner]

I can't tell if this is a big deal or not.
Talking heads keep saying he's the first to decline public $$ "SINCE WATERGATE" as if that's relevant somehow.

Go ahead and keep making the point about flip-flopping. See which candidate that sticks to this time.

After Nixon left office congress began the public funding program. Since its inception Obama is the first candidate to decline the public funding.

[King Crimson]

Obama opens up 15 point lead over McCain.



Dukakis had a 17 point lead on George Bush.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/85/Michael_Dukakis_in_tank.jpg/200px-Michael_Dukakis_in_tank.jpg

[Blue]

Both will be limp noodles in my opinion. I hope I'm wrong.

[olevetonahill]

Who didn't know that?...Olevet?

Why you think I brot it up ?
:D

[olevetonahill]

After reading this I understand Now .
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080619/ap_on_el_pr/obama_money_analysis;_ylt=AtuLSJTHUeSr_u5qdtsDq.7C w5R4

[StoopTroup]

Why would any Candidate do something that would hurt his chances to beat the other Candidate?

Whether Obama takes the money or doesn't really shouldn't be an issue to any of you IMO.

It's just a game.

The First Candidate to crack and play dirty will be McCain and all of you know it.

[Harry Beanbag]

They're both dirty. Probably because they're pieces of ****.

[olevetonahill]

OK
I guess Yall are right
Ill go back to My crayons Now :P

[Okla-homey]

You ask why has this not been discussed?

How dare anyone be critical of BHO? :eek:

The only people who are against him are against him because they are racist knuckle-dragging haterz. Get with it people! He's the Savior of America and Builder of the Big Rock Candy Mountain. He will feed us all ambrosia and the streets will be made of gold. Our air and water will be clean and pure, global warming will be reversed forever, gasoline will be .37 a gallon, everyone will be able to go the the doctor anytime they want and their prescriptions will be free, only evil rich people will pay taxes, the rest of the world will love us again or, for the first time, because I'm not sure they ever really loved us in the first place, but I digress.

Anyhoo, It'll be one big, enormous kumbaya fest. All your dreams will come true. A veritable renaissance of the Age of Aquarius. "Do not pay attention to the man behind the curtain." You gotta trust and believe. Change.

:O

[stoopified]

If he accepts public funding there will be restrictions on the amount of money he can spend. He's got a lot more money than McCain right now, so why handicap himself?So you are saying he hopes to BUY his way into THE WHITE HOUSE?

[olevetonahill]

So you are saying he hopes to BUY his way into THE WHITE HOUSE?

Pretty much what I understood him to say !

[Harry Beanbag]

Does anybody else think spending ~ half a billion dollars on an election is retarded? The entire time the candidates pander to the poor telling them how they'll make their lives so much better. How 'bout dividing that $500,000,000 and giving it to them? That's more than enough money to make everyone below the poverty line millionaires for crying out loud.

[olevetonahill]

But Harry they Need that 400,000 a year Job ;)

[Okla-homey]

Does anybody else think spending ~ half a billion dollars on an election is retarded? The entire time the candidates pander to the poor telling them how they'll make their lives so much better. How 'bout dividing that $500,000,000 and giving it to them? That's more than enough money to make everyone below the poverty line millionaires for crying out loud.

You know what would be cool? Instead of donation caps and what not, we should amend the Constitution to state that no campaigning shall be allowed until 45 days before the general election, and campaigns are limited to only one piece of direct mail per household.

[StoopTroup]

Could Political Spam be unlimited?

That would be so cool.

Especially the email stuff about Obama being a muslim.

That stuff is really starting to swing me towards McCain. :D

[Scott D]

So you are saying he hopes to BUY his way into THE WHITE HOUSE?

That's how politics work. You take money from other people to grease the wheels and buy your way into political office. Whether or not you are still on the take with certain lobbies is kinda up to you at that point.

The irony is that those who are in the senate running for president are trading a higher salary for more power. So it pretty much lets you know where their mindset is.

[Scott D]

You ask why has this not been discussed?

How dare anyone be critical of BHO? :eek:

The only people who are against him are against him because they are racist knuckle-dragging haterz. Get with it people! He's the Savior of America and Builder of the Big Rock Candy Mountain. He will feed us all ambrosia and the streets will be made of gold. Our air and water will be clean and pure, global warming will be reversed forever, gasoline will be .37 a gallon, everyone will be able to go the the doctor anytime they want and their prescriptions will be free, only evil rich people will pay taxes, the rest of the world will love us again or, for the first time, because I'm not sure they ever really loved us in the first place, but I digress.

Anyhoo, It'll be one big, enormous kumbaya fest. All your dreams will come true. A veritable renaissance of the Age of Aquarius. "Do not pay attention to the man behind the curtain." You gotta trust and believe. Change.

:O

Actually, I'm waiting for your next thread to nitpick him to be about an even more irrelevant topic than your last one.

[olevetonahill]

I really dont GAF but heres somemore :pop:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080621/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_money

[MojoRisen]

Watch out, I saw a bumper sticker with Mark Warner as Obama running mate. Virginia is messed up hellish legislation -

Good luck to us all

[JohnnyMack]

The problem is the 527s. If it were a legitimate campaign with Obama running a campaign with X dollars and McCain running a campaign with the same amount it would be fine.

That and Obama realized that the RNC had about twice the money the DNC did.

[47straight]

You know what would be cool? Instead of donation caps and what not, we should amend the Constitution to state that no campaigning shall be allowed until 45 days before the general election, and campaigns are limited to only one piece of direct mail per household.

Does that include the official campaign, or all the free stuff done by CBS, CNN, NBC, Newsweek, the NY Times, etc?

[Scott D]

Personally, I'd prefer no direct mail, no solicitation phone calls, no media coverage. Just these yahoos going out and trying to convince the sheeple that they aren't a wolf in sheep's clothing with the intent of lining their pocketbook at the expense of all Americans that aren't in their 'inner circle'.

Any found guilty of lying about it. Execution without chance of exoneration.

[Harry Beanbag]

Personally, I'd prefer no direct mail, no solicitation phone calls, no media coverage. Just these yahoos going out and trying to convince the sheeple that they aren't a wolf in sheep's clothing with the intent of lining their pocketbook at the expense of all Americans that aren't in their 'inner circle'.

Any found guilty of lying about it. Execution without chance of exoneration.

Sounds good to me. There would be no politicians left though. :)

[Scott D]

Sounds good to me. There would be no politicians left though. :)

and the problem would be what? :D

[Big Red Ron]

If he accepts public funding there will be restrictions on the amount of money he can spend. He's got a lot more money than McCain right now, so why handicap himself?
Because he signed a pledge saying he would.

BTW - He'll be the first since Watergate to do this.

Not only is it a flip flop, it opens him up to greater scrutiny.

[Okla-homey]

Actually, I'm waiting for your next thread to nitpick him to be about an even more irrelevant topic than your last one.

One mans "nitpicking" is another man's example of substantive evidence why this populist snake oil salesman is less qualified for the most powerful office in the free world than just about anyone else who was in the race, donk or pub. Except for Dennis Kucinich of course. He's just wacky.

Moreover, all the guy has is his rap, rep, beliefs and persona. There is no body of public work or accomplishment because before his yet unfinished first term in the Senate, he was a Chicago machine insertion into the Illinois legislature. Since arriving in the Senate, he's been a full-time presidential candidate. Therefore, his rap, rep, beliefs and persona are legitimate areas for discussion. Put another way, these things may seem superficial and "irrelevant" but they are all the public has to go on with regard to this guy.

One other thing. I don't want this guy's finger on "the" button, because I don't trust him to do what must be done. Deterrence only works if the opposition thinks the other side will retaliate in kind. This guy has publicly stated he intends to disarm the US and delay or cancel force modernization. He asserts the QDR is simply trumped up claptrap to justify wasteful spending on national defense.

It also bugs me he voted against the Iraq campaign despite hearing the same briefings everyone else did. It matters not those briefings now appear to have been innacurate. What's important is at that time, he refused to approve pre-emptive measures against a tyrant the intelligence agencies of the whole flippin' western world believed was on the verge of going berzerk on us and/or our allies. He wears that as a badge of honor. I personally think its shameful, disgraceful and disqualifies him from serious consideration by an informed electorate.

[King Crimson]

if you wanna talk about Big Rock Candy Mountain, how about the Iraqi citizens greeting us with flowers as liberators once we deposed Saddamn. we'll just build BRCM in Iraq, no prob.

so, if your argument is that S. Hussein was going to "go berzerk" on the western world, c'mon? having WMD (false or true) is one thing, a tactical total war suicide strategy to "go berzerk" on the west....that's not even admissable as an assertion.

you grow more and more irrational everyday Homes.

Saddam was not a radical islamofascist. let's keep our manufactured terminologies somewhat correct.

[Scott D]

One mans "nitpicking" is another man's example of substantive evidence why this populist snake oil salesman is less qualified for the most powerful office in the free world than just about anyone else who was in the race, donk or pub. Except for Dennis Kucinich of course. He's just wacky.

Moreover, all the guy has is his rap, rep, beliefs and persona. There is no body of public work or accomplishment because before his yet unfinished first term in the Senate, he was a Chicago machine insertion into the Illinois legislature. Since arriving in the Senate, he's been a full-time presidential candidate. Therefore, his rap, rep, beliefs and persona are legitimate areas for discussion. Put another way, these things may seem superficial and "irrelevant" but they are all the public has to go on with regard to this guy.

One other thing. I don't want this guy's finger on "the" button, because I don't trust him to do what must be done. Deterrence only works if the opposition thinks the other side will retaliate in kind. This guy has publicly stated he intends to disarm the US and delay or cancel force modernization. He asserts the QDR is simply trumped up claptrap to justify wasteful spending on national defense.

It also bugs me he voted against the Iraq campaign despite hearing the same briefings everyone else did. It matters not those briefings now appear to have been innacurate. What's important is at that time, he refused to approve pre-emptive measures against a tyrant the intelligence agencies of the whole flippin' western world believed was on the verge of going berzerk on us and/or our allies. He wears that as a badge of honor. I personally think its shameful, disgraceful and disqualifies him from serious consideration by an informed electorate.

None of them are truly qualified for it. None of them actually deserve it. None of them are certainly worthy of it. However, the system is what the system is. And it's one thing to make objections based on actual issues, and how they affect your decision making process.

However, blatantly biased nonsense that has absolutely nothing to do with whether someone is electable is exactly that..nonsense. What relevance did the seal have to anything? Absolutely none...it was another opening for you to take a pot shot. Next you'll take a pot shot because he wore sandals to the beach instead of flipflops as a teenager. I suppose you can follow that up with saying that he knows nothing about the plight of the average american because when he was growing up Hawaii didn't have a K-Mart for him to have to go the layaway route with school clothes.

Maybe, just maybe if the shots you took at a candidate stuck to the issues, and not to **** that has nothing to do with basically anything. The sad part is, unlike most people, it wasn't the "hip hop culture" mockery in that thread that I had a problem with. It was the trivial non issue that you attempted to make into a giant glaring political issue. From what I can tell, a lot of people had a problem with the overt racism that appeared to have crept into your billionth argument about why nobody should vote for a candidate that you don't like.

And I still don't dislike you, I think you've just jumped off the deep end of an empty pool in regards to reasons to not vote for Obama. Shake off the concussion man.

[Harry Beanbag]

Saddam was not a radical islamofascist. let's keep our manufactured terminologies somewhat correct.


He didn't say he was one. Try to stay on topic.

[Scott D]

Oh and I'll go with two more points.

1. Both parties salivate about their potential "dream dynasty candidate". Both attempt to "Groom" someone to fill that role. That's a large part about what is disgusting about political parties.

2. Gee, a tyrant that was willing to bite the original hand that fed it. History is rife with those, but yet we manage to continue making the same mistake. Clearly our government hasn't learned **** in over 230 years.

[SicEmBaylor]

One mans "nitpicking" is another man's example of substantive evidence why this populist snake oil salesman is less qualified for the most powerful office in the free world than just about anyone else who was in the race, donk or pub. Except for Dennis Kucinich of course. He's just wacky.

The issue of experience is ridiculous. There have been a lot of relatively inexperienced Presidents who ended up doing a great job. Your hero had about as much experience going into the Presidency as Obama does.



Moreover, all the guy has is his rap, rep, beliefs and persona. There is no body of public work or accomplishment because before his yet unfinished first term in the Senate, he was a Chicago machine insertion into the Illinois legislature. Since arriving in the Senate, he's been a full-time presidential candidate. Therefore, his rap, rep, beliefs and persona are legitimate areas for discussion. Put another way, these things may seem superficial and "irrelevant" but they are all the public has to go on with regard to this guy.

You could take him purely on the merit of what he says he'll do as President. He's said plenty to justify not voting for the guy. Just take what he says he'll do and evaluate your vote from that. How many Americans do you think analyze records? Do you think there are average citizens out there combing through decades of McCain's record? That's pure crap. The only "record" that the public will be exposed to is whatever record the media or the opposing campaign want to highlight.


One other thing. I don't want this guy's finger on "the" button, because I don't trust him to do what must be done. Deterrence only works if the opposition thinks the other side will retaliate in kind. This guy has publicly stated he intends to disarm the US and delay or cancel force modernization. He asserts the QDR is simply trumped up claptrap to justify wasteful spending on national defense.

When did Obama state that he will disarm the United States???? I must have missed that one. Only the most judgement impaired President would fail to retaliate in the case of a nuclear attack. This is pure fear mongering, and I'm so sick of hearing that kind of crap as if electing a liberal black guy for 4 years is going to result in our utter and total annihilation. :rolleyes:


It also bugs me he voted against the Iraq campaign despite hearing the same briefings everyone else did. It matters not those briefings now appear to have been innacurate.
Even if they were accurate the war still would have not have been justified. These United States should attack ONLY when attacked directly.


What's important is at that time, he refused to approve pre-emptive measures against a tyrant the intelligence agencies of the whole flippin' western world believed was on the verge of going berzerk on us and/or our allies.
Actually, that's not true. There were plenty of intelligence agencies that believed he had some sort of WMD research program, but I don't think ANYONE (even us) claimed that he was on the immediate verge of using those weapons against us. Again, this is pure nonsense.

And so what if he's a tyrant? He was a secular strong man in a region full of radical muslims. If nothing else, he at least kept the radical muslims in his country under control. I could care less if a country has a tyrant or not so long as they don't attack us.


He wears that as a badge of honor. I personally think its shameful, disgraceful and disqualifies him from serious consideration by an informed electorate.

The decision to vote against a pre-emptive war against a nation that did not attack us disqualifies someone to be President???? Wow. I think his judgement on the issue is a fair argument but calling that judgment shameful and disgraceful is well...frankly...shameful and disgraceful.

[SicEmBaylor]

I decided that in a perfect world the Federal government would be run by Libertarians, the state government would be run by Democrats, and Republicans would control local government.

That's pretty off topic, but it occurred to me last night and this is as good a place as any to say it.

[King Crimson]

He didn't say he was one. Try to stay on topic.

the justification for invading Iraq was not based on "intel" or official insinuations that S. Hussein was working with Al Queda....and cycling back into the public logic of 9-11 responsibility? Are you going to argue that it wasn't?

the logic of invading Afghanistan and the logic of invading Iraq were entirely independent of one another? that's what you are saying if you disagree.

[Scott D]

The issue of experience is ridiculous. There have been a lot of relatively inexperienced Presidents who ended up doing a great job. Your hero had about as much experience going into the Presidency as Obama does.




You could take him purely on the merit of what he says he'll do as President. He's said plenty to justify not voting for the guy. Just take what he says he'll do and evaluate your vote from that. How many Americans do you think analyze records? Do you think there are average citizens out there combing through decades of McCain's record? That's pure crap. The only "record" that the public will be exposed to is whatever record the media or the opposing campaign want to highlight.



When did Obama state that he will disarm the United States???? I must have missed that one. Only the most judgement impaired President would fail to retaliate in the case of a nuclear attack. This is pure fear mongering, and I'm so sick of hearing that kind of crap as if electing a liberal black guy for 4 years is going to result in our utter and total annihilation. :rolleyes:


Even if they were accurate the war still would have not have been justified. These United States should attack ONLY when attacked directly.


Actually, that's not true. There were plenty of intelligence agencies that believed he had some sort of WMD research program, but I don't think ANYONE (even us) claimed that he was on the immediate verge of using those weapons against us. Again, this is pure nonsense.

And so what if he's a tyrant? He was a secular strong man in a region full of radical muslims. If nothing else, he at least kept the radical muslims in his country under control. I could care less if a country has a tyrant or not so long as they don't attack us.



The decision to vote against a pre-emptive war against a nation that did not attack us disqualifies someone to be President???? Wow. I think his judgement on the issue is a fair argument but calling that judgment shameful and disgraceful is well...frankly...shameful and disgraceful.

see, this is a quality post. Even if SicEm has no real good experience in regards to women.

[Okla-homey]

And I still don't dislike you, I think you've just jumped off the deep end of an empty pool in regards to reasons to not vote for Obama. Shake off the concussion man.


Let's be clear on something. I don't care who people vote for as long as they're not being mislead into thinking a guy is something he's not. This guy is an empty suit. I'm 48 years old. I can spot a phoney when I see one. If he were'nt, he wouldn't be afraid to participate in the town-hall style debates my guy proposes. I hope the American people figure it out before November. I'm comforted by the fact they usually do.

And for the record, this country needs to get past notions of immutable characteristics like race being inexorably tied to nonimmutable, horribly destructive and poverty perpetuating cultural norms. My hope is people can someday become enlightened enough to separate the two and try to fix the latter. Unfortunately and clearly, we aren't there yet.

[Okla-homey]

see below.


The issue of experience is ridiculous. There have been a lot of relatively inexperienced Presidents who ended up doing a great job. Your hero had about as much experience going into the Presidency as Obama does.

Abe Lincoln had solid experience representing clients in all manner of cases, all over Illinois for twenty years before his WH bid. In short, he ran a successful and profitable small business. He won over 80% of his cases and he was highly regarded as wise, fair and insightful of the human condition. That is what propellled him to the Illinois legaislature in the first place.

You could take him purely on the merit of what he says he'll do as President. He's said plenty to justify not voting for the guy. Just take what he says he'll do and evaluate your vote from that. How many Americans do you think analyze records? Do you think there are average citizens out there combing through decades of McCain's record? That's pure crap. The only "record" that the public will be exposed to is whatever record the media or the opposing campaign want to highlight.



When did Obama state that he will disarm the United States???? I must have missed that one. Only the most judgement impaired President would fail to retaliate in the case of a nuclear attack. This is pure fear mongering, and I'm so sick of hearing that kind of crap as if electing a liberal black guy for 4 years is going to result in our utter and total annihilation. :rolleyes:

Please. unless of course that's not him saying those things, or he didn't "mean it", or its just some speech written by staffers and may not be legitimately imputed to him, etc., etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o84PE871BE


Even if they were accurate the war still would have not have been justified. These United States should attack ONLY when attacked directly.

Then WTF did we declare war on Germany and Italy in December 1941?

Actually, that's not true. There were plenty of intelligence agencies that believed he had some sort of WMD research program, but I don't think ANYONE (even us) claimed that he was on the immediate verge of using those weapons against us. Again, this is pure nonsense.

Were you getting any briefings? I sure was.

And so what if he's a tyrant? He was a secular strong man in a region full of radical muslims. If nothing else, he at least kept the radical muslims in his country under control. I could care less if a country has a tyrant or not so long as they don't attack us.

If that's true, how can you justify worshipping at the altar of your precious Confederacy which shortly after declaring their new legal status attacked without provocation the government headed by a person they percieved as a recently elected "tyrant?"

The decision to vote against a pre-emptive war against a nation that did not attack us disqualifies someone to be President???? Wow. I think his judgement on the issue is a fair argument but calling that judgment shameful and disgraceful is well...frankly...shameful and disgraceful.

[SicEmBaylor]

see below.

1. He was a small country lawyer and then spent a few years in the Senate. Obama is a Constitutional attorney who spent a few years in the Senate. You're right, I can clearly see the distinction.

2. He never said he was going to disarm the United States. He's talking about responsible spending and cutting out defense waste. Truman did the same thing. The Pentagon can wasteful spend just like every other branch of the Fed. gov. can do.

3. Uh, we didn't declare war on Germany or Italy. They declared war on us first. For a history man I would have expected you to know that.

4. With respect to your military service, I really highly doubt you were getting the most sensative of briefings. I'm basing the fact that nobody thought that we were in immediate danger of being attacked because when the White House was using every other excuse that was not one of them. What I did hear was that they COULD pass off WMDs at any moment which is very different.

5. I'm not getting into another WONA argument with you again, but as I've said countless times the first act of war was instigated by the Union by not withdrawing its troops from the sovereign state of South Carolina which, in any other nation or time in history, is an act of war in and of itself.

[def_lazer_fc]

Let's be clear on something. I don't care who people vote for as long as they're not being mislead into thinking a guy is something he's not.

well, jeez, you just described every politician....ever. including "your guy". but its nice that you're trying to save everyone from themselves.

[StoopTroup]

I made a pledge as a Boy Scout.

I haven't had many folks call me on much of it since.

We'll there was this one gal before I was re-married...she looked great in a Girl Scout uniform.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v719/gofugyourself/fergie.jpg

[King Crimson]

nice fake braids Fergie. and that rakish angle on the scottish flat cap, rawr!

minute 13 of 15 for Fergie.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Girl got some nobby *** knee's don't she!:D

[Okla-homey]

see below


1. He was a small country lawyer and then spent a few years in the Senate. Obama is a Constitutional attorney who spent a few years in the Senate. You're right, I can clearly see the distinction.

Wrong. Lincoln was not in the Senate. He had one term in the House, was not re-elected, and in 1849, went home to resume the practice of law. Lincoln was involved in more than 5,100 cases in Illinois alone during his 23-year legal career. Lincoln and his partners appeared before the Illinois State Supreme Court more than 400 times. Obama never argued a case in open court. Never tried a case. Ever. Oh, and while Lincoln conducted one of the most prosperous practices in his state in the interim between that House term and election to the WH ten years later, Lincoln and a handful of other guys created a political party we now call the GOP that saved the United States from destruction by slavocrats. In short, Obama could'nt carry Lincoln's jock


2. He never said he was going to disarm the United States. He's talking about responsible spending and cutting out defense waste. Truman did the same thing. The Pentagon can wasteful spend just like every other branch of the Fed. gov. can do.

Look man, the guy asserts the QDR process (that defeated the Soviet Union) is bogus and requires third-party oversight, presumably by some of his hand-picked radical cronies like Bill Ayers. That's the thing man, all his buds and homeys are radical hard-leftists. Further, I remember what happened the last time we cut defense under Carter? We spent the next eight years playing catch-up ball because programs cut aren't able to be instantly turned back on restoring them to where they were before. Cold production lines don't have instant on switches.

3. Uh, we didn't declare war on Germany or Italy. They declared war on us first. For a history man I would have expected you to know that.

I say again, did they attack us?

4. With respect to your military service, I really highly doubt you were getting the most sensative of briefings. I'm basing the fact that nobody thought that we were in immediate danger of being attacked because when the White House was using every other excuse that was not one of them. What I did hear was that they COULD pass off WMDs at any moment which is very different.

Look, while you were chillin it Waco or high school, my keister was in the region. Why do you think we had two brigade sets of armor and logistics infrastructure in Kuwait from the end of Gulf War I in 1991 until we went into Iraq ten years later? Why did we have four fighter wings worth of USAF aircraft and a carrier battle group constantly on station patrolling the northern and southern no-fly zones in Iraq from the end of Gulf War I in 1991 until we went into Iraq yen years later? For sh1ts and giggles? Do you have any idea what that cost?

5. I'm not getting into another WONA argument with you again, but as I've said countless times the first act of war was instigated by the Union by not withdrawing its troops from the sovereign state of South Carolina which, in any other nation or time in history, is an act of war in and of itself.

Those troops were on Federal property. The US built the pile of rocks Ft Sumter sat on at the mouth of Charleston Harbor. The US built the fort itself. And you know what else? The project was begun in 1827 when the imperial poo-bah of the slaveocrat "states-rights" set Mr. John Calhoun of SC was vice president of THE United States. SC had no more right to demand the ouster of federal troops from Sumter than Oklahoma would have to demand the Army leave Ft. Sill. sheesh.

[SicEmBaylor]

see below

1. You're right about the House. I was thinking it was the Senate. More to the point though, that makes him even less qualified than Obama is today.

2. It is possible to cut Defense spending without reducing our effectiveness. It just depends on how we're cutting that money. From what I've heard Obama suggests, he merely wants to take a second look at future procurements and re-evaluate how badly they're needed. Now, IF his defense cuts do reduce our effectiveness then that's another matter entirely. What I'm saying is that defense cuts, in and of themselves, are not tantamount to disarming.

3. Yes they did, even before they declared war they were attacking our Atlantic convoys to Britain and the Soviet Union. Nonetheless, if someone declares war on us then there is obviously a legitimate reason to attack the country. Iraq neither attacked us nor declared war on us. There is no comparison going to war with Germany and going to war with Iraq.

4. If I recall they were there to enforce the no-fly zone and prevent hostile actions toward their neighbors. I'm reasonably sure we weren't there because we were worried they'd jump into some row boats and invade our eastern seaboard. They never used WMDs on us even when we know for a fact they did have them.

5. If South Carolina had still been a state within the United States then you are correct that they would have no right to evacuate Ft. Sumter or any other installation just as Oklahoma could not currently evacuate Ft. Sill. South Carolina was at that point a free and sovereign state which made Ft. Sumter a FOREIGN military outpost with FOREIGN troops. The exact same situation would have applied if the British had refused to evacuate their troops and abandon their colonial installations. No independent government would or should allow another nation's military to post themselves within their territory unless they are granted permission to do so.

[JohnnyMack]

It also bugs me he voted against the Iraq campaign despite hearing the same briefings everyone else did. It matters not those briefings now appear to have been innacurate. What's important is at that time, he refused to approve pre-emptive measures against a tyrant the intelligence agencies of the whole flippin' western world believed was on the verge of going berzerk on us and/or our allies. He wears that as a badge of honor. I personally think its shameful, disgraceful and disqualifies him from serious consideration by an informed electorate.

He wasn't in the U.S. Senate at the time these briefings were floating around. Do state Senators get the same level of information that members of Congress do?

I can tell you that there are at least 2 people on this planet who saw through Bush's plan to invade Iraq from the get go. One is BHO, the other is an Okie with a public school education who said from day 1 that this was a target of convenience to allow the U.S. to expand its middle eastern empire under the typical Republican guise of using the politics of fear against its people. SH made the most sense seeing as where he'd been militarily castrated by Bush 1 and Iraq is a great location from a strategic standpoint. Running Hussein out of town wasn't going to be hard, getting the factions that had been under his control to come together would be another story. These people didn't ask for our brand of governing, we just decided to force feed it to them and hope that it stuck.

The President cut and pasted a bunch of intel and massaged it to fit his script. You mean to tell me that Obama is unfit to lead because he didn't blindly follow the orders of his President? He's unfit because his opinion differed from a group of politicians who were so scared to upset their constituencies and to come across as soft in the wake of 09/11 that taking a step back and saying, "Wait, what? This doesn't make any sense. Al Qaida isn't in Iraq, they're in Afghanistan and Pakistan" would make them somehow weak? Again the politics of fear rears its ugly head.

I don't believe Iraq was about oil. I don't believe it was about WMDs. I don't believe it was about removing a madman from power before he could destroy the world. I do believe it was about fighting a winnable war against an convenient and hated target to 1. boost the morale of the American people and 2. allow us to fight them "over there" as you like to say. Bush didn't have the geopolitical weight or the stones necessary to fight the fight he should have fought. I don't know that anyone does. But to say that Obama is unfit because he has an opinion that differed from what he was being spoon fed makes me think you would have made a good facist.

[GottaHavePride]

OK, everyone take a deep breath.







Done? Good. Let's not turn this one ugly.

[SicEmBaylor]

He wasn't in the U.S. Senate at the time these briefings were floating around. Do state Senators get the same level of information that members of Congress do?

I can tell you that there are at least 2 people on this planet who saw through Bush's plan to invade Iraq from the get go. One is BHO, the other is an Okie with a public school education who said from day 1 that this was a target of convenience to allow the U.S. to expand its middle eastern empire under the typical Republican guise of using the politics of fear against its people. SH made the most sense seeing as where he'd been militarily castrated by Bush 1 and Iraq is a great location from a strategic standpoint. Running Hussein out of town wasn't going to be hard, getting the factions that had been under his control to come together would be another story. These people didn't ask for our brand of governing, we just decided to force feed it to them and hope that it stuck.

The President cut and pasted a bunch of intel and massaged it to fit his script. You mean to tell me that Obama is unfit to lead because he didn't blindly follow the orders of his President? He's unfit because his opinion differed from a group of politicians who were so scared to upset their constituencies and to come across as soft in the wake of 09/11 that taking a step back and saying, "Wait, what? This doesn't make any sense. Al Qaida isn't in Iraq, they're in Afghanistan and Pakistan" would make them somehow weak? Again the politics of fear rears its ugly head.

I don't believe Iraq was about oil. I don't believe it was about WMDs. I don't believe it was about removing a madman from power before he could destroy the world. I do believe it was about fighting a winnable war against an convenient and hated target to 1. boost the morale of the American people and 2. allow us to fight them "over there" as you like to say. Bush didn't have the geopolitical weight or the stones necessary to fight the fight he should have fought. I don't know that anyone does. But to say that Obama is unfit because he has an opinion that differed from what he was being spoon fed makes me think you would have made a good facist.

The only thing I disagree with here is that you seem to be saying Bush entered office with the intention to invade Iraq. I'm not sure I'd go that far, but I do believe he was manipulated into it by the neo-cons in his administration who did want to invade Iraq from the very first day.

I really do not like what the GOP has become. I really wish the old Taft/Buchanan wing of the party would return....of course I doubt you would. ;)

[Rogue]

I'm not sober enough for this, is there a drunkytown thread somewhere?

[StoopTroup]

Page 4 sure has a lot to read.

Maybe tomorrow. :D :pop:

[Scott D]

Let's be clear on something. I don't care who people vote for as long as they're not being mislead into thinking a guy is something he's not. This guy is an empty suit. I'm 48 years old. I can spot a phoney when I see one. If he were'nt, he wouldn't be afraid to participate in the town-hall style debates my guy proposes. I hope the American people figure it out before November. I'm comforted by the fact they usually do.

And for the record, this country needs to get past notions of immutable characteristics like race being inexorably tied to nonimmutable, horribly destructive and poverty perpetuating cultural norms. My hope is people can someday become enlightened enough to separate the two and try to fix the latter. Unfortunately and clearly, we aren't there yet.

your guy is full of **** as much as the next wannabe president. He's clearly an empty suit that has changed his stripes enough over four years to appeal to the lunatic fringe that controls the party that he happens to be a member of. Even then, he's still not conservative enough for the RLimC types of the world no matter what he says or does.

He's running on the appeal that he'll lock down the military vote because he served. He's running on the appeal, that there are enough people out there in positions of influence that they can 'scare' the sheeple from voting for his opponent.

I'm not endorsing his opponent in any way. I've made it clear that the better choice for the position belongs to neither of the two candidates, nor to any of the other candidates that attempted to convince the American people otherwise. As for your not trying to influence anyone, I doubt anyone is really buying that? You've nearly had a new thread a day about the great evils that Barack Obama is going to unleash on the American public and why we can't trust him. So if we're not trying to influence others, then clearly we must feel some deep seated insecurity over the entire matter of who is running for the Oval Office as a whole.

As I said, I never thought the other post was about race, but I could see how other people did. I thought it was just a bad joke that happened to backfire on you. It was the nonsense about the logo that annoyed me about the post. I'll give you credit here though, you're more or less sticking to it being issue based rather than nitpicking over nonsense that has nothing to do with the office of President.

[StoopTroup]

http://www.judiciaryreport.com/images/hillary-obama-blend.jpg

[JohnnyMack]

The only thing I disagree with here is that you seem to be saying Bush entered office with the intention to invade Iraq. I'm not sure I'd go that far, but I do believe he was manipulated into it by the neo-cons in his administration who did want to invade Iraq from the very first day.

I really do not like what the GOP has become. I really wish the old Taft/Buchanan wing of the party would return....of course I doubt you would. ;)

No, I do not believe that, sorry if i wasn't clearer on that.

I think Iraq made sense for how easy it was going to be to topple husseins army and because of its location

If 09/11 never happens, W never invades Iraq.

[Scott D]

And one other question homey.

What's the 'republoconservative" response going to be when Musharef has decided that he's chafed enough under the short leash he's been given by our government and goes rogue on us like saddam did?

[StoopTroup]

W never invades Iraq.


I'd say maybe never. :D

[JohnnyMack]

I'd say maybe never. :D

Thanks for the invite to go eat cfs at Caz's. Dickwheel. :mad:

[SicEmBaylor]

And one other question homey.

What's the 'republoconservative" response going to be when Musharef has decided that he's chafed enough under the short leash he's been given by our government and goes rogue on us like saddam did?

It's not republoconservatism that has got us into this mess. It's republoneoconservatism. The neo-conservative movement is NOT a legitimate strand of conservatism.

I really hate the way they have co-opted the term "conservative."

[King Crimson]

It's not republoconservatism that has got us into this mess. It's republoneoconservatism. The neo-conservative movement is NOT a legitimate strand of conservatism.

I really hate the way they have co-opted the term "conservative."

sure, the neocons and PFNAC are closer to Lenin's argument about the Vanguard Party and Leo Strauss than Edmond Burke.

but, you still see Bill Kristol on FOX.

[SicEmBaylor]

sure, the neocons are closer to Lenin's argument about the Vanguard Party and Leo Strauss than Edmond Burke.

but, you still see Bill Kristol on FOX.

Yep.

[Harry Beanbag]

the justification for invading Iraq was not based on "intel" or official insinuations that S. Hussein was working with Al Queda....and cycling back into the public logic of 9-11 responsibility? Are you going to argue that it wasn't?

the logic of invading Afghanistan and the logic of invading Iraq were entirely independent of one another? that's what you are saying if you disagree.


I'm not arguing anything. I'm on record here in respect to all that. I'm just saying that Homey didn't say what you accused him of, your red herring or I guess "strawman" is the current en vogue term, doesn't apply.

[Harry Beanbag]

When did Obama state that he will disarm the United States???? .

There's a video on this board somewhere where Barack is stating he'll stop or retard the development of new weapons systems. Along with ridding ourselves of those nasty nuclear weapons, but I'm sure nobody will let him do that no matter how much he wants too.

[Harry Beanbag]

Look, anybody who thinks Barack isn't a socialist that wants to weaken the United States of America just isn't being honest with themselves. There is really no debate.

[SicEmBaylor]

Look, anybody who thinks Barack isn't a socialist that wants to weaken the United States of America just isn't being honest with themselves. There is really no debate.

Don't get me wrong. I absolutely think he has socialistic tendencies (though I wouldn't go so far as to suggest he's an outright socialist) who will likely do more harm than good (incidentally I have the same opinion of McCain). My only point is, oppose the guy for the right reasons and stop with this nonsense that he'll lead us all to annihilation, that he's a Muslim, that he's unfit for the Presidency because he voted against the war, etc. I just don't believe those arguments are fruitful when there are plenty of substantive issues at hand. Like I told Homey, his vote on the war is a legitimate issue but you can disagree with him without suggesting that his difference of opinion is shameful.

There probably aren't 2 issues that Obama and I agree on, but I think when you strip away each individual's partisanship you would find that Obama is probably an honest guy (as much as a politician could be) with whom you have a lot of disagreements. I also don't happen to believe that Obama's election would lead to the many catastrophes Republicans have predicted.

I would say that the best way to avoid the Obama v. McCain fight is to vote for Bob Barr. :D

[Vaevictis]

Look, anybody who thinks Barack isn't a socialist that wants to weaken the United States of America just isn't being honest with themselves. There is really no debate.

It could just be that some folks have a different idea of what constitutes weakening the USA.

[Okla-homey]

And one other question homey.

What's the 'republoconservative" response going to be when Musharef has decided that he's chafed enough under the short leash he's been given by our government and goes rogue on us like saddam did?

Firstly, while he's definitely remarkable in that he is a secular leader and has been generally supportive of our positions, I would'nt characterize him as our puppet. Were that the case, the Paki/Afghan border would be just a line on a map and we'd have been conducting overt combat operations in the wild and woolly NW territory of Pak since we entered Afghanistan.

Far more likely than him going "rogue" is the likelihood that his internal opponents will eventually be successful in one of their serial attempts to assasinate him. If that happens, and whomever ends up being in power starts rattling his nukes, or appears inclined to supply them to others bent on using them against us or Israel, we and our allies will have to deal with that contingency.

I say this will all sincerity, we have been deeply invested (militarily and economically) in southwest Asia since Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990. It's imprudent for anyone aspiring to the office of the president to suggest we can cash in our chips and leave the table. I further believe it is niave and imprudent to suggest we can accomplish with statecraft and diplomacy (otherwise known as "talk") anything in that region not squarely backed with believable willingness to use military power to accomplish our goals.

Of course I can't know the entirety of why we went into Iraq, but I do know great good has been accomplished and I beleive we and the rest of the world are safer for having done so. The goal was and remains to establish the first democratic secular state in that region. That said, we definitely messed up in the months following SH's toppling. We hunkered in garrisons with too few troops while Iraq's infrastructure remained broken. People who are used to someone being in charge tend to go a little haywire when no one is.

That gave the mahdists, Iran and various jihaadists an opening and a basis for beginning operations against us in earnest. Is that attributable to the president? Yepper. He didn't ask the hard questions and let Rummy handle the details. For five million Bosnians we had two hundred thousand people to watch over them. In contrast, we have twenty-five million Iraqis to worry about, spread out over a state the size of California. The heart of the Army's argument in '02 was that with too few soldiers, the United States would win the war only to be trapped in an untenable position during the occupation. Rummy ignored their warnings and marginalized Eric Shinseki. As we all know, chaos ensued. Its taken five years to get that genie mostly back in the bottle.