Possible Presidential Pairings?

222 replies [Last post]
HymanRoth's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-08-25

BondGuy wrote:Hyman, the experience thing is so, well, last week. The new new thing is CHANGE! Try to keep up.
 
I can't blame you if you fell asleep during John's speech, but just so you know,  the messege was change. His campajgn managers took one look at the election map and realized that experience, in itself, was a non starter. They need to first connect with Obama's change messege and then push the experience gap. This will give Obama's change supporters a no gap bridge to cross over to McCain's camp.
 
Of course there is one problem with this:
 
"We are all Georgians"
 
Remember McCain saying this? You can google it. He said it recently and prominately in support of the republic of Georgia. He said it on advice from his senior foreign policy advisor Randy Scheunemann. Turns out that Randy is a lobbyist. A lobbyist who's firm took $200,000 from the Georgian government this past spring to represent them in DC. Of course the McCain camp says there is no connection. Isn't that what politicians always say? I'd say that was money well spent. What do you think?
 
Considering how many lobbyist are working for McCain on his campaign including his campaign mamager, long time republican insider and lobbyist Rick Davis, his change messege is laughable. The messege, as stated above, is merely a sleight of hand campaign tactic to draw off Obama's change supporters. The coasts are already figuring this out, leaving the question; is the middle of the country gullible enough to buy into it? Based on 04, my guess is yes. Never under estimate the gullibillity of the heartland. Good people, who take people at their word. Even those they shouldn't.
 
Hyman, think for a moment about this: McCain is employing DC insiders, lobbyist, and Bush admin advisors in all the key roles within his campaign. Yet, he says it's a new day DC and all these people are out on their asses come day one of his administration. Do you really believe that will happen?
 
It's a new day yet "We are all Georgians." A $200,000 sound bite.
 
Smart campaigning, but sleight of hand. This doesn't play well with those who are tired of the subterfuge.
 
As for the John not talking issues, his campaign manager Rick Davis told reporters that this campaign is not about issues. Well, when you've effed up for eight years what else are you going to say?
 
Agree though, Obama needs to sharpen his messege and stop parsing his coomments.
 Agreed that it is hard to swallow McCain's talk about 'change' when he has so many insiders trying to ride on his coattails.But the guy was strong enough to resist torture in the Hanoi Hilton, so who's to say he can't fight off the attempts of DC insiders to co-opt his rise to power.  Maybe he is using them to get elected, but they have underestimated his strength of will.I find Obama to be an intelligent man and one of the best speakers I've ever seen.  Yet, here's what I've learned about him that makes him a complete non-starter when I try to consider with an open mind giving him my "change" vote:1.)  He has already confirmed that he intends to raise my taxes, and is playing the old traditional democratic card of demonizing the rich.  I've never once seen a situation where ANY economy was helped by a higher tax burden.  Furthermore, it is those "evil rich" who are often the entrepreneurs who have started companies and provided jobs to those poor working class folks Mr. Obama has sworn to serve.   Ironic, really, considering that he's made millions from two books that he wrote while working as a government employee.2.) Related to #1, he's exhibited a fundamental lack of understanding of the most basic of economic theories and principles  whenever I've seen him speak on the subject.3.) His lack of experience is a major concern to me.  From what I know of his career, he does not have any significant "executive" experience where he has been responsible for leading folks to acheive a concrete goal.  Furthermore, in his limited time in the legistlature(on both a state and local level) he has not authored a significant piece of legislation, nor led any significant initiatives.  What has he actually done other than write books and campaign for the presidency? 4.) I am especially concerned about his lack of experience(and apparent lack of savvy) when it comes to international affairs.  He has publicly stated that, as the head of the most powerful democracy in the free world, he would be willing to meet with the president of IRAN and the leader of the Palestinian Authority with NO PRECONDITIONS.  These are people who see a willingness to negotiate on their terms as a sign of weakness.  If Obama were to do this as President, it would be very hurtful to our image in the Middle East, and would send a signal to other hostile countries and terrorist groups that we were being led by an administration that was weak and naive when it came to protecting our country.5.)  I find his connections to Rev. Wright to be troubling.  More so when he tried to deny ever knowing that Rev. Wright had such hateful and divisive views about his own mother country.  How could Obama be a member of that congregation for over a decade, be a friend of Rev Wright, and not know that Rev. Wright hold those radical viewpoints?  It calls Mr. Obama's very credibility into question IMHO.In summary, I will say again that I think he is a great man with profoundly good intentions.  I also respect his place in history.But for the reasons outlined above, I just can't trust him.  McCain is far from perfect, but I'll sleep a lot better with him in the White House than Mr. Obama.

HymanRoth's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-08-25

BondGuy wrote:Hyman, the experience thing is so, well, last week. The new new thing is CHANGE! Try to keep up.
 
I can't blame you if you fell asleep during John's speech, but just so you know,  the messege was change.Agreed as well that when it comes to delivering a prepared speech, McCain doesn't measure up to Obama.  But that's only a small part of the job they're competing for.....

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

 
I thinnk Obama's own words speak for themselves.
 
 
>From Dreams of My Father: 'I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.'

 From Dreams of My Father : 'I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother's race.'

 From Dreams of My Father: 'There was something about him that made me wary, a little too sure of himself, maybe. And white.'

 From Dreams of My Father:  'It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names.'

 From Dreams of My Father: 'I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa , that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself , the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela.'

  >From Audacity of Hope: 'I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.'

 

 

BondGuy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-21

Primo wrote:

 
I thinnk Obama's own words speak for themselves.
 
 
>From Dreams of My Father: 'I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.'

 From Dreams of My Father : 'I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother's race.'

 From Dreams of My Father: 'There was something about him that made me wary, a little too sure of himself, maybe. And white.'

 From Dreams of My Father:  'It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names.'

 From Dreams of My Father: 'I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa , that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself , the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela.'

  >From Audacity of Hope: 'I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.'

 
I'll get back to most of you with some thoughts on your posts, but let me take this piece of trash first.
 
Here in America anyone can say whatever they want. They can even email it to as many people as they wish and the can post it on forums like this one. Obviously Primo isn't an Obama fan and when he got this email he was so happy to get the goods on Obama he sends it here to alert us to the real Obama.
 
Of course(and you know this is coming) none of it is true. The statements are either completely made up, twisted to another menaing or taken out of context.
 
For example the statement about whites, Obama never said it. The statement about standing with Muslims: in context  that he would never inter them as we did the Japanese in WW2.
 
The first tip off should come from the fact that the originator of this email trash wasn't smart enough to even get the title of Obama's book right. The correct title of the book is  Dreams From My Father. The actual quotes come from places like "The American Conservative" Big surprise there!
 
Factcheck.org, and snopes completely debunk this email as completetly untrue. It is untrue ,read the books if you don't trust Factcheck.org
 
 
Here's the problem: I'm gonna give Primo the benefit of a doubt here and say he wouldn't have posted this here if he knew it was untrue.
 
I don't know where Primo lives, but that's the gullibility I speak of.
 
How many of you read that post and believed it to be true? How many of you thought it could be partially true. Primo thought it was true and  I'd bet he's not alone.
 
How many non thinkers out there do you suppose will see an email like this and use it as a basis for their vote? The bogus Pledge of Alligiance email helped defeat Obama in the Ohio primary.
 
In an informed thinking society emails such as this would pose no threat. Informed, thinking?  That ain't us folks.
 
People the only thing at stake is our future. I'm only saying, regardless of who you are for or against, think.

BondGuy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-21

Indy, gullible: offensive and devisive words?
 
Gullibily is not a negative. It's one who is easily duped or deceived.  That's the personality trait of a trusting person. Does this not discribe the personality of the american heartland?People who take you at your word? I don't see it as offensive or devisive, and if you do then you are reading in an alternative meaning. That's your problem.
 
To clear it up in the context of my post here's what i meant; For those who voted for Bush in 2004, let's start with this question; If you knew then what you know today about George Bush, the lies, the deceit, all the rest, would you have voted for him?
 
Most people answer that question no.
 
Most people today are not happy about the direction Bush has taken us and had they known then what they know today they most likely would not have voted for him in 2004. Here's the point: The Bush negatives were in the public domain in 2004. There for anyone who wanted to see them. However, the 04 Bush campaign was in itself so deceptive that many people were deceived into voting him to a second term. The heartland is awash in red on that count. Can i blame them for falling for the deceit? yes and no.
 
I'll give you that it may be unfair to call the only heartland gullible when I live in a repulican congresssional district that went for Bush in 04. Especially when i have neighbors tell me how discusted they are with Bush/cheney and they quote something they don't like. Mostly it's the war, but almost all of what i hear was out there before 04. They too were duped.
 
 You said it best yourself "If you're not watching, listening and reading you shouldn't be voting."
 

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

BondGuy wrote:Primo wrote:

 
I thinnk Obama's own words speak for themselves.
 
 
>From Dreams of My Father: 'I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.'

 From Dreams of My Father : 'I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother's race.'

 From Dreams of My Father: 'There was something about him that made me wary, a little too sure of himself, maybe. And white.'

 From Dreams of My Father:  'It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names.'

 From Dreams of My Father: 'I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa , that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself , the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela.'

  >From Audacity of Hope: 'I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.'

 
I'll get back to most of you with some thoughts on your posts, but let me take this piece of trash first.
 
Here in America anyone can say whatever they want. They can even email it to as many people as they wish and the can post it on forums like this one. Obviously Primo isn't an Obama fan and when he got this email he was so happy to get the goods on Obama he sends it here to alert us to the real Obama.
 
Of course(and you know this is coming) none of it is true. The statements are either completely made up, twisted to another menaing or taken out of context.
 
For example the statement about whites, Obama never said it. The statement about standing with Muslims: in context  that he would never inter them as we did the Japanese in WW2.
 
The first tip off should come from the fact that the originator of this email trash wasn't smart enough to even get the title of Obama's book right. The correct title of the book is  Dreams From My Father. The actual quotes come from places like "The American Conservative" Big surprise there!
 
Factcheck.org, and snopes completely debunk this email as completetly untrue. It is untrue ,read the books if you don't trust Factcheck.org
 
 
Here's the problem: I'm gonna give Primo the benefit of a doubt here and say he wouldn't have posted this here if he knew it was untrue.
 
I don't know where Primo lives, but that's the gullibility I speak of.
 
How many of you read that post and believed it to be true? How many of you thought it could be partially true. Primo thought it was true and  I'd bet he's not alone.
 
How many non thinkers out there do you suppose will see an email like this and use it as a basis for their vote? The bogus Pledge of Alligiance email helped defeat Obama in the Ohio primary.
 
In an informed thinking society emails such as this would pose no threat. Informed, thinking?  That ain't us folks.
 
People the only thing at stake is our future. I'm only saying, regardless of who you are for or against, think.
 
At first I felt bad BG that you put that much effort in to responding to obviously false statements.  To use your own words, the wrong title of the book was the first clue.  You suggested that I "think", I suggest you do the same.  Then I went to factcheck.org and realized you basically copied their text in your post.  Now I am back to being amused.  Ironically, I posted the email to see who would bite on it.  Who would take it at face value and run with it.  In other words, who doesn't "think".

BondGuy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-21

Hyman, did you vote for Bush in 2000?
 
If so was his foreign policy experience a front burner issue with you then as it is for you with Obama today? Even if it was, you did you still vote for Bush?
 
Pre first term Bush had zero foreign policy experience. This isn't  atop secret or some left wing tin foil diatribe. Nor is it as some RR posters put it, a first class lie, or fiction. Bush freely admits to this. Read Bob Woodward's book 'State of Denial" if you are interested in learning the details of Bush's early FP mentoring.
 
So the question is: if it wasn't an issue then, why is it an issue now?
 
The answer is it shouldn't be an issue at all. Many presidents come to office with no foreign policy expereince. The question shouldn't be are they qualified on day one. Because, clearly, most aren't. Clinton and Bush are two modern day examples. The question should be, do they have the capacity to grow into the job based on their experiences and character?
 
It is only an issue because Mccain has made it an issue in this campaign. He can't run on the iisues because he is a clear loser on the the issues. So, first he ran on experience and now he's running on change.
 
Hyman, back in 2000, if you voted for Bush, was his minister a front burner issue for then as it is for you today with obama?
 
I'm gonna guess no. And that's as it should be.
 
I too respect Mccain's military history but we're past that now. it's what is he going to do to lead this country?
 
As for the economy, It is Obama who has hit the nail square on the head. it is the Mccain campaign that is adjusting to counter Obama's very effective with working guy message.
 
Not advising your wife to leave the bling at home while in the national spotlight  of a presidential convention shows an out of touch element. Cindy, as you know by now was wearing an outfit estimated by Vanity Fair to be worth $300,000. Hyman, that doesn't play well in factory towns.
 
 
 
 
 
 

babbling looney's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-02

Anyone else get the impression that Bond Guy is a complete elitist snob that you wouldn't invite to a back yard barbeque if your life depended on it?   Gullibily is not a negative. It's one who is easily duped or deceived.
 That's the personality trait of a trusting person. Does this not
discribe the personality of the american heartland?People who take you
at your word? I don't see it as offensive or devisive, and if you do
then you are reading in an alternative meaning. That's your problem.He can't understand why his words are offensive to those of us who live in small town America.  Sure, everyone likes being called gullible and condescended to by people like Bond Guy.  Being told that your values are just a result of some sort of mental defect. Keep it up.  Keep insulting people and that's a sure fire way to win them to your side.  Hope you don't use this tactic with your clients.  Not advising your wife to leave the bling at home while in the national
spotlight  of a presidential convention shows an out of touch element.
Cindy, as you know by now was wearing an outfit estimated by Vanity
Fair to be worth $300,000. Hyman, that doesn't play well in factory
towns.Ah yes...... the old class warfare bullshit that the left always tries to play. I know no such thing about her outfit as I don't read Vanity Fair, who would?  First of all, as a woman I thought that Cindy McCain looked rather nice if a bit overdressed.  I preferred Sarah Palin's more understated style. However, what plays well in factory towns is the fact that Cindy's family got their wealth the good old fashioned way by working their asses off: starting a small business with one beer truck and building it into a success story that is the dream of those poor gullible dopes (as Bond Guy would put it) who live in the factory towns.   Clue for you......people are not resentful of such stories but instead take hope that they too might be able to achieve the same success.Try again.  This is the crap that the left keeps trying to float, but it won't work because you have no connection to or understanding of what Mid America or small town America is about.Here is a story to illustrate the snobbish disconnection of city vs the rest of the country.  Snobs like Obama vs ordinary working people like Palin.  I live in a rural/agricultural/resort area.  Recently had some relatives come to visit from the Big City.  At a local function I introduced them to one of my clients who was wearing jeans, beaten up cowboy hat and had just come from a 'roping competition'.  My relatives were cold and not in the least interested in talking to him and after he left made fun of him.   Little did they know he is a multi multi millionare who owns large amounts of the Big City they came from and has controlling interests in several industrial center complexes throughout the State as well as homes in places they could only hope to visit.   My client built his wealth based on a small plumbing business in the Big City that he inherited from his father.  He lives here in bumfuck rural America because he wants to and he likes the people who live here and holds the same values.   They were standing in the midst of millionares and people who can afford to own $80,000 horse trailers for their $100,,000 roping horses and enjoy doing what they like.   BUT....because they didn't have the designer sun glasses, perfectly coifed hair and had some dirt
on their boots they passed them over like they were trailer trash. See yourself in this scenario anywhere BG?

babbling looney's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-02

Bond Guy...I suggest you read something other than the Daily Kos for your talking points.  The dress that Cindy McCain wore wasn't 300K.  Granted she was wearing some kick ass jewelry which she owns and paid for through her business income.  No one gives Angelena Jolie grief for her expensive expensive outfits......or for her mothering skills for all the children she has accumulated either.When Cindy McCain made her first appearance at the Republican National
Convention, she was wearing a buttercup-yellow shirt dress with a
flipped-up collar by Seventh Avenue designer Oscar de la Renta. As is
the current fashion, the dress looked as though the designer had found
some inspiration in the early 1960s world of "Mad Men." It was
feminine, reserved and lovely. Ballpark price for a de la Renta dress:
$3,000.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/05/AR2008090501027.html?nav=rss_print/styleHow much do you pay for one of your good business suits and accessories?  Rolex?

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

Looney, it is only wrong to be wealthy if your are not a Democrat.  I would like to see a Democrat put their money where their mouth is.  Maybe send a few extra bucks to the IRS each year to do their part.   

BondGuy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-21

Primo, are you saying that you posted the email knowing it was false?
 
I gave you the benefit of a doubt that you posted it thinking it was true? We all do that from time to time. An honest mistake. From an integrity POV, that's the better outcome. Lest we never trust anything you post here in the future.
 
After rereading my post I apologize to you about the thinker comment. In the last three lines of that post i was talking about people in general, not you. After rereading it though, I don't blame you if you're pissed at me. I can see how it reads. Just to be clear, i wasn't calling you a non thinker.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

I'm not upset in the least, and yes I was aware it was false before I posted it.  I assumed it was so blatantly obvious that only a "non-thinker" (to use your own term) would run with it.  Sometimes I have been criticized for my subtlety.

BondGuy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-21

babbling looney wrote: Anyone else get the impression that Bond Guy is a complete elitist snob that you wouldn't invite to a back yard barbeque if your life depended on it?   Gullibily is not a negative. It's one who is easily duped or deceived.  That's the personality trait of a trusting person. Does this not discribe the personality of the american heartland?People who take you at your word? I don't see it as offensive or devisive, and if you do then you are reading in an alternative meaning. That's your problem.He can't understand why his words are offensive to those of us who live in small town America.  Sure, everyone likes being called gullible and condescended to by people like Bond Guy.  Being told that your values are just a result of some sort of mental defect. Keep it up.  Keep insulting people and that's a sure fire way to win them to your side.  Hope you don't use this tactic with your clients.  Not advising your wife to leave the bling at home while in the national spotlight  of a presidential convention shows an out of touch element. Cindy, as you know by now was wearing an outfit estimated by Vanity Fair to be worth $300,000. Hyman, that doesn't play well in factory towns.Ah yes...... the old class warfare bullshit that the left always tries to play. I know no such thing about her outfit as I don't read Vanity Fair, who would?  First of all, as a woman I thought that Cindy McCain looked rather nice if a bit overdressed.  I preferred Sarah Palin's more understated style. However, what plays well in factory towns is the fact that Cindy's family got their wealth the good old fashioned way by working their asses off: starting a small business with one beer truck and building it into a success story that is the dream of those poor gullible dopes (as Bond Guy would put it) who live in the factory towns.   Clue for you......people are not resentful of such stories but instead take hope that they too might be able to achieve the same success.Try again.  This is the crap that the left keeps trying to float, but it won't work because you have no connection to or understanding of what Mid America or small town America is about.Here is a story to illustrate the snobbish disconnection of city vs the rest of the country.  Snobs like Obama vs ordinary working people like Palin.  I live in a rural/agricultural/resort area.  Recently had some relatives come to visit from the Big City.  At a local function I introduced them to one of my clients who was wearing jeans, beaten up cowboy hat and had just come from a 'roping competition'.  My relatives were cold and not in the least interested in talking to him and after he left made fun of him.   Little did they know he is a multi multi millionare who owns large amounts of the Big City they came from and has controlling interests in several industrial center complexes throughout the State as well as homes in places they could only hope to visit.   My client built his wealth based on a small plumbing business in the Big City that he inherited from his father.  He lives here in bumfuck rural America because he wants to and he likes the people who live here and holds the same values.   They were standing in the midst of millionares and people who can afford to own $80,000 horse trailers for their $100,,000 roping horses and enjoy doing what they like.   BUT....because they didn't have the designer sun glasses, perfectly coifed hair and had some dirt on their boots they passed them over like they were trailer trash. See yourself in this scenario anywhere BG?
 
Oh, i see you're confused about the meaning of the word guillible. Let me give you some synonyms: innocent, trustful,simple, naive. Anything meaning mental defect in those words? There isn't. But don't let that get in the way of a good rant.
 
The people i put down in that post are the deceivers. To clear that up for you they would be the 2004 Bush campaign leaders. These are the people who duped good people into giving them a second term. people including my neighbors and coworkers. Average people who didn't bother to inform themselves and just voted the party line. People like you babs. People like you who wouldn't give Bush another term today because of all that has happened, voted for him then. You voted for him then even though almost all the negatives were in the public domain at that time. There to see for anyone who bothered to look. But you didn't look. You took Bush at his word. Things could have been different.
 
To me it is inconceivable that anyone would have voted for Bush in 04 knowing the Iraq invasion was based on a lie. Yet he got away with putting it past the American public in 04. That's the deception. The heartland voted overwelmingly for Bush in 04. They were the deceived, the innocent, the naive, the trustful. Maybe in your book that's a mental defect, in mine it is far from it.
 
Apparently, you've read many things into that post that i never said. I live in a town, not a big city. I wasn't putting small town america down. That you've connected alternative meanings to the word gullible is more than a little scary.
 
Lastly, that you immediatly embraced Palin without knowing her is disconcerting. Sarah Palin may turn out to be the best thing that's ever happened to this country, but that's not the point. McCain could have appointed a bucket of shit to run with him for office and you'd have embraced it as well. You keep making the same mistake.
 
You are the problem babs. Take a look around at the mess this country is in. Economy in the toilet, tens of thousands of people dead on a war based on a lie. People losing their jobs. Others barely scraping by. Our rights flushed. Look at all that and then look into a mirror. Because it's your fault babs. You and your millionaire roping horse freinds who are just fine with the way things are.
 
lastly, the cindy Mccain thing, I got it from fox news. They are the ones concerned that McCain may come off as out of touch. You can google it. It checks out. What was she thinking wearing an outfit that cost as much as nice house?
 
 
 
 

BondGuy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-21

Primo, whew, you scared me there for a minute.
 
Unfortunately i don't think we can assume people won't buy into things like this. i've got two clients who sent me that email and fully believed it to be true.
 
 On another forum one poster keeps using Obama's middle name yet says he's not anti muslim, just trying to be factually correct. Yet, he doesn't use Mccain's middle name.
 
Politics, it's ugly.
 
 
 
 
 

Rugby's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-06-06

Here's an interesting article on Biden.  Its a little easier to follow than the McCain shady connection to Georgian lobbyist that BG presented:http://www.nypost.com/seven/09072008/postopinion/editorials/special_interest_joe_127959.htmThat Obama...he'll sure clean up Washington. Bill Clinton told us he hit it out of the park with the Biden pick.   Notice the polls pulling even or putting McCain ahead.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

To me it is inconceivable that anyone would have voted for Bush in 04 knowing the Iraq invasion was based on a lie.

 
 

  • www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/05/world/main4235028.shtml
  •  
    It was a lie?

    troll's picture
    Offline
    Joined: 2004-11-29

  • www.cfr.org/publication/9551

  • Exactly how many people to you have to kill with a weapon for it to be considered a WMD?

    BondGuy's picture
    Offline
    Joined: 2006-09-21

    primo, interesting stuff, but wrong lie. WMDs? Where are they? That's the lie.                        
     
    No one's arguing that Sadam was looking for nuclear capability. That's a given.
     
    Let's not redebate this whole thing. Believe what you will.

    troll's picture
    Offline
    Joined: 2004-11-29

    People losing their jobs. Others barely scraping by.
     
    Wasn't Bush handed a recession when he took office?  Who was responsible for that?  The economic problems center on one issue.  Bush is a RINO when is comes to spending.  Tax conservative, liberal spender.  This absolutely does not work.  You must be consistent.

    troll's picture
    Offline
    Joined: 2004-11-29

    BondGuy wrote:primo, interesting stuff, but wrong lie. WMDs? Where are they? That's the lie.                        
     
    No one's arguing that Sadam was looking for nuclear capability. That's a given.
     
    Let's not redebate this whole thing. Believe what you will.
     
    Wrong lie?  What do you think he was doing with 550 tonnes of yellowcake?  Let's put it another way.  You have a neighbor.  He has killed people in the past.  You are aware that he is stockpiling guns.  Police go in and find lots of guns, but no bullets.  Where you wrong to be concerned? Oh and by the way, his friend who lives with him just went on a killing spree at the local mall. 

    BondGuy's picture
    Offline
    Joined: 2006-09-21

    The Center for Public Integrity found that the Bush admin made 935 false statements about the alleged threat to the united States posed by iraq. While some left over remnents of weaponized WMDs were found most U.N.weapons inspectors are satisfied that work on such WMDs ceased in 1991. Addtionally, the ISG found there to be no WMDs in iraq and that iraq's nuclear program had ceased in 1991.
    Again, we were lied to. But believe what you will.

    BondGuy's picture
    Offline
    Joined: 2006-09-21

    Primo wrote:People losing their jobs. Others barely scraping by.
     
    Wasn't Bush handed a recession when he took office?  Who was responsible for that?  The economic problems center on one issue.  Bush is a RINO when is comes to spending.  Tax conservative, liberal spender.  This absolutely does not work.  You must be consistent.
     
    as was Clinton. But nether was handed the problem we find ourselves in today.
     
    What's a rino?

    troll's picture
    Offline
    Joined: 2004-11-29

    republican in name only

    BondGuy's picture
    Offline
    Joined: 2006-09-21

    Primo wrote:BondGuy wrote:primo, interesting stuff, but wrong lie. WMDs? Where are they? That's the lie.                        
     
    No one's arguing that Sadam was looking for nuclear capability. That's a given.
     
    Let's not redebate this whole thing. Believe what you will.
     
    Wrong lie?  What do you think he was doing with 550 tonnes of yellowcake?  Let's put it another way.  You have a neighbor.  He has killed people in the past.  You are aware that he is stockpiling guns.  Police go in and find lots of guns, but no bullets.  Where you wrong to be concerned? Oh and by the way, his friend who lives with him just went on a killing spree at the local mall. 
     
    primo, i agree with you the guy was a bad guy and would be up to no good the first chance he got. But that yellowcake isn't the reason we invaded iraq. We were told he had WMDS when in fact he didn't. That's the lie.
     
    Niger has yellowcake. Should we invade them too?
     
     

    troll's picture
    Offline
    Joined: 2004-11-29

    But nether was handed the problem we find ourselves in today.....you mean like a terrorist attack that changed the American people forever.  That could have been averted had the previous administration been a shade more concerned with foriegn affairs?   Look, I feel Bush has been a terrrible President.  He spent way too much on entitlement programs, IMO we went into Iraq as much for oil as national security (of course one could argue that they are one in the same), and he has lost the confidence of the American people.  However, he has accomplished a number of good things.  People are acting like his presidency has been an unqualified disaster from start to end, and that is simply not true.

    troll's picture
    Offline
    Joined: 2004-11-29

    BondGuy wrote:Primo wrote:BondGuy wrote:primo, interesting stuff, but wrong lie. WMDs? Where are they? That's the lie.                        
     
    No one's arguing that Sadam was looking for nuclear capability. That's a given.
     
    Let's not redebate this whole thing. Believe what you will.
     
    Wrong lie?  What do you think he was doing with 550 tonnes of yellowcake?  Let's put it another way.  You have a neighbor.  He has killed people in the past.  You are aware that he is stockpiling guns.  Police go in and find lots of guns, but no bullets.  Where you wrong to be concerned? Oh and by the way, his friend who lives with him just went on a killing spree at the local mall. 
     
    primo, i agree with you the guy was a bad guy and would be up to no good the first chance he got. But that yellowcake isn't the reason we invaded iraq. We were told he had WMDS when in fact he didn't. That's the lie.
     
    Niger has yellowcake. Should we invade them too?
     
     
     
    We were told our intelligence suggested presence of WMD's.  Of course we were not allowed in (might bit suspicious) so we did not know for sure.  Was this shaped for the American public?  Yep.  Of course if that bothers you, you should not vote for a politician ever again.  Also, the decision to go in had a bit of support from the left, who had access to the same raw intelligence as the President.   So when we went in, we only found the guns, but no bullets.  Let's also ignore the state support of terrorists, but of course terrorists would never be so bold as to attack us.

    troll's picture
    Offline
    Joined: 2004-11-29

    Niger has yellowcake. Should we invade them

     
     
    For mining it?  In the words of BHO, that is a devise comment.

    HymanRoth's picture
    Offline
    Joined: 2008-08-25

    BondGuy wrote: 
    To me it is inconceivable that anyone would have voted for Bush in 04 knowing the Iraq invasion was based on a lie. Yet he got away with putting it past the American public in 04. The Iraq invasion was based on a lie?I've seen this argument put forth by the left so many times, yet with no evidence.  Are you telling me that Bush was able to either deceive Colin Powell, or to persuade him to knowingly present false information to the UN Security Council?Was the UN Security Council also gullible, considering that they were fooled by these alleged lies?What about the British and Israeli intelligence services, who provided information supporting the viewpoint that Saddam Hussein had WMD's?  Were they also participating in a huge global ruse?Is it that hard to believe that these weapons were not smuggled across a porous border to Syria, a country which is also no friend of the US?  Or perhaps they were buried somewhere in the desert, still not found?Did you know that many, if not most, in Hussein's own government thought that Hussein controlled a stock of WMD's?

    Indyone's picture
    Offline
    Joined: 2005-05-31

    9-7-2008 - Obama 45.7% - McCain 46.7% - McCain +1.0%
     
    Goodbye lead.  Obama peaked too early, IMO.  The McCain +10% in USA/Gallup is probably faulty, although the momentum has clearly shifted, no doubt causing Obama's campaign to scramble.  After the last two elections, I put more faith in the Rasmussen polls than any others.
     
    Many folks I've talked politics with tell me that yes, given the decided lack of an attractive candidiate on the Dem side, they would have still voted red in 2004, even after seeing a less than effective 2nd term at times.  One old fellow reminded me that we haven't been successfully attacked by terrorists here since 9-11-2001 and he credits Bush's offensives for that, telling me that if left alone after 9-11, terrorists would have likely attacked us more than once since 2001.  While there is no way to measure a non-attack, I concede that he had a point in the matter.  I also agreed with him that John Kerry was probably the worst candidate for president in my voting lifetime (starting with the Reagan years).

    babbling looney's picture
    Offline
    Joined: 2004-12-02

    Oh, i see you're confused about the meaning of the word guillible. Let me give you some synonyms: innocent, trustful,simple, naive. Anything meaning mental defect in those words? There isn't. But don't let that get in the way of a good rant
     
    I understand the meaning of the word gullible.  I also understand the intent behind your use of the word. You mean it as belittling insult.  Prick has a dictionary meaning.  So does the word ass. If I call you a prick or an ass be assured I don't intend the meaning to be the  ones found in the dictionary.
     
    To me it is inconceivable that anyone would have voted for Bush in 04 knowing the Iraq invasion was based on a lie.
     
    A lot of things are inconceivable to you evidently.  You keep using that word. I do not think it means, what you think it means.  I voted for Bush because the alternative was Kerry.  The lie that the Iraq War was predicated on lies is just another tired old talking point from the left.   Repeating a lie over and over doesn't make it the truth.  I suggest you get a new handbook.  There is a new game in town.
     
    Take a look around at the mess this country is in. Economy in the toilet, tens of thousands of people dead on a war based on a lie. People losing their jobs. Others barely scraping by. Our rights flushed. Look at all that and then look into a mirror. Because it's your fault babs. You and your millionaire roping horse freinds who are just fine with the way things are.
    Really?  Are you sure you are an actual financial advisor?  High GDP growth.  Coming off of record unemployment to 6.1% which is still a low figure historically. You need to refresh yourself on the economic cycle. Do you think things always go up?  How old are you?  30 or less?  If you can't remember the Carter years I suggest you get a history book and read a bit.  Are things rosy in the economy? Of course not. We are in a downward economic cycle right now and inflation is a problem. The weakness in the financial markets is also a huge problem but can be solved.  How about instead of setting your hair on fire and point blame at people for what is a natural and repetitive economic swing you try to guide your clients through it.   The economic policies proposed by your boyfriend Obama will positively throw us into a depression instead of the mild recession that we are in at this time.
    My millionaire "roping horse" clients (as you so snidely say) are those who create jobs.  They create wealth, industry and pay through the nose for the welfare state that Obama wants to expand. 
    Lastly, that you immediatly embraced Palin without knowing her is disconcerting.
     
    You have no idea what I know or don't know about Palin. I've been hoping that she would be selected as McCain's VP for many months now.  What is disconcerting is that you can't accept that people have the ability to make judgements that don't jive with your world view.  Instead you call people gullible, uninformed and basically stupid because they don't accept your superior views.
     
    The attitudes of people like you, Bond Guy, is why the Republicans will win this time.  The snide, condescending, negative comments. The disrespect of the middle class, working class, small business owner and values of small town America.  Don't think that people don't see this and resent it. Despite our gullibility we know when we are being insulted and taken for fools.  I know,  you find it inconceivable.  

    BondGuy's picture
    Offline
    Joined: 2006-09-21

    Apologies up front to all for taking this one point for point.
     
    HymanRoth wrote: BondGuy wrote:
     
    To me it is inconceivable that anyone would have voted for Bush in 04 knowing the Iraq invasion was based on a lie. Yet he got away with putting it past the American public in 04. The Iraq invasion was based on a lie?
     
    Show me the WMDs? Where are they? No WMDs!  Bush built his case for war on the fact that iraq had Biowarfare WMDs ready to use and was ACTIVELY working on producing a nuclear weapon. Yet nada? At first it would be easy to give Bush a pass and say he relied on faulty intelligence, but the fact is the intell advisors had the info right. The info they had right was that any intell telling us Iraq had these weapons or was working on them COULD NOT be trusted. They advised and then warned Bush not to use the info in speeches to the American people and more importantly not to act on it. Bush decided to ignore that advice and used the info in speeches. Most prominately  the "sixteen words" in his state of the union address. More concisely, Bush manipulated the intell to bang the drum for war.
    I've seen this argument put forth by the left so many times, yet with no evidence.  Are you telling me that Bush was able to either deceive Colin Powell, or to persuade him to knowingly present false information to the UN Security Council?
     
    You might want to check with Colin Powell on that. Powell was very uncomfortable about going before the UN and the world with shakey intel we were using to make the case. he was, according to his aides, told to fall on his sword if necessary by cheney. Cheney also told him that as the most popular figure in the Bush admin he could afford to lose some  points in the pols. Powell negotiated with Bush/cheney that taking the case before the UN was his price to "sell" the case for war. later the ISG as well as a US Senate investigation found that a key documents used by Powell to make his case for war were inaccurate.
     
    Decieve, no, persuade yes. Knowingly, no, not on Powell's part.
    To be clear, the lie is Bush telling the country he had irrefutable proof that iraq had WMDs when he knew he had no such proof. Not only no proof but top intel aides telling him not to act on the shakey intell they did have. By the way that still goes down as an intel failure.
    Powell views his role in the drumbeat for war as a blot on his record. He said in an interview that it was painful and is painful. You tell me Hyman, do you think he believes he was duped?Was the UN Security Council also gullible, considering that they were fooled by these alleged lies?
     
    The reason Powell was the front man, was he was the most trusted Bush admin figure. His job was to "sell" the plan. The plan was based upon forged documents and inaccurate documents. He did a good job of selling it. What about the British and Israeli intelligence services, who provided information supporting the viewpoint that Saddam Hussein had WMD's?  Were they also participating in a huge global ruse?
     
    Global ruse? That's not what was happening. The Brits vetting of the documents in question came to a no decision. In other words they didn't know if they could trust the documents or not. Yet,   shortly after his speech, a British TV station found  one of the British intel documents that Powell used prominately in his presentation was not only based on old material, it was plagiarized. So it goes for British intel, outwitted by a TV station. Is it that hard to believe that these weapons were not smuggled across a porous border to Syria, a country which is also no friend of the US?  Or perhaps they were buried somewhere in the desert, still not found?
     
    ISG has found no evidence that this is the case. One would have to ask how the most watched nation in the world could have done this under the noses of our intell satellites. Then again...
     
    yes,  in light of the ISG report it would be hard to believe.
    Did you know that many, if not most, in Hussein's own government thought that Hussein controlled a stock of WMD's?
     
    yes, Bush admin relied on many defectors for intel. The white house ignored the agenda's of these sources against advice of senior intel.
     
    To sum it up, no WMDs. Bush manipulated, and ignored the intel he had to bulid his case for war.
    Read the findings of the ISG. This is not some left wing diatribe.

    Indyone's picture
    Offline
    Joined: 2005-05-31

    I  see Keith Olbermann got booted from his MSNBC political desk...after finishing dead last on RNC coverage...good riddance...
     
    BG, it's time to own the gullible comment for what it was.  When I look up gullible, I get synonyms such as naive, simple, silly, foolish, and unsophisticated.  None of those are flattering in my world, and you might as well have called the entire middle of the country stupid.
     
    ...and no, my "misunderstanding" of your point is not my problem, it's Obama's problem.  That's probably one of the more serious verbal faux paus he's made in his campaign and will not likely soon be forgotten.  That you verbalized the same thoughts and feelings about middle America tells me that this attitude is prevalent in coastal metro politics, and I'm sorry, it IS divisive.  That's not opinion - it's fact.  It would be like someone labeling coastal folks as tree-hugging, latte-sipping, window-smashing, bed-wetting liberals, but only meaning it in the kindest, most flattering sense of the language.  Doesn't that feel just a wee bit divisive to you?

    norway401's picture
    Offline
    Joined: 2007-10-16

    Interesting times in politics. The Conservatives have called an election for 14/Oct/08. Prior to calling the election the Conservatives were in a minority government position with the Liberals constantly making threats to defeat the Conservatives on a Confidence Motion. Up until recently the Conservatives ( your Republicans ) and the Liberals ( your Democrats ) in a virtual tie. The lastest polling shows a huge upsurge for the Conservatives which if it holds mean a Majority Government. By the way....IT'S ABOUT THE ECONOMY with other issues way behind.
    If your polls to the South are correct it appears that the Republicans may be elected .....the democrats may have peaked too early. On a final note.....FIRE OLBERMANN he is not anything more than a flunky for the Democrats.

    BondGuy's picture
    Offline
    Joined: 2006-09-21

    babbling looney wrote:Oh, i see you're confused about the meaning of the word guillible. Let me give you some synonyms: innocent, trustful,simple, naive. Anything meaning mental defect in those words? There isn't. But don't let that get in the way of a good rant
     
    I understand the meaning of the word gullible.  I also understand the intent behind your use of the word. You mean it as belittling insult.  Prick has a dictionary meaning.  So does the word ass. If I call you a prick or an ass be assured I don't intend the meaning to be the  ones found in the dictionary.
     
    To me it is inconceivable that anyone would have voted for Bush in 04 knowing the Iraq invasion was based on a lie.
     
    A lot of things are inconceivable to you evidently.  You keep using that word. I do not think it means, what you think it means.  I voted for Bush because the alternative was Kerry.  The lie that the Iraq War was predicated on lies is just another tired old talking point from the left.   Repeating a lie over and over doesn't make it the truth.  I suggest you get a new handbook.  There is a new game in town.
     
    Take a look around at the mess this country is in. Economy in the toilet, tens of thousands of people dead on a war based on a lie. People losing their jobs. Others barely scraping by. Our rights flushed. Look at all that and then look into a mirror. Because it's your fault babs. You and your millionaire roping horse freinds who are just fine with the way things are.
    Really?  Are you sure you are an actual financial advisor?  High GDP growth.  Coming off of record unemployment to 6.1% which is still a low figure historically. You need to refresh yourself on the economic cycle. Do you think things always go up?  How old are you?  30 or less?  If you can't remember the Carter years I suggest you get a history book and read a bit.  Are things rosy in the economy? Of course not. We are in a downward economic cycle right now and inflation is a problem. The weakness in the financial markets is also a huge problem but can be solved.  How about instead of setting your hair on fire and point blame at people for what is a natural and repetitive economic swing you try to guide your clients through it.   The economic policies proposed by your boyfriend Obama will positively throw us into a depression instead of the mild recession that we are in at this time.
    My millionaire "roping horse" clients (as you so snidely say) are those who create jobs.  They create wealth, industry and pay through the nose for the welfare state that Obama wants to expand. 
    Lastly, that you immediatly embraced Palin without knowing her is disconcerting.
     
    You have no idea what I know or don't know about Palin. I've been hoping that she would be selected as McCain's VP for many months now.  What is disconcerting is that you can't accept that people have the ability to make judgements that don't jive with your world view.  Instead you call people gullible, uninformed and basically stupid because they don't accept your superior views.
     
    The attitudes of people like you, Bond Guy, is why the Republicans will win this time.  The snide, condescending, negative comments. The disrespect of the middle class, working class, small business owner and values of small town America.  Don't think that people don't see this and resent it. Despite our gullibility we know when we are being insulted and taken for fools.  I know,  you find it inconceivable.  
     
    Babs, thank you for putting so much time and effort into your response. Could you please show me where I used the word inconceivable in another post? I may have used it ,but I can't find it.
     
    Somehow you've co-opted the word stupid as a synonym for the word gullible. And it has really set you off. Gee, i don't know what to do here. Telling you that you are wrong and well, I come off as condesending. Yet, here  you've prosed an entire diatribe based on a word comprehension mistake on your part. You've even got me looking down on small town america. I can't find anything i said that could be twisted to that. Well, by a logical person.
     
    babs, you are free to conduct your hate bondguy campaign. I can't stop you from hating me. i can't stop you from twisting my words. And i can't stop you from PMing other forum members to spread the hate. But i'm not the one you need to worry about.
     
     

    babbling looney's picture
    Offline
    Joined: 2004-12-02
    BondGuy's picture
    Offline
    Joined: 2006-09-21

    Indyone wrote:I  see Keith Olbermann got booted from his MSNBC political desk...after finishing dead last on RNC coverage...good riddance...
     
    BG, it's time to own the gullible comment for what it was.  When I look up gullible, I get synonyms such as naive, simple, silly, foolish, and unsophisticated.  None of those are flattering in my world, and you might as well have called the entire middle of the country stupid.
     
    ...and no, my "misunderstanding" of your point is not my problem, it's Obama's problem.  That's probably one of the more serious verbal faux paus he's made in his campaign and will not likely soon be forgotten.  That you verbalized the same thoughts and feelings about middle America tells me that this attitude is prevalent in coastal metro politics, and I'm sorry, it IS divisive.  That's not opinion - it's fact.  It would be like someone labeling coastal folks as tree-hugging, latte-sipping, window-smashing, bed-wetting liberals, but only meaning it in the kindest, most flattering sense of the language.  Doesn't that feel just a wee bit divisive to you?
     
     
     
    I find it diificult to believe that you've read the actual transcript of the San fran speech and Obama's rebuttal speech delivered the following day in  a small town in Indiana. If you have, why post this?
     
    have you have been sucked in by the misinformation machine that is presidential politics? Obama said nothing offensive about small town america. Quite the contrary. However, what the misinformation machines, both hillary's and John's, twisted Obama's words to mean is offensive to small town america. Obama delivered a speech that shows a real understanding of what's going on in small town america.
     
     
    It was predicted that, that comment would cost obama the dem nomination. So, as a campaign ploy the twisting of meaning didn't work. Small town america was able to see through the dirty campaign tactics. Whew hoo!
     
    Now McCain is giving the same tactic a spin. No surprise there considering the number of Bush people on McCain's payroll. Apparently, for as many times as I'm hearing it, it's playing well with his base. People like you. Still, it is what it is: a lie.
     
     

    babbling looney's picture
    Offline
    Joined: 2004-12-02

    Obama said nothing offensive about small town america

     
    None so blind as those who will not see.

    norway401's picture
    Offline
    Joined: 2007-10-16

    And Bond Guy .....Obama never not once ever heard Rev. Wright recite his hateful remarks and only knew him as his Pastor and friend  

    Rugby's picture
    Offline
    Joined: 2006-06-06

    norway401 wrote:And Bond Guy .....Obama never not once ever heard Rev. Wright recite his hateful remarks and only knew him as his Pastor and friend  Unless you are so in the tank for Obama (like BG), it really is extremely difficult to get comfortable enough to consider voting for him.  Considering you have to deal with all the controversies (i.e. Wright), mystery (Ayers, resume) and translating of his "intellectual comments" ("Clinging to guns and religon").   I think that the polls are starting to reflect that.  We have one person on this forum (BG) that has his back.  That can't be a good tell for dems.  No offense to BG, but no one else supporting him on the 14 pages of the thread?  I thought he was a rock star?

    norway401's picture
    Offline
    Joined: 2007-10-16

    Ruby ...my point exactly. He was heralded as so unique , so new and so anti-establishment ( Washington ) and now we find out he is JUST LIKE ANY OTHER CANDIDATE. Am I surprised not at all....the love affair was bound to end. He was or is the Media Star but at some point the hard questions get asked and then????? Rezco , Wright et al .

    Indyone's picture
    Offline
    Joined: 2005-05-31

    To be fair, the investment advisor field is predominantly Republican, or independent with a leaning toward Republican.  Frankly, traditional Republican platform items, such as small government and low taxes fit very nicely into our personal and professional needs, and those of most of our clients.  The fact that BG is defending a candidate that in some respects runs counter to his economic best interest tells me that he believes passionately in other non-financial planks of the platform.
     
    He's not real happy with me at the moment (and to a degree the feeling is mutual).  We'll just have to agree to disagree on several things here.  For what it's worth, I still make sure I read his posts when I see them, as the non-political ones have often given valuable insight to me.

    babbling looney's picture
    Offline
    Joined: 2004-12-02

    For what it's worth, I still make sure I read his posts when I see them, as the non-political ones have often given valuable insight to me.

     
    As will I.

    BondGuy's picture
    Offline
    Joined: 2006-09-21

    Rugby wrote: norway401 wrote:And Bond Guy .....Obama never not once ever heard Rev. Wright recite his hateful remarks and only knew him as his Pastor and friend  Unless you are so in the tank for Obama (like BG), it really is extremely difficult to get comfortable enough to consider voting for him.  Considering you have to deal with all the controversies (i.e. Wright), mystery (Ayers, resume) and translating of his "intellectual comments" ("Clinging to guns and religon").   I think that the polls are starting to reflect that.  We have one person on this forum (BG) that has his back.  That can't be a good tell for dems.  No offense to BG, but no one else supporting him on the 14 pages of the thread?  I thought he was a rock star?
     
    This is laughable. Gee, no support for obama over here at RRR Forums? That would be Republican Registered Rep forums. More closely, it should be social conservative registered rep forums. That aptly discribes most of the crowd that's posting on this thread.
     
    That i am willing to vote against my own self interest should tell you all you need to know about me. Most of you come across as not  open minded enough to fathom the thought. While a vote for Obama may not be in my best interest on one score, money, it's in the best interest of my children, many of my friends and even my sales assistant financially to vote him in. But that's not the main reason i would vote for Obama.
     
    Here's something about the group here that I don't get and i'm sure you can help me out on this point. Many of you being the social conservatives that you are also, no doubt, very religious. Do i have that right? The two aren't mutually exclusive but mostly go hand in hand? Religion is important to most of you?
     
    Ok, here's my question: How do those of you who are religious square the war with God? I ask this because in my mind you can't say you believe in God and be for the war. I'm not a gleeming example of Christian values, but i'm pretty sure when Jesus said love your enemies he didn't mean kill them. Yeah, it's a bumper sticker, but still, true? Yet, religious social conservatives are among those who voted Bush to a second term. And with Palin on the ticket they are on board to vote for McCain, who will extend the war for as long as he judges necessary. How does a regilious social conservative square that up? How can you vote for extending the killing?
     
    There are what, one hundred thousand people dead because of this war? How can that be right with God? Yet, with one hundred thousand people dead because of this war all most of you can do is run around whining about your taxes and post misinformation about the man who will stop the killing.
     
     Any of you out there on RRR thinking past your own self interest?
     
    Obama says he's going to stop the killing. That's all I need to know. I don't care what he does to my taxes.

    troll's picture
    Offline
    Joined: 2004-11-29

    Obama says he's going to stop the killing
     
    Obama is not going to stop the killing, he is just going to kill much younger people who have not learned to use a gun yet, or breathe for that matter.

    BondGuy's picture
    Offline
    Joined: 2006-09-21

    primo, for six of the past eight years you've had a republican congress, republican senate and a republican white house. Yet Roe v Wade still stands. You can't pin the abortion debate on Obama.
    How do you square doing your personal part in the killing of 100,000 people with being a christian?

    troll's picture
    Offline
    Joined: 2004-11-29

    Alot easier than killing partial birth abortion legislation would make me feel.  Of course, the Bible does not tell of any wars there.

    babbling looney's picture
    Offline
    Joined: 2004-12-02

    BondGuy wrote:Rugby wrote: norway401 wrote:And Bond Guy .....Obama never not once ever heard Rev. Wright recite his hateful remarks and only knew him as his Pastor and friend  Unless you are so in the tank for Obama (like BG), it really is extremely difficult to get comfortable enough to consider voting for him.  Considering you have to deal with all the controversies (i.e. Wright), mystery (Ayers, resume) and translating of his "intellectual comments" ("Clinging to guns and religon").   I think that the polls are starting to reflect that.  We have one person on this forum (BG) that has his back.  That can't be a good tell for dems.  No offense to BG, but no one else supporting him on the 14 pages of the thread?  I thought he was a rock star?
     
    This is laughable. Gee, no support for obama over here at RRR Forums? That would be Republican Registered Rep forums. More closely, it should be social conservative registered rep forums. That aptly discribes most of the crowd that's posting on this thread.
     
    That i am willing to vote against my own self interest should tell you all you need to know about me. Most of you come across as not  open minded enough to fathom the thought. While a vote for Obama may not be in my best interest on one score, money, it's in the best interest of my children, many of my friends and even my sales assistant financially to vote him in. But that's not the main reason i would vote for Obama.
     
    A vote for Obama is against EVERYONE'S best interests.  His economic policy proposals are sheer disaster for your children, and everyone else.  If he enacts his punitive tax and restrictive commerce/trade policies we will be heading into a deep deep recession if not an actual depression.
     
    Here's something about the group here that I don't get and i'm sure you can help me out on this point. Many of you being the social conservatives that you are also, no doubt, very religious. Do i have that right? The two aren't mutually exclusive but mostly go hand in hand? Religion is important to most of you?
     
    Speaking for myself....no.
     
     
    Ok, here's my question: How do those of you who are religious square the war with God? I ask this because in my mind you can't say you believe in God and be for the war. I'm not a gleeming example of Christian values, but i'm pretty sure when Jesus said love your enemies he didn't mean kill them. Yeah, it's a bumper sticker, but still, true? Yet, religious social conservatives are among those who voted Bush to a second term. And with Palin on the ticket they are on board to vote for McCain, who will extend the war for as long as he judges necessary. How does a regilious social conservative square that up? How can you vote for extending the killing?
     
    Because by winning we eliminate future killings.  You know the breaking the eggs to make the omlete theory.  And lest you get snippy back at me... I have young relatives who have been and are in the military in the Middle East.
     
    There are what, one hundred thousand people dead because of this war?  Baloney.
     
     How can that be right with God?  I don't know how Got thinks... He destroyed entire cities just to prove a point.  Sodom and Gomorah.  Yet, with one hundred thousand people dead because of this war all most of you can do is run around whining about your taxes and post misinformation about the man who will stop the killing.
     
    Any of you out there on RRR thinking past your own self interest?
     
    It's in my own self interest and in the best interest of the entire US to have a strong economy, safe and secured borders and to crush the radical terrorists who want to destroy our country, not to mention our very lives.  Obama will not do this.
     
    Obama says he's going to stop the killing. That's all I need to know. I don't care what he does to my taxes.
     
    Bull.... Obama is proposing to go into Afghanisan and and attack Pakistan, a country with nukes.  How is this stopping the killing?  Oh.....I know....just moving it to a place that has been blessed by the Democrat party and leftists who can't stand the idea that we are actually winning in Iraq.    Yeah.  That's better
     
    You should care what he does to your taxes when it is in the aim to further a communist/socialist agenda.  Your children will not thank you when they are drones to the State.

    Rugby's picture
    Offline
    Joined: 2006-06-06

    Obama really has you hook line and sinker that he would be better for your children, friends, etc...If I recall at the start of the thread I thought you were a Repub. or Indy leaning towards Obama.  Maybe the resurgence of McCain has solidified your views.Now maybe you are coming across that you think that you are made of a higher moral fiber than 99.9% of people on this thread.  Basically, you are throwing out alot of your beliefs on Bush on to McCain.  Don't forgot who controls the Congress or what Bush has been faced with early in his presidency.  To be perfectly honest with you, much of what you have written here lately seems a bit "crackpot".  That coupled with your absolute blinders on anything negative about Obama hurts you political credibility on the Rush Limbaugh Registered Rep Forum here.You may however be a completely acceptable replacement for Keith Olberman on MSNBC.  You are a valuable contributor, and perhaps some of us are guilty of goading you and are out numbering you....I do think though you are overstating the level of hard right voters on here.  Lets not forget that Obama has received a TON of money from wall street and financial industry.  The board of FNM & FRE are loaded with DEMs and former Clinton admin. people.   Notice Obama was not playing Robin Hood related to the bailout today.  Strange for a reformist to not have anything harsh to say about the people who at the helm of these financial  catastrophies that will be the burden of our children. I think you would be sorely disappointed in his ability or willingness to save the day.  Nothing he has said or done in his life or this campaign would make you think he is different. 

    norway401's picture
    Offline
    Joined: 2007-10-16

    BG ....I will be the first to admit my Conservative Bias ( Republican in U.S. ) versus the Liberals ( Democrats in the U.S. ). In Canada we do not register our Party affiliation as you do in the U.S. I do admit at points in my voting history at either the Federal or Provincial level I have voted for both Conservatives and Liberals.
    All the above being said .....and I hope you are just very passionate about your Democratic Party and do not actually hold that everything that they say is RIGHT whilst the Republicans are the always WRONG But let us be fair and intellectually honest Politicans in most part are about being Elected and being faithful to the Party first and foremost.

    anabuhabkuss's picture
    Offline
    Joined: 2005-05-02

    This thread is a "task that's from God".

    Please or Register to post comments.

    Industry Newsletters
    Investment Category Sponsor Links

     

    Sponsored Introduction Continue on to (or wait seconds) ×