Possible Presidential Pairings?
204 RepliesJump to last post
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.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.htm
That 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.
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?Exactly how many people to you have to kill with a weapon for it to be considered a WMD?
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.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.[quote=BondGuy]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.[/quote] 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.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.
[quote=Primo]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.[/quote] as was Clinton. But nether was handed the problem we find ourselves in today. What's a rino?[quote=Primo][quote=BondGuy]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.[/quote] 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. [/quote] 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?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.
[quote=BondGuy][quote=Primo][quote=BondGuy]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.[/quote] 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. [/quote] 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? [/quote] 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.Niger has yellowcake. Should we invade them
For mining it? In the words of BHO, that is a devise comment.[quote=BondGuy]
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. [/quote]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?
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).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.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.[/quote]
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?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.