Food for thought

[Tiger]

Was Obama a phenomenon or was he a con.

What voters need to know. The facts, the cards he plays. He is not Martin Luther King, with Martin Luther King's dream. I doubt very much that Martin Luther King was Mulatto.

The changes Obama speaks of is not necessarily what you think, or want it to be. If the troops come back, the consequences will be the same, as you see here regarding the little wars on drugs, gangs, etc. What happens when someone goes out to fight against it.

They fight and go home, and suddenly a drive by. Your innocent children get hit. Your loved ones may be fighting in the war and you want them back, but at what cost to you and your home. Why bring the predator to your nest to kill you and your young. Even in the wild the mother knows it's not smart to run home to their young. They know the predator will follow their scent back to them. They stay and fight even to the end to save their young!

If we act out of fear of losing our loved ones to the war in Iraq, not stopping to think about the outcome it will create. We will do the unthinkable. Can you put a time limit on when you will have finished and won the war on drugs?

Before 911 we still had planes hijacked, They still kidnapped and killed our people with demands to release prisoners, how many years ago? Do the research. It's still happening, but there not here. The actions of the enemy speaks for itself.

Obama can read a speech written out for him, but who will write down what to do for our nation? If a solution is needed we will have to wait for someone to write out the solution.

He wont have a teleprompter to help him, when we have a national emergency. He can't even perform a quick response in any of his past debates. You have been conned by the worse con man the world ever seen. By playing the cards that he knows some people will be blinded by.
-------------------------------
Don't Believe Anything You Hear, and Only Half of What You See!

 

[Detmurds]

He is a boot-camp Senator who has no plan to fix a single thing!

 

[jreeves]

Was Obama a phenomenon or was he a con.

What voters need to know. The facts, the cards he plays. He is not Martin Luther King, with Martin Luther King's dream. I doubt very much that Martin Luther King was Mulatto.

The changes Obama speaks of is not necessarily what you think, or want it to be. If the troops come back, the consequences will be the same, as you see here regarding the little wars on drugs, gangs, etc. What happens when someone goes out to fight against it.

They fight and go home, and suddenly a drive by. Your innocent children get hit. Your loved ones may be fighting in the war and you want them back, but at what cost to you and your home. Why bring the predator to your nest to kill you and your young. Even in the wild the mother knows it's not smart to run home to their young. They know the predator will follow their scent back to them. They stay and fight even to the end to save their young!

If we act out of fear of losing our loved ones to the war in Iraq, not stopping to think about the outcome it will create. We will do the unthinkable. Can you put a time limit on when you will have finished and won the war on drugs?

Before 911 we still had planes hijacked, They still kidnapped and killed our people with demands to release prisoners, how many years ago? Do the research. It's still happening, but there not here. The actions of the enemy speaks for itself.

Obama can read a speech written out for him, but who will write down what to do for our nation? If a solution is needed we will have to wait for someone to write out the solution.

He wont have a teleprompter to help him, when we have a national emergency. He can't even perform a quick response in any of his past debates. You have been conned by the worse con man the world ever seen. By playing the cards that he knows some people will be blinded by.

http://www.imao.us/archives/009710.html
My Solution to Iraq Is to Never Have Gone There
An Editorial by Senator Barack Obama

Iraq continues to be a serious problem, and the Bush administration has done nothing but increase the problem and cause unnecessary deaths. It is a mess, but I have a solution: I would never have gone there.



The Iraq War will be a big problem to inherit, but it would not be if we hadn't have gone there. That's why that is my solution. People ask me, "Won't leaving Iraq now be abandoning the Iraqi people?" Well, it wouldn't be abandoning them if we hadn't had gone there. "What about a civil war?" others ask, to which I say there would be no civil war if Saddam were still in charge because we didn't go to Iraq. As you can see, not having gone to Iraq easily solves all these problems.


"I do have experience: Experience at not going to war." As for Al Qaeda in Iraq, I don't think they would be a problem if we hadn't had gone. Maybe they already were there and working with some support from Saddam, but I still think not having gone there is a risk worth taking. You may worry about all the terrorists there and whether they have intentions for attacking America, but you wouldn't if we hadn't had gone.


Senator John McCain questions whether I have experience enough to deal with Iraq, but the fact is that he's old. No one faints at his rallies... unless they forgot their heart medication because they're as old as he is. And I do have experience: Experience at not going to war. That's why not having gone to Iraq is the perfect solution for me. It's one I'm uniquely able to espouse and have been consistent on. Years ago I said we shouldn't invade Iraq, and that is still my solution.



A few have said that not going to Iraq isn't a solution anymore since we already have gone there. I hear your concern and I have three words for you: Hope. Change. The future.



That's right: The future. And not just any future; a future where we look forward and say, "We shouldn't have gone to Iraq."

 

[Tiger]

ROFLMAO!!! Thak was good.

 

[Gunny]

http://www.imao.us/archives/009710.html
My Solution to Iraq Is to Never Have Gone There
An Editorial by Senator Barack Obama

Iraq continues to be a serious problem, and the Bush administration has done nothing but increase the problem and cause unnecessary deaths. It is a mess, but I have a solution: I would never have gone there.



The Iraq War will be a big problem to inherit, but it would not be if we hadn't have gone there. That's why that is my solution. People ask me, "Won't leaving Iraq now be abandoning the Iraqi people?" Well, it wouldn't be abandoning them if we hadn't had gone there. "What about a civil war?" others ask, to which I say there would be no civil war if Saddam were still in charge because we didn't go to Iraq. As you can see, not having gone to Iraq easily solves all these problems.


"I do have experience: Experience at not going to war." As for Al Qaeda in Iraq, I don't think they would be a problem if we hadn't had gone. Maybe they already were there and working with some support from Saddam, but I still think not having gone there is a risk worth taking. You may worry about all the terrorists there and whether they have intentions for attacking America, but you wouldn't if we hadn't had gone.


Senator John McCain questions whether I have experience enough to deal with Iraq, but the fact is that he's old. No one faints at his rallies... unless they forgot their heart medication because they're as old as he is. And I do have experience: Experience at not going to war. That's why not having gone to Iraq is the perfect solution for me. It's one I'm uniquely able to espouse and have been consistent on. Years ago I said we shouldn't invade Iraq, and that is still my solution.



A few have said that not going to Iraq isn't a solution anymore since we already have gone there. I hear your concern and I have three words for you: Hope. Change. The future.



That's right: The future. And not just any future; a future where we look forward and say, "We shouldn't have gone to Iraq."

I happen to agree with Obama on this particular point, but not as a "solution." What's done is done and can't be taken back, nor is wishful thinking that doesn't take reality into account solve a damned thing.

But I said then, and still maintain Saddam was the lesser of two evils. We should have left him alone and contained rather than create the sectarian warfare and power vaccum between Arabs/Sunni and Persians/Shia all fighting for chunks of Iraq.

So, for whatever else I don't agree with Obama on and am willing to not vote for him for, his beign against invading Iraq is not one of them.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I happen to agree with Obama on this particular point, but not as a "solution." What's done is done and can't be taken back, nor is wishful thinking that doesn't take reality into account solve a damned thing.

But I said then, and still maintain Saddam was the lesser of two evils. We should have left him alone and contained rather than create the sectarian warfare and power vaccum between Arabs/Sunni and Persians/Shia all fighting for chunks of Iraq.

So, for whatever else I don't agree with Obama on and am willing to not vote for him for, his beign against invading Iraq is not one of them.

His ignorant claim that we can just leave is beyond stupid. We can not CHANGE the fact we invaded. There is NO HOPE if we tell our allies we will abandon them. The future is bleak if we abandon our allies and give terrorists what they want.

 

[Gunny]

His ignorant claim that we can just leave is beyond stupid. We can not CHANGE the fact we invaded. There is NO HOPE if we tell our allies we will abandon them. The future is bleak if we abandon our allies and give terrorists what they want.

I realize we can't just leave and so does he. He's playing to a crowd and they're sucking it up without giving it any real thought.

That's the part that just kills me. It appears NO ONE is really thinking at all this election. Not from either side.

Just can't wait to have to live with the results.

 

[Paulie]

IThat's the part that just kills me. It appears NO ONE is really thinking at all this election. Not from either side.

Yeah, I can't help but think that this election cycle, voters are exponentially dumber than usual about how they're making choices.

It's almost as if people have completely forgotten that politicians lie and pander for votes. With McCain and Hillary, you have clear and concise verifiable information concerning their records that ultimately indicates dog crap, and with Obama you don't have ANYTHING to go on except his word. And since when has a politician's WORD meant anything but DOG CRAP?

The worst part is, that every election cycle, there are more candidates then just the one's that the media shoves down your throat. It's just that a large majority of people will only vote for someone they hear the media talk about, because that means that they "can win".

It's sad, and that's why this country continually gets the absolute shittiest of human beings elected to so many public offices. The establishment uses our own stupidity and lack of critical thinking AGAINST us.

 

[Gunny]

Yeah, I can't help but think that this election cycle, voters are exponentially dumber than usual about how they're making choices.

It's almost as if people have completely forgotten that politicians lie and pander for votes. With McCain and Hillary, you have clear and concise verifiable information concerning their records that ultimately indicates dog crap, and with Obama you don't have ANYTHING to go on except his word. And since when has a politician's WORD meant anything but DOG CRAP?

The worst part is, that every election cycle, there are more candidates then just the one's that the media shoves down your throat. It's just that a large majority of people will only vote for someone they hear the media talk about, because that means that they "can win".

It's sad, and that's why this country continually gets the absolute shittiest of human beings elected to so many public offices. The establishment uses our own stupidity and lack of critical thinking AGAINST us.

This country gets the shittiest of elected officials because we have been accepting the shittiest of human beings, on both sides of the aisle, and voting for them just to keep what we considered even shittier individuals out.

So do we withhold our votes out of displeasure with what we're offered as happened in 2006 which the Dems have been calling a "mandate" and "will of the people" ever since? Note that in those two years the big-talking Congress has accomplished nothing worthy of notice except an investigation into the use of steroids by a private enterprise; which, is clearly out of their bounds.

Or do we vote for someone like McCain just because he supposedly wouldn't be as bad as Hillary or Obama?

I quit supporting the Democrats in 1980 when it was clear the party was no longer in touch with any clear-thinking, moderate individuals. I have no qualms about doing the same to the GOP.

As far as I'm concerned, NONE of the current top three represent a damned thing I believe in.

 

[jreeves]

I happen to agree with Obama on this particular point, but not as a "solution." What's done is done and can't be taken back, nor is wishful thinking that doesn't take reality into account solve a damned thing.

But I said then, and still maintain Saddam was the lesser of two evils. We should have left him alone and contained rather than create the sectarian warfare and power vaccum between Arabs/Sunni and Persians/Shia all fighting for chunks of Iraq.

So, for whatever else I don't agree with Obama on and am willing to not vote for him for, his beign against invading Iraq is not one of them.

Everything is much clearer in hindsight, yes in hindsight it was a mistake to invade Iraq. I do believe though that the justification was there.

In Obama's 2002 speech, he basically agreed with all the assertions made by the intelligence communities. Saddam had chemical and biological weapons and that he had ambitions to acquire nuclear weapons. He also stated that Saddam was a butcher. He stated after all that though he wouldn't launch an attack against Iraq.

Knowing that Saddam wouldn't have hesitated to use WMD's, because of his history with WMD's, I don't think he was right. If he had stated that intelligence reports were wrong. Then, yes his stance in my opinion would have been well founded.

Also, in 2006 when Obama was interviewed he stated that if he was privy to the intelligence reports perhaps he would have voted for authorization of the war in Iraq. He said at the time he was only running for a U.S. Senate seat.

I believe that Bush wouldn't have invaded Iraq, if he knew what he knows now about the extent of Saddam's WMD program. I mean that's only my 2 cents.

 

[Gunny]

Everything is much clearer in hindsight, yes in hindsight it was a mistake to invade Iraq. I do believe though that the justification was there.

Nice try, but 1991 was NOT hindsight by ANY stretch of the imagination. My previous comment was a prediction in 91, not a "lessons learned" summary.

In Obama's 2002 speech, he basically agreed with all the assertions made by the intelligence communities. Saddam had chemical and biological weapons and that he had ambitions to acquire nuclear weapons. He also stated that Saddam was a butcher. He stated after all that though he wouldn't launch an attack against Iraq.

Knowing that Saddam wouldn't have hesitated to use WMD's, because of his history with WMD's, I don't think he was right. If he had stated that intelligence reports were wrong. Then, yes his stance in my opinion would have been well founded.

Also, in 2006 when Obama was interviewed he stated that if he was privy to the intelligence reports perhaps he would have voted for authorization of the war in Iraq. He said at the time he was only running for a U.S. Senate seat.

I believe that Bush wouldn't have invaded Iraq, if he knew what he knows now about the extent of Saddam's WMD program. I mean that's only my 2 cents.

I did not say the justification to remove him from power did not exist. Minus the liberal spin, the justification given at the time was pretty-much legit, IMO, and I have listed and proven it ad nauseum on this and other political message boards.

The justification being legitimate does not negate the fact that Saddam was head of a secular government -- corrupt and evil or not -- that stood between Arabia and Persia, keeping the two regions divided, and he kept the Shia and Sunni fundamentalists separated and toothless.

His strategic value as "joker in the deck" trumped taking him out for being a despotic piece of crap.

 

[jreeves]

Nice try, but 1991 was NOT hindsight by ANY stretch of the imagination. My previous comment was a prediction in 91, not a "lessons learned" summary.



I did not say the justification to remove him from power did not exist. Minus the liberal spin, the justification given at the time was pretty-much legit, IMO, and I have listed and proven it ad nauseum on this and other political message boards.

The justification being legitimate does not negate the fact that Saddam was head of a secular government -- corrupt and evil or not -- that stood between Arabia and Persia, keeping the two regions divided, and he kept the Shia and Sunni fundamentalists separated and toothless.

His strategic value as "joker in the deck" trumped taking him out for being a despotic piece of crap.

Well 1991 is a lot different than 2003, the conditions upon our entering Iraq in 1991 would be completely justified even if you were looking through liberal googles. I mean in the first Gulf War he invaded Kuwait.

Although I can see your points regarding the different factions fighting and Saddam being a equalizer.

I think that it was smart to take out the threat of Saddam. Say he had used some type of WMD against Israel, Iraq would be nothing but an ashtray right now. And do you think the Arab world would idly stand by, I think not...what type of mess could that have turned into? It had the potential to destablize the whole region. So, due to the threat of Saddam's WMD's, I believe it was a good ideal.

 

[Tiger]

Originally Posted by GunnyL
IThat's the part that just kills me. It appears NO ONE is really thinking at all this election. Not from either side.

I thought that too. Now think, they are thinking. The ones that want their family's here (all of Mexico) They are no more for America then Obama (Hawaiians hate Americans). They come here waving their flags, and shaking their fist proud to be Mexican. There is a lot of countries that hate Americans, our very laws is a conviction to them. It is against our laws to have sex with our children, or children. not true for Mexico, and some other countries. Bush made them Citizens, and some say that Bill took money from them and gave them License. They are the ones Voting for the one that promises them a life here. we say they are not thinking but they are thinking just like people that have no love for America or Americans. Like Obama who shows it by the insolent act regarding the flag.