Dear Mr Obama

[Andrew2382]

I laugh at the fact that people think the Military is Pro-Obama

"While recent polls show that roughly one-third of the public considers itself Republican, 57 percent of the active-duty military identified themselves with that party – with two-thirds of officers, compared to 49 percent of enlisted personnel, checking the Republican box.

Compared to 32 percent of the civilian public who described themselves as Democrats, only nine percent of military officers and 16 percent of enlisted personnel did so. Twenty-nine percent of the military respondents either said they were independent or declined to answer the question. "

All the lefties love numbers and polls right?

57% compared to 16%

 

[bornright]

Good for them.

They each get one vote.

You make a very good but disappointing point. The soldier that risks his life and sacrifices so much does only get one vote. Here you have an individual that has actually earned the right to vote and his vote is cancelled out by some spoiled, dependent, never did anything for anybody else individual.

 

[Otter_Creek]

And you aren't worried about Palin?

BTW, you may be a registered dem, but when was the last time you voted for a democrat for president?

Well, You had to bring her up huh? Palin is somewhat of a wild card and hasn't done well in her interviews, but she's not running for president.

I have friends in their eighties that still hike and ride bikes and they have a lot of wisdom to share, so McCain at 73 is no problem to me, cancer or not.

I last voted a democrat president for Bill Clinton's first term. Less than 30 days I regretted it. Hell, I even voted for Dole.

 

[jillian]

Well, You had to bring her up huh? Palin is somewhat of a wild card and hasn't done well in her interviews, but she's not running for president.

I have friends in their eighties that still hike and ride bikes and they have a lot of wisdom to share, so McCain at 73 is no problem to me, cancer or not.

I last voted a democrat president for Bill Clinton's first term. Less than 30 days I regretted it. Hell, I even voted for Dole.

Palin IS running for president. 20% of VP's have become pres by virtue of resignation or death. The fact that so many on the right are glib about this troubles me.

Thanks for your candor. You aren't a democrat any longer, though. It's not a lack of wisdom, particularly, that troubles me about McCain. Nor his age really, to be quite candid. It's his ideology. If he were still who he was in 2000, I'd be voting for him, too.

He isn't that person anymore, though. And for me, it's reallly an ideology thing. Palin just makes me really disappointed in his lack of concern for the welfare of his country.

 

[jillian]

You make a very good but disappointing point. The soldier that risks his life and sacrifices so much does only get one vote. Here you have an individual that has actually earned the right to vote and his vote is cancelled out by some spoiled, dependent, never did anything for anybody else individual.

Puleeze...

 

[Tech_Esq]

And you aren't worried about Palin?

BTW, you may be a registered dem, but when was the last time you voted for a democrat for president?

Palin isn't running for President. As between the person that is running for president and the person running for vice president, it is FAR more important that the person running for President be capable of doing the job.

That your candidate for President keeps getting compared to the person on the other side running for vice president (and not always favorably) should cause a reasonable person question whether Obama is an adequately experienced person to start being president in just over 100 days.

 

[jillian]

Palin isn't running for President. As between the person that is running for president and the person running for vice president, it is FAR more important that the person running for President be capable of doing the job.

That your candidate for President keeps getting compared to the person on the other side running for vice president (and not always favorably) should cause a reasonable person question whether Obama is an adequately experienced person to start being president in just over 100 days.

I'm sorry. Did I use the word experience? Nope... it's about understanding. She's over her head. Joe Sixpack shouldn't be president.

And again...yes...she IS running for president. This bizarre desire to separate the VP job from it's major intended purpose (which is to be first in the line of succession) is just really beyond me. Well, no it's not beyond me... it's typical spin

 

[Chris]

Blue Star Families for Obama was started by five Army and Marine Corps wives back in July. We have a budget of zero. You might otherwise know us as the casserole brigade. But in just two short months we have generated chapters in 23 states, helped host a care package service event at the convention in Denver attended by Michelle Obama, attended dozens of rallies and roundtables and hosted house parties across the country. And keep in mind - we admire John McCain's service to his country. What we do not admire is his vision for tomorrow and his long refusal to provide real support to the military community.

Blue Star Families for Obama

 

[Silence]

You make a very good but disappointing point. The soldier that risks his life and sacrifices so much does only get one vote. Here you have an individual that has actually earned the right to vote and his vote is cancelled out by some spoiled, dependent, never did anything for anybody else individual.

so what, you think a soldier is MORE entitled to their vote than I am?

you don't have to "earn" the right to vote... you are born with it.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Palin IS running for president. 20% of VP's have become pres by virtue of resignation or death. The fact that so many on the right are glib about this troubles me.

Thanks for your candor. You aren't a democrat any longer, though. It's not a lack of wisdom, particularly, that troubles me about McCain. Nor his age really, to be quite candid. It's his ideology. If he were still who he was in 2000, I'd be voting for him, too.

He isn't that person anymore, though. And for me, it's reallly an ideology thing. Palin just makes me really disappointed in his lack of concern for the welfare of his country.

LOL....you and I have almost exactly opposing view points on McCain's alleged ideology. I think he has none. You think he had one and now espouses a new one. I would take the position that he never had one to begin with. And that, is what bothers me about McCain.

He is a loose cannon on deck and just as liable to blow a hole in his own ship as someone else's.

Unfortunately, in my opinion the Democrats have chosen to sit this one out and not put a viable candidate up for election this time around. This is one election I surely would have looked at the Democrat.

 

[Tech_Esq]

I'm sorry. Did I use the word experience? Nope... it's about understanding. She's over her head. Joe Sixpack shouldn't be president.

And again...yes...she IS running for president. This bizarre desire to separate the VP job from it's major intended purpose (which is to be first in the line of succession) is just really beyond me. Well, no it's not beyond me... it's typical spin

I'm not trying to spin anything. I agree that just as your second string QB is should be ready to be the QB if your first string is hurt, the VP should be ready to go in, if the Pres. is incapacitated. But, my real point is that the Democrats are running a guy that has pretty much the same "understanding" as the VP on the Repub ticket. I won't quibble over the details unless pressed, but let's just say they are playing in the same ball park.

That's just a plain fact. Obama was in the US Senate 143 days before launching his campaign for president. Since then he has used the fact that he was running for president as a defense against an attack by Hillary over not doing his job as a Senator. For which, conveniently, his now running mate provided political cover. In my opinion, you can't have it both ways, he can't take the credit for time in the Senate and put it on his resume for experience points and then not do his Senate job. It counts one way or the other.

I'm pretty bad at math, (that's why I went to law school), but I'm pretty sure that 2 years is more than 143 days. Aside from that, we can quibble about whether state senator is equal to state oil and gas commissioner or just above or below. But either way, it's pretty close. I think the commissioner job is at least full time unlike a state senator job.

Bottom line the Dems did not put up a candidate that is prepared to be president on day one. I'm not sure that I'm going to vote for the Repubs, but it's clear that the Dems decided to sit this one out.

 

[jillian]

I really appreciate your reply. Thank you. But I'm afraid we have a basic disagreement about capability. I think Obama is greener than I'd have liked. I think Biden will be a good advisor for him, though I'd have rather seen Hillary in the top spot and Obama in the second seat.

Essentially, though, I think Palin isn't particularly sharp. Was she a good governor? I don't know, although I really dislike the games I've read about her playing with anyone who was "disloyal". I think Obama is smart, accomplished and will ultimately be a better decision maker.

Like I said, in an ideal world, Hillary would have been the candidate. She isn't... and John McCain isn't who is was 8 years ago. That leaves me the person who best represents my interests and that would be Obama. Heck, Palin couldn't even name a significant supreme court decison and my, personal, major interest, is the Court because that's where I think we get our protections.

 

[Tech_Esq]

I really appreciate your reply. Thank you. But I'm afraid we have a basic disagreement about capability. I think Obama is greener than I'd have liked. I think Biden will be a good advisor for him, though I'd have rather seen Hillary in the top spot and Obama in the second seat.

Essentially, though, I think Palin isn't particularly sharp. Was she a good governor? I don't know, although I really dislike the games I've read about her playing with anyone who was "disloyal". I think Obama is smart, accomplished and will ultimately be a better decision maker.

Like I said, in an ideal world, Hillary would have been the candidate. She isn't... and John McCain isn't who is was 8 years ago. That leaves me the person who best represents my interests and that would be Obama. Heck, Palin couldn't even name a significant supreme court decison and my, personal, major interest, is the Court because that's where I think we get our protections.

Thanks.

I'll say I haven't made up my mind yet about Sarah Palin. On a visceral level, I like me some Sarahcuda. She's strong and feisty and gives as good as she gets and I like that. She has impeccable qualities as a speech giver. Great timing and a good sense of humor. I like that. But, that said, those are but minor qualities of potential VP.

I would have preferred, much like you with your candidate, that she have more experience. (Maybe into her second term as governor). But, that's not what's there this year. So, I'll be watching tomorrow night. We'll see, I'd imagine, whether she is "smart enough" to be VP or Pres. and whether she knows the issues and think on her feet.

Although I clearly disagree with some of her stances (I can't imagine agreeing with all of anyone's stances), I have an open mind and will evaluate her on the basis of her displayed capabilities or lack thereof. She has an uphill fight tomorrow night. She has a moderator that is in the tank for Obama (financially no less) and his VP with 36 years of Senate experience. If she can make a respectable showing against all that, it will show me something.

On the court cases, yeah it would be really bad if you or I couldn't name some court cases, but we're lawyers. She isn't. You might think that she would be comfortable naming one or two, but being unfamiliar with the courts, she might have been afraid of making a gaffe and misnaming the case etc. I'm not going to put her through the meat grinder for that. If she's not smart, we won't have to guess about it. It'll be patently clear.

 

[Contessa_Sharra]

You know I cannot remember a war that was pretty and innocent people did not die that has NEVER happened.

MAYBE, just maybe, this might be a reason to avoid them whenever possible, and seek a diplomatic solution.

A "good' reason to go to war IS NOT so that some loser/shirker can make up, from an extremely safe distance, for failure to "show' when it was his turn. A reasonable pretext to attack another country IS NOT, "Well he dissed my daddy."

A "good" reason to expend the lives of so many, maim so many others, and waste so many billions of dollars IS NOT so that "good buddies" can enhance stock and profit margins.

As for this idiot to get on youtube and blast our troops is disgraceful. I say as long as our troops are on foreign soil we need to show our support. Thank your lucky stars it is not you fighting for freedom.

If we had not started this crap ON FOREIGN SOIL, we would not be in the mess we are in today.

MY freedom has NEVER been threatened by anyone anywhere, at any time since I was born in late 1946. The United States has been the aggressor in every war that we have been involved in since then. The closest we have ever come to anything else was during the Cuban Missile Crisis and THAT was actually settled DIPLOMATICALLY. The biggest threat to all of us in the US of A is that our government continually seeks hegemony, thus causing the potential loss of allies.

A little fact a lot of tend to forget is when 9-11 hit we all wanted blood when Bush went for it we were all happy remember. But we live in a me generation and a instant gratification error so when he did not wind it up in a couple of weeks all of a sudden it was ohhhh we have been lied to. This was a fake war call. How quickly we turn.

DO NOT SAY, "we all wanted blood," as many of us did not, at least not until there was some concrete evidence of the who, the what, and the how. Since that did not happen, WE ALL did NOT. Many of us were not happy with what Bush did, and IN CASE YOU CHOOSE TO DIS-REMEMBER, it was not Saddam Hussein at fault for 9/11, and apparently your hero George has chosen to dismiss Bin Laden as any sort of threat or real issue. "I don't think about Bin Laden much."

That adds up to lives unnecessarily lost, and considerable resources mis-used.

And you do not speak for me. period.

If Bush had done nothing how many more terrorist attacks would we have suffered on our own soil? Do you want our troops fighting the terrorist on their soil or ours? Let Obama be president and we just might get up close and personal with war on our soil. You decide.

Perhaps if Bush had done SOMETHING when he first assumed the throne there would not have been ANY attack.

As for the "terrorists" coming to our soil, how about a little "just say no.?" As in no visas, no pilot training, no open doors, and a little border control. I think that would help a whole bunch!

As for the "man in the street" type in all those M. E. countries..... cars cannot get across the ocean, neither can vans, trucks, etc. I haven't seen any guys on camels or donkeys arrive on the Jersey/Delaware shore, either. Exactly how large of a Navy does Afghanistan have? The Canadian border is so wide open the Russian army could cross the Pole, transit Canada and arrive in Brattleboro before anyone noticed.

Fighting anything here, and including what happened at the WTC was/is a problem of our own making, from lax to non-existent security to a too widely held belief that we should go somewhere there and over there, and never have the five pee emm news disrupted over "war." If we are taking the proper precautions, we have little to worry over. And if, by odd chance any enemy does arrive here, and we are victims of our own lack of precautions, then sure, we will all fight, JUST LIKE THEY ARE FIGHTING US IN ALL THE PLACES WE HAVE INVADED, ATTACKED, and OCCUPIED IN ORDER TO STEAL THEIR NATURAL RESOURCES.

Support our troops you ungrateful putz

I support them being brought home, so they can go to college, raise families, have jobs and homes, and LIVES.

What I don't support is catering to remote weilding recliner and armchair warriors promoting sending our greatest resource, OUR PEOPLE, out to die so that there is cheap gas for the next twinkie and ice cream or beer run.

That kid getting shot up for no reason could be home going to college getting a degree in something that will keep us from even needing foreign oil. That girl driving the humvee could be home learnhing to be a teacher, or a doctor. THAT is what I support!

 

[Otter_Creek]

Palin IS running for president. 20% of VP's have become pres by virtue of resignation or death. The fact that so many on the right are glib about this troubles me.

Thanks for your candor. You aren't a democrat any longer, though. It's not a lack of wisdom, particularly, that troubles me about McCain. Nor his age really, to be quite candid. It's his ideology. If he were still who he was in 2000, I'd be voting for him, too.

He isn't that person anymore, though. And for me, it's reallly an ideology thing. Palin just makes me really disappointed in his lack of concern for the welfare of his country.

I know Palin would be President if McCain was unable, but I just don't fear her the way many posters at USMB do.
She did make it to Governor of her state and that's quite an accomplishment for anyone to boast. It's a fact that does give her more experience than Obama.
Her being a christian doesn't bother me either. which I see is a real matter of contention to many here also.
We're all going to have to live with whoever wins this election and I don't see how either of them are much different ... all except for that experience thing.

 

[smag]

I am new ot the boards. Someone said that a poster could not port his statement of support for the war on this board. Please tell me what they ment by by not being able to post it in on this board?

 

[DiamondDave]

MAYBE, just maybe, this might be a reason to avoid them whenever possible, and seek a diplomatic solution.

A "good' reason to go to war IS NOT so that some loser/shirker can make up, from an extremely safe distance, for failure to "show' when it was his turn. A reasonable pretext to attack another country IS NOT, "Well he dissed my daddy."

A "good" reason to expend the lives of so many, maim so many others, and waste so many billions of dollars IS NOT so that "good buddies" can enhance stock and profit margins.





If we had not started this crap ON FOREIGN SOIL, we would not be in the mess we are in today.

MY freedom has NEVER been threatened by anyone anywhere, at any time since I was born in late 1946. The United States has been the aggressor in every war that we have been involved in since then. The closest we have ever come to anything else was during the Cuban Missile Crisis and THAT was actually settled DIPLOMATICALLY. The biggest threat to all of us in the US of A is that our government continually seeks hegemony, thus causing the potential loss of allies.




DO NOT SAY, "we all wanted blood," as many of us did not, at least not until there was some concrete evidence of the who, the what, and the how. Since that did not happen, WE ALL did NOT. Many of us were not happy with what Bush did, and IN CASE YOU CHOOSE TO DIS-REMEMBER, it was not Saddam Hussein at fault for 9/11, and apparently your hero George has chosen to dismiss Bin Laden as any sort of threat or real issue. "I don't think about Bin Laden much."

That adds up to lives unnecessarily lost, and considerable resources mis-used.

And you do not speak for me. period.



Perhaps if Bush had done SOMETHING when he first assumed the throne there would not have been ANY attack.

As for the "terrorists" coming to our soil, how about a little "just say no.?" As in no visas, no pilot training, no open doors, and a little border control. I think that would help a whole bunch!

As for the "man in the street" type in all those M. E. countries..... cars cannot get across the ocean, neither can vans, trucks, etc. I haven't seen any guys on camels or donkeys arrive on the Jersey/Delaware shore, either. Exactly how large of a Navy does Afghanistan have? The Canadian border is so wide open the Russian army could cross the Pole, transit Canada and arrive in Brattleboro before anyone noticed.

Fighting anything here, and including what happened at the WTC was/is a problem of our own making, from lax to non-existent security to a too widely held belief that we should go somewhere there and over there, and never have the five pee emm news disrupted over "war." If we are taking the proper precautions, we have little to worry over. And if, by odd chance any enemy does arrive here, and we are victims of our own lack of precautions, then sure, we will all fight, JUST LIKE THEY ARE FIGHTING US IN ALL THE PLACES WE HAVE INVADED, ATTACKED, and OCCUPIED IN ORDER TO STEAL THEIR NATURAL RESOURCES.




I support them being brought home, so they can go to college, raise families, have jobs and homes, and LIVES.

What I don't support is catering to remote weilding recliner and armchair warriors promoting sending our greatest resource, OUR PEOPLE, out to die so that there is cheap gas for the next twinkie and ice cream or beer run.

That kid getting shot up for no reason could be home going to college getting a degree in something that will keep us from even needing foreign oil. That girl driving the humvee could be home learnhing to be a teacher, or a doctor. THAT is what I support!

Try understanding reality before you spout off... first it is very clear that you know jack SHIT about the military... second, where have we stolen natural resources?... Third, try clinging onto facts and not the slogans you hear from the extremists on the far left

 

[mdjgirl7]

MAYBE, just maybe, this might be a reason to avoid them whenever possible, and seek a diplomatic solution.

A "good' reason to go to war IS NOT so that some loser/shirker can make up, from an extremely safe distance, for failure to "show' when it was his turn. A reasonable pretext to attack another country IS NOT, "Well he dissed my daddy."

A "good" reason to expend the lives of so many, maim so many others, and waste so many billions of dollars IS NOT so that "good buddies" can enhance stock and profit margins.






If we had not started this crap ON FOREIGN SOIL, we would not be in the mess we are in today.

MY freedom has NEVER been threatened by anyone anywhere, at any time since I was born in late 1946. The United States has been the aggressor in every war that we have been involved in since then. The closest we have ever come to anything else was during the Cuban Missile Crisis and THAT was actually settled DIPLOMATICALLY. The biggest threat to all of us in the US of A is that our government continually seeks hegemony, thus causing the potential loss of allies.




DO NOT SAY, "we all wanted blood," as many of us did not, at least not until there was some concrete evidence of the who, the what, and the how. Since that did not happen, WE ALL did NOT. Many of us were not happy with what Bush did, and IN CASE YOU CHOOSE TO DIS-REMEMBER, it was not Saddam Hussein at fault for 9/11, and apparently your hero George has chosen to dismiss Bin Laden as any sort of threat or real issue. "I don't think about Bin Laden much."

That adds up to lives unnecessarily lost, and considerable resources mis-used.

And you do not speak for me. period.



Perhaps if Bush had done SOMETHING when he first assumed the throne there would not have been ANY attack.

As for the "terrorists" coming to our soil, how about a little "just say no.?" As in no visas, no pilot training, no open doors, and a little border control. I think that would help a whole bunch!

As for the "man in the street" type in all those M. E. countries..... cars cannot get across the ocean, neither can vans, trucks, etc. I haven't seen any guys on camels or donkeys arrive on the Jersey/Delaware shore, either. Exactly how large of a Navy does Afghanistan have? The Canadian border is so wide open the Russian army could cross the Pole, transit Canada and arrive in Brattleboro before anyone noticed.

Fighting anything here, and including what happened at the WTC was/is a problem of our own making, from lax to non-existent security to a too widely held belief that we should go somewhere there and over there, and never have the five pee emm news disrupted over "war." If we are taking the proper precautions, we have little to worry over. And if, by odd chance any enemy does arrive here, and we are victims of our own lack of precautions, then sure, we will all fight, JUST LIKE THEY ARE FIGHTING US IN ALL THE PLACES WE HAVE INVADED, ATTACKED, and OCCUPIED IN ORDER TO STEAL THEIR NATURAL RESOURCES.




I support them being brought home, so they can go to college, raise families, have jobs and homes, and LIVES.

What I don't support is catering to remote weilding recliner and armchair warriors promoting sending our greatest resource, OUR PEOPLE, out to die so that there is cheap gas for the next twinkie and ice cream or beer run.

That kid getting shot up for no reason could be home going to college getting a degree in something that will keep us from even needing foreign oil. That girl driving the humvee could be home learnhing to be a teacher, or a doctor. THAT is what I support!

We talk about W like the Dems hands are blood free not true my friend
War Crimes Clinton Is The WorId's Leading Active War Criminal

Yep good Ole Bill has blood on his hands to. So don't get toooo self righteous.
I would dare say just about all notice I said just about every president we have had has blood on his hands. Oh and Bill had Bin Laden in his sites and he dropped the ball on that one wonder if it was because he had his eyes on Monica instead?

Oh Biden at first voted for and supported the war buttt then he changed his mind wishy washy don't you think?

And huh stolen their natural resources really the gas where I live is still sky high and we are spending bunches of money on this war so where is the pay off? Where is the booty you speak of?

Amazing you think nobody can get to us huh did you see the opening to the Olympics? I think the Chinese could get to us if they wanted us and they out number us by far. Come on you can't be that naive.

I am glad to know you think we are such a super power we are untouchable really?

And how ridiculous to think I want our military personal to die. Get real but you know what when you sign up for the military you have to accept that responsibility of knowing one day you actually might have to fight and die or be permanently injured that is part of it. We do not induct underage men and women to do this. I hate the fact that some of them are dead or lots cause I know you are going to nit pick everything I write to insult me.

As for terrorist oh no there was never any of those in Iraq or anywhere else huh. Here just for kicks the Holocaust never happened either.

 

[bornright]

so what, you think a soldier is MORE entitled to their vote than I am?

you don't have to "earn" the right to vote... you are born with it.

Unfortunately you are right......

 

[mdjgirl7]

I think if ANYONE has the right to question the war it's the men and women who have fought in it. He's no more an idiot that your soldier and it's completely disrespectful of you to degrade him simply because you disagree with him....





you're right...we did want blood following 9/11. We wanted OSAMA BIN LADEN'S blood.... do we have that yet? NO. pretending that we got our vengence for 9/11 shows what a moron you are.



the truly pathetic thing is you actually believe that. the terrorists weren't in IRAQ you braindead piece of shit. oh and BTW...bush did nothing the first time...that's how we got 9/11 to begin with... check the facts.



hey, fucknut, I can support the troops and still question the war ya know. I don't like the taste of bullshit, sorry, so I've gotten up from the table.

[/QUOTE]

Sorry I do not correspond with people who have such a limited vocabulary.
When you can come up with a post directed at me without the profanity I will respond to your comments.