World wants Obama

[KGB]

I hardly think the world wanted the charmless Kerry... however they did prefer him to the obviously retarded terrorist Bush.

I have long put forward the proposal that Europeans should vote in the US election and only perhaps the 10% of americans who are on a similar intellectual plane.

It is insane to allow the educationally backward (at least 50% of the US voting public)...the vote.

I would argue the same for the inept/foolish euros who continually vote themselves new welfare benefits & economic stagnation.....

we are a SOVERIGN nation governed by our own social ideals.....

 

[KGB]

oh ya--like all the people who voted for Blair. They fell for that fake stuff too.

other than Iraq, Blair was the ideological brother of Bill Clinton.....

 

[del]

YEs... can you name me a brit...more publicly ridiculed and laughed out of town than Tony Blair?

um, you?

 

[Caligirl]

neither did ignoring all the other times America and its allies were bombed by Al Queada. How many times to YOU have to be hit before you hit back--HARD.

Well, there's something to be said for not being a pushover - but if you can rally other countries to your side first, not only are you in a stronger position, but the other side is likely more intimidated from the get go.

And if you have already made some genuine goodwill gestures to the people, they will be more likely to help. (That's standard once we occupy, isn't it?)

I mean, did we really want to bomb the snot out of the Iraqi people? Or, was our actual goal bin Laden?

 

[Caligirl]

YEs... can you name me a brit...more publicly ridiculed and laughed out of town than Tony Blair?

What, like three years after the fact? And now he is a middle east envoy? AND officially Catholic now?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/world/europe/23britain.html

I see, everything at odds with what you say, proves you right?

 

[Caligirl]

ITs all about picking a small threat.... and nurturing it and encouraging itand provoking it to grow...and the inspiring that fear and hate amongst the more gullible people of the US.

Did you ever get back to me on whether Brown is part of the conspiracy?

 

[dilloduck]

Well, there's something to be said for not being a pushover - but if you can rally other countries to your side first, not only are you in a stronger position, but the other side is likely more intimidated from the get go.

And if you have already made some genuine goodwill gestures to the people, they will be more likely to help. (That's standard once we occupy, isn't it?)

I mean, did we really want to bomb the snot out of the Iraqi people? Or, was our actual goal bin Laden?

Our goal was far more than bin laden and that was made very clear. It still should be bigger than the capture of one man. Why oh why people think catching him will change anything is beyond me.

 

[Caligirl]

Because he is the head of Al Qaeda.

See, it's not that confusing now is it?

 

[dilloduck]

Because he is the head of Al Qaeda.

See, it's not that confusing now is it?

and if he is captured Al Queada will just disappear ??
tell me you dont believe that.

 

[Caligirl]

No, silly, someone else would be in charge. But it's disruptive to the power structure. It throws a monkeywrench in the works.

And besides, getting him puts some closure to the 9/11 thing.

Well, and it would give some credibility to the government.

Yeah, I know, funny idea.

 

[dilloduck]

No, silly, someone else would be in charge. But it's disruptive to the power structure. It throws a monkeywrench in the works.

And besides, getting him puts some closure to the 9/11 thing.

Well, and it would give some credibility to the government.

Yeah, I know, funny idea.

Al Queada unfortunately has a power structure that is not disrupted so easily-

Credibility? Bah--we already have posters claiming he has already been killed or captured and Bush is just waiting to bring up out for a publicity stunt.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

How many muslims do you have over the now doing the manual labor for ya ? I understand they have qutie the new mosque too. You can't afford to be afraid of them. They got you by the balls

I knew that one hit you where it hurts !

How soon is shia law coming or is it there already ?

By that logic, I guess those in living in the Southwestern US should also know when the official names are going to be changed back to "Tejas" and "Nuevo Mexico", eh?

 

[DiveCon]

Fear Fear...be Very Afraid America.

Muslims Are Evil And Want To Kill Your Unborn Babies...

Fear Fear Fear

Hate Hate Hate.

no, thats democrats

 

[frazzledgear]

You mean like how Blair had prayer sessions with Bush and remained PM?

Bush says God chose him to lead his nation | World news | The Observer

I had hoped I was past any need to post a link to the Bush smears -get a life, this guy is out of office in just a few months. Gee, that must mean he isn't a dictator after all, huh? Bush didn't say any such thing, sorry. (Referring to the title of your link.) He also didn't ask the leader of Chile if there were black people in Chile, he didn't tell Israel PM that God told him to invade Iraq either. Want to discuss the great big government plot Bush was able to whip together in less than 8 months and before his full team had even been approved by Congress? You know, the one involving thousands of people to destroy the WTC all so we could go to war and steal some other country's oil or whatever (if it was to steal some other country's oil, then why the hell am I paying so frigging much?) -and how its "impossible" for one damaged building to finally collapse hours after the ones hit by planes did and there's the "proof" it was all a government plot?

Now notice what a MAJOR difference is between what you wrote above -and the original source for it which originated in this article and then merely re-invented to suit those suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome.

PublicEye.org - Faith Matters: George Bush and Providence

THIS was actually the first story on this -and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see it says "the attack on the WTC and Pentagon were interpreted by many, including members of the Bush administration, as signs from God that Bush was ordained to lead a crusade against evil." It didn't require much to slightly alter that in order for smearists to say it was BUSH himself who thinks he was ordained by God. This is how smear campaigns work in the first place. Use some slanted piece written by someone with a clear opposing political agenda, change a few words here and there and PRESTO -they get to insist this was the claim of Bush himself!

Interesting to note here though -this article was clearly intended to be one to make people think Bush was some kind of religious extremist. Even though he is a METHODIST and has been for decades -one of the most mainstream and "live and let live" Christian religions in the country. One of the few Christian religions that ordains female priests -oh yeah, its real fundamentalist and extremist. ROFL

This article claims Bush's religious rhetoric went way beyond that of past Presidents -which is a real hoot and obviously written by someone not familiar with any past President except Clinton. Who was actually the unique President as far as being notably uncomfortable with religion and expressions of religious faith. If comparing Bush to Clinton, then yeah Bush spoke more often and far more comfortably about his faith -but different from past Presidents? ROFL -no. And while this article CLAIMS that some members of the Bush administration believe God ordained Bush to lead the country at this time -it doesn't name a SINGLE MEMBER OF BUSH'S ADMINISTRATION who says they believe any such thing. Not even as an anonymous source. One of THE worst breaches of journalism ethics there is. If they can't quote a SINGLE person, not even as an anonymous source -then it really means NO ONE in the administration said any such thing. It is nothing but a piece of propaganda with a clear goal -and that goal isn't to impart ANY factual information but meant to sway opinion by means of smear and innuendo only - with all sorts of bs claims they don't even attempt to back up at all. It claims that Bush's worldview is formed from his "extremist" religious beliefs?? -too funny for anyone familiar with the Methodist church. And hey, who cares if the uninformed end up believing a fairly liberal Christian church is some kind of extremist whacko one, right? Might as well tar anyone and anything with any kind of association with the "walking evil" those sufferering from BDS insist he is.

In addition, the fact that a President with religious beliefs tells his confidants that he believes God wants him to run for President -isn't a sign of "whacko-ism" as this article would like people to believe. Interesting the author couldn't actually find any associate of Bush who said it though. But even IF he did, MANY of our past Presidents have said or written the same or similar thing and is actually far from unique and more the norm. So Washington is a great President although writing how he felt the hand of God directing him to accept the Presidency although his initial reaction was to refuse it? FDR is a great President even though writing in his memoirs that he felt the hand of God directing his life to the Presidency? But Bush is a whacko IF he really did tell a friend the same thing? ROFL Many of our Presidents have felt a sense of destiny when it came to being President and that includes Clinton. For the religious, this "sense of destiny" would naturally be interpreted as the will of God. And who the heck are any of us to argue it wasn't?

I came to the realization a long time ago that those suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome have a real NEED to believe the absolute worst about this guy, there is no such thing as going too far in the nonstop smear campaign waged against the guy and such sufferers will never allow sticky facts to get in their way. But surely at some point they have to come to realization that they have been played like a violin. Because they really have. Biggest bunch of cows I've come across in quite a while. Interesting to note that the last President who had to endure the nonstop smear campaign that occurred on this global level was Ronald Reagan. Want to check where that guy has ended up in Presidential history? Those who must make the most controversial decisions have ended up as some of our greatest Presidents -but were rarely ever popular for it. People naturally resist decisions that shake up the status quo, people naturally oppose war even when it may prevent greater loss of life later on. A lot of people MUST see that greater loss of life first no matter what -and such people will always exist.

Lincoln had the single most worst approval ratings yet it is impossible to argue the guy didn't put the best interests of a nation before those of his party, isn't it? Our greatest Presidents were not those who were LED by opinion polls or valued their "legacy" over what was actually in the best interests of the nation. They were those who did the leading themselves - and had to make some of the most difficult and often very controversial decisions of the time -and in spite of public opinion. We all must decide whether we want a President who will bend whichever way the fickle winds of popular opinion happen to be and even though current public opinion is so often dead wrong -or one who truly believes a particular action is in the best interest of the nation and even if he personally must suffer for it. Your choice. But if you choose one who bends to public opinion then we don't actually need a President at all and can just take a poll -even though the people answering those polls have no expertise on the issue and do not have access to the full information required in order to make that decision.

Where Bush ultimately ends up in history sure won't be determined by those suffering from BDS anymore than those who railed and smeared Reagan got to decide his place in history either. But already Presidential historians have placed BOTH Bushes above Clinton and for multiple reasons that the BDS sufferers cannot comprehend and may never comprehend. But it does make me laugh to hear someone wax on about how Clinton was THE best President they have ever seen. It only tells me their age, their ignorance about what a President can actually change or influence - and the fact they really haven't seen many Presidents come and go.

Those convinced this Bush is the epitome of idiocy and megalomania need to get a life. No President comes into office wanting to screw up the country or go down as a terrible President. And stupid people have never EVER been elected as President and never will be -including whoever happens to win this election. Neither candidate is stupid, they simply have a different vision for where the country should go from here. Get familiar with history and whether the policies each holds out have a historical precedence for success -or have always historically failed. Make an INFORMED decision -and then live with the consequences. Whether you believe it or not, ALL Presidents come into office wanting to do their best for the country and all of them would love to go down as a President that everyone loved. Circumstances hasn't allowed that to happen for any of them since Washington and it never will. I prefer one who places that desire below their desire to make decisions they firmly believe are in the best interests of this country and would rather see themselves personally suffer for it than back down and make a decision they believe would damage this country long after they left office. But that's me.

 

[MichaelCollins]

100 words or less...thank you honey.

 

[MichaelCollins]

I had hoped I was past any need to post a link to the Bush smears -get a life, this guy is out of office in just a few months. Gee, that must mean he isn't a dictator after all, huh? Bush didn't say any such thing, sorry. (Referring to the title of your link.) He also didn't ask the leader of Chile if there were black people in Chile, he didn't tell Israel PM that God told him to invade Iraq either. Want to discuss the great big government plot Bush was able to whip together in less than 8 months and before his full team had even been approved by Congress? You know, the one involving thousands of people to destroy the WTC all so we could go to war and steal some other country's oil or whatever (if it was to steal some other country's oil, then why the hell am I paying so frigging much?) -and how its "impossible" for one damaged building to finally collapse hours after the ones hit by planes did and there's the "proof" it was all a government plot?

Now notice what a MAJOR difference is between what you wrote above -and the original source for it which originated in this article and then merely re-invented to suit those suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome.

PublicEye.org - Faith Matters: George Bush and Providence

THIS was actually the first story on this -and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see it says "the attack on the WTC and Pentagon were interpreted by many, including members of the Bush administration, as signs from God that Bush was ordained to lead a crusade against evil." It didn't require much to slightly alter that in order for smearists to say it was BUSH himself who thinks he was ordained by God. This is how smear campaigns work in the first place. Use some slanted piece written by someone with a clear opposing political agenda, change a few words here and there and PRESTO -they get to insist this was the claim of Bush himself!

Interesting to note here though -this article was clearly intended to be one to make people think Bush was some kind of religious extremist. Even though he is a METHODIST and has been for decades -one of the most mainstream and "live and let live" Christian religions in the country. One of the few Christian religions that ordains female priests -oh yeah, its real fundamentalist and extremist. ROFL

This article claims Bush's religious rhetoric went way beyond that of past Presidents -which is a real hoot and obviously written by someone not familiar with any past President except Clinton. Who was actually the unique President as far as being notably uncomfortable with religion and expressions of religious faith. If comparing Bush to Clinton, then yeah Bush spoke more often and far more comfortably about his faith -but different from past Presidents? ROFL -no. And while this article CLAIMS that some members of the Bush administration believe God ordained Bush to lead the country at this time -it doesn't name a SINGLE MEMBER OF BUSH'S ADMINISTRATION who says they believe any such thing. Not even as an anonymous source. One of THE worst breaches of journalism ethics there is. If they can't quote a SINGLE person, not even as an anonymous source -then it really means NO ONE in the administration said any such thing. It is nothing but a piece of propaganda with a clear goal -and that goal isn't to impart ANY factual information but meant to sway opinion by means of smear and innuendo only - with all sorts of bs claims they don't even attempt to back up at all. It claims that Bush's worldview is formed from his "extremist" religious beliefs?? -too funny for anyone familiar with the Methodist church. And hey, who cares if the uninformed end up believing a fairly liberal Christian church is some kind of extremist whacko one, right? Might as well tar anyone and anything with any kind of association with the "walking evil" those sufferering from BDS insist he is.

In addition, the fact that a President with religious beliefs tells his confidants that he believes God wants him to run for President -isn't a sign of "whacko-ism" as this article would like people to believe. Interesting the author couldn't actually find any associate of Bush who said it though. But even IF he did, MANY of our past Presidents have said or written the same or similar thing and is actually far from unique and more the norm. So Washington is a great President although writing how he felt the hand of God directing him to accept the Presidency although his initial reaction was to refuse it? FDR is a great President even though writing in his memoirs that he felt the hand of God directing his life to the Presidency? But Bush is a whacko IF he really did tell a friend the same thing? ROFL Many of our Presidents have felt a sense of destiny when it came to being President and that includes Clinton. For the religious, this "sense of destiny" would naturally be interpreted as the will of God. And who the heck are any of us to argue it wasn't?

I came to the realization a long time ago that those suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome have a real NEED to believe the absolute worst about this guy, there is no such thing as going too far in the nonstop smear campaign waged against the guy and such sufferers will never allow sticky facts to get in their way. But surely at some point they have to come to realization that they have been played like a violin. Because they really have. Biggest bunch of cows I've come across in quite a while. Interesting to note that the last President who had to endure the nonstop smear campaign that occurred on this global level was Ronald Reagan. Want to check where that guy has ended up in Presidential history? Those who must make the most controversial decisions have ended up as some of our greatest Presidents -but were rarely ever popular for it. People naturally resist decisions that shake up the status quo, people naturally oppose war even when it may prevent greater loss of life later on. A lot of people MUST see that greater loss of life first no matter what -and such people will always exist.

Lincoln had the single most worst approval ratings yet it is impossible to argue the guy didn't put the best interests of a nation before those of his party, isn't it? Our greatest Presidents were not those who were LED by opinion polls or valued their "legacy" over what was actually in the best interests of the nation. They were those who did the leading themselves - and had to make some of the most difficult and often very controversial decisions of the time -and in spite of public opinion. We all must decide whether we want a President who will bend whichever way the fickle winds of popular opinion happen to be and even though current public opinion is so often dead wrong -or one who truly believes a particular action is in the best interest of the nation and even if he personally must suffer for it. Your choice. But if you choose one who bends to public opinion then we don't actually need a President at all and can just take a poll -even though the people answering those polls have no expertise on the issue and do not have access to the full information required in order to make that decision.

Where Bush ultimately ends up in history sure won't be determined by those suffering from BDS anymore than those who railed and smeared Reagan got to decide his place in history either. But already Presidential historians have placed BOTH Bushes above Clinton and for multiple reasons that the BDS sufferers cannot comprehend and may never comprehend. But it does make me laugh to hear someone wax on about how Clinton was THE best President they have ever seen. It only tells me their age, their ignorance about what a President can actually change or influence - and the fact they really haven't seen many Presidents come and go.

Those convinced this Bush is the epitome of idiocy and megalomania need to get a life. No President comes into office wanting to screw up the country or go down as a terrible President. And stupid people have never EVER been elected as President and never will be -including whoever happens to win this election. Neither candidate is stupid, they simply have a different vision for where the country should go from here. Get familiar with history and whether the policies each holds out have a historical precedence for success -or have always historically failed. Make an INFORMED decision -and then live with the consequences. Whether you believe it or not, ALL Presidents come into office wanting to do their best for the country and all of them would love to go down as a President that everyone loved. Circumstances hasn't allowed that to happen for any of them since Washington and it never will. I prefer one who places that desire below their desire to make decisions they firmly believe are in the best interests of this country and would rather see themselves personally suffer for it than back down and make a decision they believe would damage this country long after they left office. But that's me.

Naivety... thy name is frazzledgear.

BUSH doesnt even know that he is president... he just reads what he is told to read..and carries out the policies of BUSHTEAM.... who couldnt give an f about peasants like you.

 

[frazzledgear]

100 words or less...thank you honey.

If you can sum up your particular criticisms of an article in addition to trying to give an idea of your own worldview that influences your choice for President in 100 words or less, then you are a numbskull, sorry. Feel free to skip whatever I may write -its probably over your head anyway. Our public schools really are deplorable, aren't they?

 

[frazzledgear]

Naivety... thy name is frazzledgear.

BUSH doesnt even know that he is president... he just reads what he is told to read..and carries out the policies of BUSHTEAM.... who couldnt give an f about peasants like you.

Say "MOO" for me, would you?

 

[DiveCon]

Say "MOO" for me, would you?

hes a lame assed brit(not that all brits are)

 

[KGB]

Well, that seems like an extreme pollyanna approach.

You seem to be asking for specifics. I have always thought that people that commit acts of terror are only doing so because of some perceived injustice. My problem with an aggressive (that is, militant) foreign policy is that at no point are you asking the other guy what it is that they feel is wrong. You are just trying to kill them.

Do you remember the Amish school shooting about two years ago? The families whose children had died - they sent flowers (or something like this) to the wife (or family) of the shooter (who had died.) Do you remember this?

Here's something you will laugh at, and I am not suggesting it as a serious policy position, but merely as an exercise to consider how we deal with other cultures that seem threatening. What IF, we had reached out in an act of compassion, to the families in the middle east whose sons and brothers had flown those airplanes? How would that have been received, would the middle east be thrown off guard by such a response, view us as more, I don't know, less of someone to oppose or something, And here's the kicker - would it have diminished our strength or military ability AT ALL?

I don't know, it might have been seen as an empty gesture and maybe I am naive. On the other hand, there might have been far more headlines like "Today we are all Americans" - An opportunity which by the way Bush could have built on, to build alliances and strong working relationships around the globe.

Bush squandered that by saying 'if you're not with us you're against us.' Polarization doesn't seem to work.

the terrorists chose our response the second they slammed planes into buildings.....you can not reason with someone who wants you dead.....

do you not recall the scenes of celebration on the Arab street when news of the attacks reached there? I still recall that to this day & it makes my blood boil accordingly.....