PDA

View Full Version : The Sting



Qtec
04-17-2008, 06:24 AM
Just like I predicted, Hillary is getting an almost free ride from the Fox/RW /Wingnut media. ALL the attention and attacks are on Obama- just because he speaks his mind.

The Reps want Hillary because they intend to Swiftboat her. There is no other way to get McCain into the WH. McCain Vs Obama is a foregone conclusion.
McCain - "I'm not sure who the enemy is in Iraq" - has no chance against Obama.
Call me crazy but when the possible next President doesn't know who the enemy in Iraq is then I get worried.

Its a forgetful ex-pow hero/traitor, with a huge flip-flopping history, against a smart, modern, fresh guy who says what he feels.
Some claim that honesty is important in a President but when someone comes along and speaks the truth, nobody wants to hear it.

McCain is an opportunist who says what he thinks people want to hear.

There is no coinviction in his words.

Same with Hillary.

Go Obi. LOL

Q

Gayle in MD
04-17-2008, 07:55 AM
LOL, One thing about your posts, Q,.... whether I agree everything you write, or not, I still love reading them!

McCain, as you point out, has proven himself the greatest flip-flopper of all times. What will hurt him more than anything is time, for time will prove the complete failure of the "Surge" and highlight Bush's on-going failure to focus on what he should have made his top priority, al Qaeda, bin Laden, and the Talliban, IOW, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and that missed opportunity to share a mutual goal with Iran, going after both Al Q and the Talliban.

Bush's policies, also, have put Isreali interests in a trick bag. I think we've learned, well, some of us, that elections in Arab Countries, atleast, don't necessarily create improvments, or insure greater safety, or peace. DUH! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

eg8r
04-17-2008, 01:26 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Just like I predicted, Hillary is getting an almost free ride from the Fox/RW /Wingnut media.</div></div> When are you goofballs going to make up your mind. Do you want Obama to get the free ride or Hillary? You keep changing your minds. If we were to believe you then Gayle would be lying because all she can ever say is Obama is getting the free ride. Which one of you two has your head further in the sand?

eg8r

sack316
04-17-2008, 01:37 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
McCain is an opportunist who says what he thinks people want to hear.

</div></div>

As opposed to either dem candidate, who are managing to refrain from the use of buzz words and are surely not saying things they feel people want to hear in order to garner votes at all in any way. As good as I feel they both did in the debate last night, I couldn't help but feel the only thing missing from the taxes portion was someone saying "read my lips". But then again, nobody from the left would ever admit that.

Sack

Deeman3
04-17-2008, 01:48 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
McCain is an opportunist who says what he thinks people want to hear.

</div></div>

As opposed to either dem candidate, who are managing to refrain from the use of buzz words and are surely not saying things they feel people want to hear in order to garner votes at all in any way. As good as I feel they both did in the debate last night, I couldn't help but feel the only thing missing from the taxes portion was someone saying "read my lips". But then again, nobody from the left would ever admit that.

Sack </div></div>


Sack,

You moticed that did you? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Bobbyrx
04-17-2008, 01:53 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Its a forgetful ex-pow hero/traitor, with a huge flip-flopping history, against a smart, modern, fresh guy who says what he feels.<span style="color: #FF0000">So now he's a traitor???!!! What in the hell are you talking about??</span>

McCain is an opportunist who says what he thinks people want to hear.<span style="color: #FF0000">It's called a politician. Obama on the other hand goes to church for years and listens to what he doesn't believe in....yeah right</span>







Q

</div></div>

sack316
04-17-2008, 02:31 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bobbyrx</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Its a forgetful ex-pow hero/traitor, with a huge flip-flopping history, against a smart, modern, fresh guy who says what he feels.<span style="color: #FF0000">So now he's a traitor???!!! What in the hell are you talking about??</span>

McCain is an opportunist who says what he thinks people want to hear.<span style="color: #FF0000">It's called a politician. Obama on the other hand goes to church for years and listens to what he doesn't believe in....yeah right</span>

</div></div> </div></div>

And don't forget Hillary's wonderful stories of fond memories of shooting guns in her youth and all that good stuff... nevermind her lifelong career stance on gun issues. Politicians... playing politics? Never thought I'd see the day! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Sack

Deeman3
04-17-2008, 03:10 PM
They will do anything to dishonor the service of this man and belittle his accomplishments. Why would that surprize any of us?

He is now an aged, bad tempered, flip-flopper who they used to laud for his courage in going against his own party. I don't think even they will say he is not the only one pandering to the voting public right now. I just don't think he's doing near as much of it as the Hope candidate right now.

He may be a little far left for some of us but he certainly has a positive margin in the courage department that will be hard to beat, although they will try.

Now that Obama is done, I just hope he and Hillary can focus on issues and solutions. If not, we can all talk about personal history and compare the candidate's personal lives. I still think he would win that argument. If not, let's see who has better policy and I, for one, am willing to give them both a fair hearing.

Too bad, Q can't vote. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

jayalley
04-17-2008, 07:31 PM
Gee, Gayle, as if you really cared about Israel's fate (!!)........what a phony !!! You'll throw in whatever is handy to bash Bush. Israel doesn't need (or want) your support. Go back under your rock. What a pathetic windbag you have become !!

I've been carefully monitoring your posts, waiting for your mask to slip and your "inner Hitler" to peek out. If it does....I'll be all over you.

Qtec
04-17-2008, 11:02 PM
link (http://www.pensitoreview.com/2008/02/17/in-1992-pows-accused-mccain-of-collaborating-with-vietnamese/)

Q

Qtec
04-18-2008, 05:22 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
McCain is an opportunist who says what he thinks people want to hear.

</div></div>

As opposed to either dem candidate, who are managing to refrain from the use of buzz words and are surely not saying things they feel people want to hear in order to garner votes at all in any way. As good as I feel they both did in the debate last night, I couldn't help but feel the only thing missing from the taxes portion was someone saying "read my lips". But then again, nobody from the left would ever admit that.

Sack </div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Read my lips: no new taxes" is a now-famous phrase spoken by former American president and candidate George H. W. Bush </div></div>

McCain gives you what you want to hear.
Obama says what he thinks.
McCain can't give a straight answer because he doesn't know what he is supposed to think.

The next President ? LOL (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcdLO3jKkPo)

Give me the straight talking honest guy who makes mistakes anyday.

Q....go BBI... /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Qtec
04-18-2008, 06:24 AM
Straight talk. LOL (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbrejLsixwk&feature=related)

Q

Bobbyrx
04-18-2008, 10:40 AM
I guess if you can believe that guy, I can believe this guy link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVeFVtcdSYY&feature=related)

And did you see your buddy Sigelman is out of the pokey....any reason why he didn't testify in his own defense??

Gayle in MD
04-18-2008, 03:27 PM
What are his accomplishments? Just wondering.

I think they are all pandering, and all alike, in that sense.

My main issue is bringing our troops home. These recent reports on their mental health issues, Brain injuries, and PTSS, are really heart breaking. That leaves McCain out for me, although there are other of his positions which take him completely off my list.

We're really going to need an economic genius this time, and McCain surely doesn't fit into that mold, either. I do think he's too old, also, and that Obama is not experienced enough in foreign affairs.

As for the press, I think they're evenly divided between McCain and Obama. Neither one of them can light a candle to Hillary, when it comes to debating skills, IMO, and they all have told lies. It's pretty depressing to think what we're having to settle for, at such an important moment.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
04-18-2008, 03:29 PM
OOOOOW, I'm so scared. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/tired.gif

sack316
04-18-2008, 11:07 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What are his accomplishments? Just wondering.

I think they are all pandering, and all alike, in that sense.

My main issue is bringing our troops home. These recent reports on their mental health issues, Brain injuries, and PTSS, are really heart breaking. That leaves McCain out for me, although there are other of his positions which take him completely off my list.

We're really going to need an economic genius this time, and McCain surely doesn't fit into that mold, either. I do think he's too old, also, and that Obama is not experienced enough in foreign affairs.

As for the press, I think they're evenly divided between McCain and Obama. Neither one of them can light a candle to Hillary, when it comes to debating skills, IMO, and they all have told lies. It's pretty depressing to think what we're having to settle for, at such an important moment.

Gayle in Md. </div></div>

hmm, no real arguments from me on this one I don't think. Cool!

As to the PTSD stuff, what I was fairly clueless to was that it doesn't solely impact those seeing actual action in war. I've eluded to y'all before about the gal stationed in Korea right now. And I guess just the stress of being so far away from home, coupled with being in places that much of the population doesn't accept you causes some forms of this even to our troops stationed in non "hot" zones. Of course the effects are much more drastic and widespread for those who are being shot at on a daily basis, but the underlying issue at heart is, in fact, still there throughout. That was just something I never really thought much about until talking with her so often over the last couple of months.

An economic genius, I don't think we'll be finding in this election. To be honest I'm not sure if McCain can be forward thinking enough to offer a solution that would be any more than short term. Nor do I think Clinton or Obama can do all the things they say they are gonna do while at the same time relieving taxes on the middle class. I mean, creating huge new government programs takes money. It's been about ten years since I took accounting, but I do still think that raking in less money for taxes would hamper abilities to roll out new programs. I know someone is gonna shout that pulling out of Iraq will save so much money... but then I worry that the line of thinking is a nice way of saying they may also (eventually) cut military funding to budget the new things, which I feel is a mistake also. At any rate, something would have to give, because I don't see a realistic way to back up ALL the promises being made. Then again I suppose I could be missing something.

And also, I was gonna say the exact same thing about all three of them pandering... I'm just glad someone from the other side said it before I did /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Sack

pooltchr
04-19-2008, 05:54 AM
Sack,
You are right about one thing. I heard Obama yesterday saying he would eliminate our missile defense system, and move toward eliminating our nuclear arsinal. I don't think dis-arming our defense system is a particularly good idea, but it would seem that is one way he plans to cut the budget.

In the global arena, just as in football, the best defense is a good offense.

Steve

Gayle in MD
04-19-2008, 08:59 AM
Actually, Ed, I don't KEEP saying that at all. Just another one of your attempts to twist things I do say. The reality is that none of the candidates are getting the free ride that McCain has gotten.

He has pandered up to the worst of the worst of the religious right. From Falwell, to Haggie, after calling them agents of intollerance when they laid 9/11 at the fault of Americans, and said that Katrina was a payback from God because New Orleans had held a gay pride parade. Yep, there he is, hugging Haggie, the male prostitute hugging, druggie, and a disgusting example of organized religion at it's worst, and Haggee wants America to start a Nuclear war as part of the apocolypse, and called Catholicism The Great Whore.

McCain's wife won't release her taxes, just as a protection for her children, YEAH RIGHT! And I haven't heard a single commentator discuss McCain's adultery with that wife, his former mistress, from way back in the seventies, when he was screwing around all over Washington D.C. with Cindy.

Economists said his suggestions for this recession were adolecent in their absurdity, and since he can't even keep it straight that Russia isn't the Soviet Union, and that Iran and Iraq are both Shiia, not Sunni, and that al Qaeda is Sunni, not Shiia, he surely doesn't offer much in the way of foreign policy knowledge.

He's claiming success on the Surge, which is a joke.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Pentagon's in House Think Tank, The National Defense University's Report On The War In Iraq:

Former Defense Dept. Executive, Jospeh Cowlings, (Not sure of that last name, might be Collins) In a statement, said....

Measured in blood and treasure, the war in Iraq has achieved the status of a major war, and a major debacle. It has diverted man power, material and the attention of decision makers from all other efforts in the war on terror. Our efforts in Iraq have made that nation an incubator for terrorism and emboldened Iran. The outcome of this war is in doubt.? </div></div>

Not only do McCain's statements about this war represent nothing but lies, he's not even sure who the hell our people are fighting! Just Great! But, we seldom hear a thing about his continued attempts to paint a disasterous excalation in the midst of a multi-factioned civil war, where we are actually paying those who intend to eventually get back to the business of killing our troops, according to every single Iraqi expert, save the Great General Petraeus, whose performance lasr week was as carefully stated, and with no real celebration of any lasting success stated, yet deviod of any opinionated, logical assessment of whether or not any of this fiasco is worth the slaughter of AMerican Troops.

McCain, gets the Free Ride Sticker, beyond and above either of the Democratic Candidates. Just because he was a Prisoner of War, he still isn't qualified to run this country. He's stated that he will maintain Bush's Tax Cuts for the wealthies Americans, and continue on this disasterous foreign policy campaign in Iraq. It is absolutely incredible to me to think that any American, could consider voting for this man. His statements are so completely false, it is actually hard to keep up with all of his lies. His hypocracy is as evident as is that of Bush, Cheney Rice Rumsfeld, and the rest of the neocon idiots who still think they can convince dummies in this country that they did a good job running this country, inspite of all indications to the contrary.

McCain needs a bus with "Straight Jacket" written on the side, not straight talk!

As a member of the Keating Five, he helped delay regulator from going after a savings and loan, that ripped off elderly investers of their life savings and cost taxpayers more than two billion dollars.

Gayle in MD
04-19-2008, 09:10 AM
Sack,
Much of the Post Traumatic Stress comes from the fact that this administration has broken our troops down, by prosecuting a war by using the same beaten down soldiers, over and over, without propper equipment, training, or rest, away from the battle field. This is the worst treatment of American Troops in our history. I can't think of another time when the government actually awarded a contract back to a corporation which failed to provide propper helmets, and to do so at a time when our troops are suffering brain injuries from the IED's, left and right, is a separate thing entirely from any coomparison one could make to soldiers who are serving in other regoins of the world.

Our troops will be dying again this summer, beaten and broken, burdened with eighty pounds of equipment in 1`10 degree heat, as the Iraqi Parliament leaves Baghdad to escape the heat, for their vacations by the cool sea air, their pockets stuffed with our American Tax Dollars, as they escape, once again, their responsibilities to take charge of the violence, make their political strides, and fight for their own damned country.

I find that absolutely disgusting, and hence, George Bush, and John McCain, repulse me when they try to propagate this fairy tale that the surge has worked. A fantasy of political Hubris.

Gayle in Md.

eg8r
04-19-2008, 10:50 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Actually, Ed, I don't KEEP saying that at all.</div></div>Actually you do. You have said it since the two were the main candidates.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The reality is that none of the candidates are getting the free ride that McCain has gotten.
</div></div> LOL now it is McCain. You cannot make your mind up.

eg8r

cheesemouse
04-19-2008, 08:09 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I find that absolutely disgusting, and hence, George Bush, and John McCain, repulse me when they try to propagate this fairy tale that the surge has worked. A fantasy of political Hubris.</div></div>....saying the surge is working is akin to saying "Thelma and Louise had a flying car".

sack316
04-19-2008, 09:57 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Just like I predicted, Hillary is getting an almost free ride from the Fox/RW /Wingnut media. ALL the attention and attacks are on Obama- just because he speaks his mind.

The Reps want Hillary because they intend to Swiftboat her. There is no other way to get McCain into the WH. McCain Vs Obama is a foregone conclusion.
McCain - "I'm not sure who the enemy is in Iraq" - has no chance against Obama.
Call me crazy but when the possible next President doesn't know who the enemy in Iraq is then I get worried.

Its a forgetful ex-pow hero/traitor, with a huge flip-flopping history, against a smart, modern, fresh guy who says what he feels.
Some claim that honesty is important in a President but when someone comes along and speaks the truth, nobody wants to hear it.

McCain is an opportunist who says what he thinks people want to hear.

There is no coinviction in his words.

Same with Hillary.

Go Obi. LOL

Q

</div></div>

Guess I should get back to the original thought on this one. Specifically today as Obama was on the stump, actually calling McCain a true American hero, and someone whom he respected a great deal. Now of course he added that he would be a much better president than McCain, but the point is that nowhere did your straight shooter say anything about "traitor" or flip-flopping or anything of the sort. He did, however, imply some flip-flopping on Hillary's part.

And speaking of being a straight shooter, it certainly is easy to be a straight shooter when what you say lacks any real substance. Saying (solve for X) "X is wrong, we need to fix X", "it's time for a change in X" and "there should be improvements in X" sounds really good, but provides no answers to the problems we already know we are facing... he simply regurgitates common opinon for the sake of getting voter X to think "hmm, I agree with that as well... I too think that is bad and needs to change". Now besides being a great speaker, I'm fairly certain there may be a pretty good leader in there somewhere inside of Obama... but until he decides to go out on a limb sometime and take a risk by making a plan instead of just taking a stance--- I won't think much more than what great mic skills he has. I'm thinking his campaign may currently be in the infamous "prevent defense" right now, simply trying not to lose the game rather than going for the kill and winning it.

Sack

Bobbyrx
04-20-2008, 08:51 AM
August 21, 2007 -- WASHINGTON - Hillary Rodham Clinton told a veterans group yesterday that President Bush's troop surge is working -- but that it is still time to bring U.S. troops home from Iraq.
"It's working. We're just years too late in our tactics," she said, referring to the beefed-up U.S. troop presence battling insurgents in Iraq, including war-torn Anbar province.

cheesemouse
04-20-2008, 09:55 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bobbyrx</div><div class="ubbcode-body">August 21, 2007 -- WASHINGTON - Hillary Rodham Clinton told a veterans group yesterday that President Bush's troop surge is working -- but that it is still time to bring U.S. troops home from Iraq.
"It's working. We're just years too late in our tactics," she said, referring to the beefed-up U.S. troop presence battling insurgents in Iraq, including war-torn Anbar province.
</div></div> .........so your saying the surge is working at this time?....I don't get it.

Bobbyrx
04-21-2008, 01:24 PM
Nope, just saying that Hillary, Murtha and John Kerry among others also said the surge is working, although they give different reasons why it's working......giving no credit to the military or Bush of course

Deeman3
04-21-2008, 01:34 PM
Now that most of us agree that the surge is working, look at the box it appears the Democratic Party may have painted itself into with the love fest for Obama. Interesting. Buyer's Remorse?



From NewMax


As the bitter Democratic primary caboose careens into its latest stop in Pennsylvania on Tuesday, has anyone noticed what has been happening in this amazing race?

The real story is that ever since Sen. Barack Obama’s come-from-behind win in Iowa last January, Democrats across the country have been trying to slam the brakes on his inevitability as the nominee.

And even though the math says Obama has won the nomination, a huge swath of the party does not want to accept this fact.

For most of the campaign, the press spin about Obama has been warm and fuzzy. Sen. Hillary Clinton has been knifed by the liberal media with a thousand little cuts, each questioning her person and candidacy.

The press spin is that Hillary’s determination to stay in the race is now due to sour grapes — a solely personal motivation on her part as she has been blindsided by the neophyte Illinois senator. But Hillary’s fervid electoral support is much more than a function of any personal motive. Indeed, Obama has problems of his own. Big ones.

Typically, primaries are over almost before they begin. One clear front-runner emerges and the party, the activists, and donors rally around their candidate. That did not happen this time because of Obama’s unique set of problems.

Consider that the Democrats are set to back a nominee who has not won any of the “big” blue states, with the exception of his home state of Illinois. California, Texas, Ohio, Florida, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts . . . and probably Pennsylvania will join Hillary’s list as well.

Obama has consistently done poorly with key constituencies of the Democratic Party: union members, Hispanics, wage earners making less than $50,000 a year, and older females. They don’t want Obama as their nominee and they stubbornly won’t fall in line.

In primary after primary these core groups have voted against Obama. Even in his home state, Hispanic voters backed him with a slim majority of 52 percent.

These groups vote against Obama despite the math that says he has the nomination.

They vote against him though he is outspending Hillary by 3 to 1 in states like Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

They vote against Obama even though the media talking heads seem to overwhelmingly favor him.

Obama has cobbled together an unusual recipe of success mixing the African-American voting bloc with the Moveon.org liberals of his party. These two groups, substantial as they are, normally would not have given him the nomination.

His new cookie mix has worked because he has outspent and outmaneuvered his rival in caucus states. Caucuses are notoriously open for manipulation by small, well-organized groups.

As he sprints to June and the end of the primaries, however, Obama is being crippled. His woes have nothing to do with the fact he is black or even inexperienced. They have everything to do with how Obama has identified himself.

He is an unrepentant liberal.

Many Democrats know that when they nominate an unrepentant liberal like George McGovern, Michael Dukakis or John Kerry they lose. Always.

Obama has claimed a real desire to reach out to Republicans and the other side. He likes to tell how Republicans “whisper” to him they are voting for him.

Nice story, but where's the beef?

Obama has not reached out. Ironically, Hillary has been labeled as the polarizing one. But the truth is, she has a record in the Senate of reaching out across the aisle. Ditto Bill Clinton. Just last year Bill Clinton was interviewed by me — despite Newsmax’s long history of criticizing him.

Obama, on the other hand, has shown no signs of crossing the bridge. He has yet to offer voters a Sister Souljah moment where he distances himself from the far left he made his bed with to get the nomination.

He had the opportunity during the Rev. Jeremiah Wright brouhaha, but chose to continue embracing his former pastor though he distanced himself from his fiery words.

Yes, some of the criticism of Obama has been unfair, including outright smears. He is not a “secret Muslim,” and he did not avoid putting his hand on his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance (the Pledge had finished when the picture was taken). I have looked into the Tony Rezko matter, and Obama is as clean as a whistle.

There is much about Obama I like. He is intelligent. His plan to invest in the country’s crumbling infrastructure and a new effort to back alternative energy are laudable. But most of his solutions are old, tired liberal ones that have proven failure rates, such as higher taxes, negotiating with rogue states, and cutting key defense sectors like missile defense.

Usually, once a candidate nabs the nomination he must run to the middle. And fast. By the time Obama gets the actual nomination in August, however, he will have little time to prove himself to middle voters. He should be doing that now . . . though he seems to have little interest in doing so.

Even The New York Times' Maureen Dowd, usually sycophantic toward Obama, warned Sunday of his lackadaisical approach to critics: “Obama has to prove to Americans that, despite his exotic background and multicultural looks, he shares or at least respects their values and understands why they would be upset about his associations with the Rev. Wright and an ex-Weatherman.”

Translated from Timesspeak: Obama has to show Americans he is not a Lexus liberal. Even Dowd knows an unrepentant liberal can’t win Ohio come November.

Bobbyrx
04-21-2008, 02:38 PM
It seems that which ever way it goes, there are going to be a lot of "bitter" voters on the Democratic side.....I thought this was interesting also:
CHARLOTTE, N.C. - The billionaire founder of Black Entertainment Television says Barack Obama would not be a leading presidential candidate if he were white and that the Illinois senator's campaign has "a hair-trigger on anything racial." The Charlotte Observer reported on its Web site Monday that Bob Johnson, one of Hillary Rodham Clinton's top black supporters, was commenting on remarks previously made by Geraldine Ferraro, another Clinton supporter.

"What I believe Geraldine Ferraro meant is that if you take a freshman senator from Illinois called 'Jerry Smith' and he says I'm going to run for president, would he start off with 90 percent of the black vote?" Johnson said. "And the answer is, probably not."

"Geraldine Ferraro said it right," Johnson added. "The problem is, Geraldine Ferraro is white...."

The truth is that there really isn't a great deal of difference between all three candidates policy wise......it's who they are thats so different. We have a woman, an African American, and as Q says, a traitor ....where does he get that stuff???

Deeman3
04-21-2008, 03:00 PM
I am not sure of where Q gets his hate of any American who is not very left but I see from some of the above that we have some who feel even more strongly about how bad this country is. Of course, they frame it, in the end, with "I support the troops" and "It is real patriotism to run down your country".

These very same people are the same ones who will hide behind the banner of freedom that people like John McCain provided while saying things about a man whom they could not carry the shoes of in the real world.

Their candidates can claim to be a young black girl from Mississippi one month, from Scranton,Pa. the next and standing in the shadow of MLK while he made speeches but never question that honesty while looking at tha 71 year old hands of a combat soldier for their declaration of his unfitness to lead, mis-quote his 100 year observation and damn him with faint praise when they want to bolster their weak candidate's foibles that they will never admit.

Hillary played the Middle left card when she thought the nomination was hers, by right, and now the left has stepped up and stabbed her in the back. She does not like it and is promising to not tax, respond to attacks on Isreal and hunt on all days she's not in church. How shallow do they claim we are?

Now a candidate who probably can't carry her shoes is the price she paid for wandering off her core values to get a few more votes.

For me, it boils down to who will be the best to serve all the people and, it would help, to be truthful just a little with the American people. Old ladies feel it is their turn, blacks feel it is theirs. Maybe, just maybe, we will have time to see who is the best for all the people, not just women and minorities. I know, a foolish dream....

Anyone want to make a list of proven lies by each of the candidates? I didn't think so. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

pooltchr
04-21-2008, 06:28 PM
Bobbyrx,
Bob Johnson is a piece of work! He is owner of the NBA Charlotte Bobcats (we call him "Bobcat Johnson" around here) and will quickly tell you he is the wealthiest black man in the country. He is not above pulling his own shady deals, and is not very highly regarded by the locals here. That being said, his comments on Obama do have some validity. Just as there are women who will support Hillary because she is a woman, there are blacks who will support Obama because of his race.
But I personally think his success has come in part because of the failures of Hillary. The Clinton Machine seemed to think the same methods that got Bill elected (By the way, before he ran for President, how many people had ever heard of him either?) would work for Hillary. What the failed to understand was that Bill was and is very carismatic, while Hillary is generally perceived as a real b---h. So you have two very liberal candidates, one woman and one black, dividing the party.

While McCain was not my choice to be the Republican candidate, at least he was able go build a consensus among the members of the party. The Dems may already be so divided that neither candidate will be able to garner enough support to win the white house. Not to pick on her, but do you think Gayle could bring herself to support Obama? Or has she dug in her heels so deep, she can't get out? How many dems are in the same position?

Steve

Qtec
04-21-2008, 07:00 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I am not sure of where Q gets his hate of any American who is not very left</div></div>

Sorry DeeMan but that is a lot of crap. Does this Govt LOVE the troops?

Support the troops they say ?
Is that what this Govt has done?
First of all they start an unnecessary war. Extended tours, helmets that are supposed to save lives have been 'cheaped' on, Humvee's with no proper armor, lack of care when they come home, etc etc etc. The list is endless.
[The latest research says 25% of all homeless are veterans!]
Please, don't tell me that the Govt has any respect for those who are fighting when they send those kids out without propoer body armor......[unless they get KIA of course] because the Army is straining but GW has consistently refused the Draft. PURELY for votes.
If the whole country is at war then surely the whole contry should be involved.n ie, If the country is REALLY at war then ALL citizens should be taking part...don't you think?.

I call them as I see them and being on the outside does give me a different perspective than the average American.

Hillary or McCain, you get more of the same corrupt sort of Govt that the last 7 years have given you.

The Dollar has lost its solidity under GW. The confidence which has sustained US growth for the last 50 years has disappeared because of the unlimited spending by the Govt when the country is now running at a loss.
They can spend a $100 a day on laundry but its OK for GIs to go on patrol with defective protection?
Are they taking the piss or what?
If I say this is wrong am I anti-American or do I support the troops?

The US is 25/30% of the world's economy. What happens in the US effects the rest of us in the world, whether we like it or not..

I am VERY pro USA. Just not GW's USA.

Q..the plan was and still is , to depose Saddam and stay in Iraq forever. If you take this as an objective of the Neo-Con cabal in the WH, what has happened in Iraq makes sense.

Deeman3
04-22-2008, 07:19 AM
Q,

Our troops have good armor and protection. Yes, there have been mistakes and every one has been highlighted as if it were common practice when it is not.

The U.S. is rapidly declining as the largest economy, more because of global realities than any presidential moves or the war in Iraq.

If you beleive Obama would be better than McCain or Clinton in governing this country, I think you are wrong. The difference is I get to vote on it.

I promise, no matter how good the situation gets in Holland, I won't come vote there. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

By the way, you do have a right to your opinion. I just don't have to agree. At least you have no reason to be an American supporter. I have no problem with your hating us.

DickLeonard
04-22-2008, 07:58 AM
Gayle I will look out for your Back you have certainly made an enemy Jallley. He is searching for a mistake in your posts Good Luck finding one.
LOve Dick

Bobbyrx
04-22-2008, 12:12 PM
"Q..the plan was and still is , to depose Saddam and stay in Iraq forever. If you take this as an objective of the Neo-Con cabal in the WH, what has happened in Iraq makes sense."

If this indeed was the "plan" by the Neo-Con cabal (which has been political suicide exept for the self destruction of Hillary and Obama), why are we still there when the anti Neo-Con cabal controls both the House and the Senate?

Deeman3
04-22-2008, 12:49 PM
Bobyrx,

Do not ask questions that require an honest reply! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Gayle in MD
04-23-2008, 05:57 AM
Becausae you can't completely control either side without a 60% majority, and the Republicans vote in a block on everything involving spying on Americans, and funding this militarily un-winnable civil war. How many times does it take, before you get it? Two thirds of both houses are required.

Gayle in MD
04-23-2008, 06:14 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When are you goofballs going to make up your mind. Do you want Obama to get the free ride or Hillary? You keep changing your minds. If we were to believe you then Gayle would be lying because all she can ever say is Obama is getting the free ride. Which one of you two has your head further in the sand?

eg8r </div></div>

Neither. Those with their heads in the sand are the ones who think that Republicans do a good job when they hold the White House, or any House. Those with their heads in the samd are the ones who still think that Iraq was the appropriate top priority. Those with their heads in the sand are the onse who blames Democrats for everything, when Republicans have been the actual cause of all that is wrong, and in a devastating mess. Those with their heads in the sand are the ones who refuse to acknowledge that Democrats have not had a great enough majority to over rule the Republican Black with a razor thin majority. Those with their heads in the sand are the ones who fail to acknowledge that the mess we're in right now, was created by George Bush, and a Republican Majority, and that without 60% majority in both houses, Democrats have been compromised in their voting power. Those with their heads in the sand, think that we should stay in Iraq, while financing both sides of a civil war, running up our debt to China, and continue to sacrifice the lives of young Americans, for a people who hate us.

The answer to your question is, you are the one with your head in the sand.

Gayle in MD
04-23-2008, 06:30 AM
Excellent! Q, while I am not an Obama fan, I don't believe in his "Change the way Washington works" BS.

Unless he thinks he can outlaw lobbying, completely, how can he change the way Washington works.

If one has taken account of both Hillary and Obama's voting records, Hillary has succeeded far more so in reaching across the isle, and achieving co-operation.

However, anyone who would accuse those of us who are outraged over the treatment of our troops, and the illogical, pre-emptive attack on Iraq, (Which it really never was, pre-emptive, in the first place, since Saddam never made any threats to bomb us, nor did he even have the ability, or intention, which the CIA knew, and told this administration, all along) surely has not done sufficient study on the subject.

It's easy to pretend that what our troops have gone through has been exaggerated, but the facts prove otherwise, and only the most partisan, biased, sheep, the most unamerican among us, could possibly persist in ignoring the way this administration has treated our troops. Calling those of us who are outraged over it, unamerican, is just another right wing reversal of facts.

How they can deny the neocon policy, when it was all clearly stated, by the Neocons, in their letter to Clinton, "The Project For The New American Centruy" before Bush ever crashed into the White House, compliments of Daddy's "Friends" on the Supreme Court, is beyond me!

Some people throw around accusations of antiamericanism, as a method to silence those who speak the truth. It's all they CAN do.

Gayle in Md.

Qtec
04-23-2008, 06:38 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Q,

Our troops have good armor and protection. Yes, there have been mistakes and every one has been highlighted as if it were common practice when it is not.

The U.S. is rapidly declining as the largest economy, more because of global realities than any presidential moves or the war in Iraq.

If you beleive Obama would be better than McCain or Clinton in governing this country, I think you are wrong. The difference is I get to vote on it.

I promise, no matter how good the situation gets in Holland, I won't come vote there. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

By the way, you do have a right to your opinion. I just don't have to agree. At least you have no reason to be an American supporter. I have no problem with your hating us. </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">U.S. Struggling to Get Soldiers Updated Armor
By MICHAEL MOSS

Correction Appended

For the second time since the Iraq war began, the Pentagon is struggling to replace body armor that is failing to protect American troops from the most lethal attacks by insurgents.

The ceramic plates in vests worn by most personnel cannot withstand certain munitions the insurgents use. But more than a year after military officials initiated an effort to replace the armor with thicker, more resistant plates, tens of thousands of soldiers are still without the stronger protection because of a string of delays in the Pentagon's procurement system.

The effort to replace the armor began in May 2004, just months after the Pentagon finished supplying troops with the original plates - a process also plagued by delays. The officials disclosed the new armor effort Wednesday after questioning by The New York Times, and acknowledged that it would take several more months or longer to complete. </div></div>

The Humvee,s with lack of protection? DIY armor (http://www.detnews.com/2004/project/0407/13/a06-209336.htm)

Sub-standard helmets?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Join Veterans to Demand Hearings on Substandard Helmet Procurement

Last week, the New York Times reported that the Bush Pentagon had agreed to a contract for more Kevlar helmets for our troops from the very company that was being sued for cheating troops out of helmets that met military standards. Especially at a time when so many troops are in harm’s way, no such company should ever receive a new contract. Demand that Congress investigate how this could have happened, by signing our petition below. We’ll deliver your signatures to Capitol Hill.</div></div> link (http://www.detnews.com/2004/project/0407/13/a06-209336.htm)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I promise, no matter how good the situation gets in Holland, I won't come vote there.</div></div>

Deeman, the US has interfered in the domestic affairs of 72 countries since the end of WW2!

The US has deposed elected Govts, supported dictators and financed terrorist organizations all around the world but If I pass comment on what happens inside the USA I should mind my own business!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have no problem with your hating us. </div></div>

Do you think I hate you? Do you think I hate anyone on this board?
I've only been to the States once and I found all the people that I met to be " your normal man in the street." [ NY......what a city. LOL]
Once the USA steps outside its borders and starts bombing countries 1,000s of miles away, you lose all rights to the "mind your own affairs" argument.

My only problem with the USA has been the foreign policy of the neo-con Govt that has caused so much destruction and suffering in the last 7 years.

For the 100th time, I don't hate Americans or America. I am a huge fan of the USA but the conduct of this Admin IMO has been totally un-American in character and content.

OK?

Q

Gayle in MD
04-23-2008, 06:42 AM
Deeman,

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Our troops have good armor and protection. Yes, there have been mistakes and every one has been highlighted as if it were common practice when it is not.
</div></div>

All due respect, I don't know how you can write this.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The U.S. is rapidly declining as the largest economy, more because of global realities than any presidential moves or the war in Iraq.
</div></div>

Does this mean that building exhorbitant debt, with interest, thus weakening our dollar, and Trade Deficits, going on for years, without being addressed by the President, and tax policies which promote outsourcing of American Jobs, which require more borrowing, since taxes are not being used to pay for the war, have nothing to do with our countries economic circumstances?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">By the way, you do have a right to your opinion. I just don't have to agree. At least you have no reason to be an American supporter. I have no problem with your hating us. </div></div>

I've never thought that Q, hates America. I hope you don't really believe that. We critisize other nations all the time. Does that mean we hate them? I don't think so. I've been accused of hating the Isreali's because I resent the power of the Isreali Lobbyists, and their influence in our government, when I can't find a single reason for America to put itself into the poor house, to benefit Isreal, but that accusation, given the times that Isreal has let us down, is surely not logical.

Criticism doesn't equal hatred, IMO. Do you think that only Americans who put their stamp of approval on everything their country does, at all times, are patriots? Our founders surely did not. The believed that dissenting citizens, and policy makers, were the check on maintaining a democratic Republic. there is a world of difference between criticism, and chanting death to America.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
04-23-2008, 06:47 AM
Thanks, Dick, but I think that individual was enlisted by a certain poster here who cannot abide people who disagree, and has a bit of a vindictive nature. I'm not so sure that it is a man, but surely a person who has deep rooted issues, which overcome reasonable thought.

Thanks for your support, friend. The world is full of people, and opinions, unfortunately some of those people are quite ill.

Love,
Gayle

Gayle in MD
04-23-2008, 06:52 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> My only problem with the USA has been the foreign policy of the neo-con Govt that has caused so much destruction and suffering in the last 7 years.
</div></div>

Very True, and very denied by the extreme right of the Republican Party. They must think the rest of our country is stupid if they think they can deny this.

Excellent post, Q. Also, your links tell the story, good links.

Deeman3
04-23-2008, 07:21 AM
No, Gayle, I don't think Q hates America. He knows i don't think that. Like I do everyone, I like to give him a little grief on occasion.

I often even agree with his comments and, like him, believe America should stay out of many entanglements overseas at times.

I also think our economy is in trouble for many reasons that have been coming for years but that the president has very little to do with. The next president will find that out of they don't already suspect it and will blame the last president as usual.

Congratulations on your gal's win last night. Now, if she can take Indiana, stay close in North Carolina, it will be a battle at the convention. I think the only cure for all this is a joint ticket with the two of thhem but I see where some are saying Al Gore could rescue the party if the two candidates batter each other so badly neither can win the general. Would you think Gore might do this. I don't think the Republicans could beat Gore this time around.

Q, chill out before I call GWB and have him invade Holland and drive the Infidels out. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Gayle in MD
04-23-2008, 07:55 AM
Good post, Deeman, and I'm relieved to reat it.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I also think our economy is in trouble for many reasons that have been coming for years but that the president has very little to do with. The next president will find that out of they don't already suspect it and will blame the last president as usual.
</div></div>

I can't agree with this statement, although we would face some economic problems, I think we are far worse off than we could have been, had we addressed this problem of foreign oil dependency long ago, say, in the Carter Administration, the only administration that actually did reduce our oil usage.

I really don't understand how anyone can deny the Republican led policies to maintain our dependency on oil. Reagan, after all, did take the solar panels off the White House that Carter had installed. I think that made a huge statement on his position. Between their efforts to protect our addication to oil, and their efforts and money spent supporting terrorists, and drug dealing/terrorists, and the wast and huge debt resulting from this failed occupation in Iraq, I don't know how anyone could say that this president has not played a huge role in our economic condition. Cheap labor, and illegal aliens, Reagan's Amnesty? that didn't increase those flooding accross our borders? Failing to address China's cheating us on the global market, that didn't increase our trade deficits? Borrowing from China, and others, the greatest foreign debt in our history, more borrowing than all previous administrations combined, that hasn't weakened the dollar?

Eight years is a long time to ignore everything that is dragging our country down this hole of debt, which does require interest due, with no advantage to us that I can see. This campaign in Iraq, has provided no advantage that I can see, either.

This is why so many of us on the left, have a hard time when we have to listen to objections from the right about financial support, when the government fails to assist those who are dying on rooftops, right here in this country, or have had their whole life washed out to sea, for example, and at the same time listen to buzz words like compassionate conservativism.

We're the only industrialized country that does not have gauranteed health care for our citizens, and we spend more on bombs and wars than any other Nation, while framing America as a peace loving nation.

The hypocracy is just overwhelming.

Overall, we the people seem to do much better when there is a Democratic led government. Clinton, for example, removed millions from welfare roles and into jobs. Clinton managed to leave this country with a surplus. Clinton managed to keep us out of war. These are the kinds of issues that I think most Americans care about, and it's hard for them to pay $3.40 at the pump, knowing the Cheney had secret meetings with corporate oil, which has not done a single thing to refine more oil, and enjoyed the greatest profits ever recorded, and not be suspicious about just whom it is that this Administration represents. Centainly, not middle class Americans. Centainly not the best interests of our children and grand children, each of them now over thirty thousand dollars in debt.

Most all of these problems have grown out of this administration's foreign policy and trade policies. I don't see how they can be given a bye on all of it.

Gayle in Md.

When one looks back over the last forty years, I think it is

Deeman3
04-23-2008, 09:11 AM
All this being said, I'll listen to all the candidates and make a decision on who will put forward specific plans to change the exit of manufacturing jobs, reduce oil consumption and cost, protect the borders of the U.S. and maintain security against terror.

If a candidate can demonstrate an ability to do these things, not just talk around them, he/she will have my vote. I do see Hillary moving a little more right with her promises to nuke Iran if they attack Isreal but am not so sure she should make the same committments ot the rest of the Middle East (Umbrella).

I think Obama is toast. He will not get down in the dirt enough to put Hillary away and is now being painted as elitist with no credible defense for it. While it has been fun, the election is getting boreing, even for me so I know much of the public just wants them all the go away. I'm almost tempted to tune out until August or so and see where everyone is then. The wierd thing is Mccain should be polling way below the Democrats right now but that is not happening. I wonder why?

Gayle in MD
04-23-2008, 09:49 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The wierd thing is Mccain should be polling way below the Democrats right now but that is not happening. I wonder why?
</div></div>

I think that's a false poll due to the fact that the supporters of each of the Democratic candidates are so entrenched in their own candidate.

Once a candidate is actually viable, that will change. Both Hillary, and Obama, will be out there stumping for the winner, and the party will come together over the issues that Americans have about the war, and the economy. Until that happens, any polls which put McCain against either candidate, do not reflect the circumstance we will have come election time, IMO. The country has come together over the war, 80% against it, and also over the gas and food prices. Answering a poll, saying if my guy/gal doesn't win, I'll vote for McCain, is a case of Democrats manipulating the polls, and the delegates, much the same way that Rush is trying to do.

I believe you will see more focus on those party issues in the next few weeks. Regardless, I think this will be settled after the next primary, but the Democrats must settle the issue of Michigan and Florida. I see that problem as their only potential hurdle.

I must say, as a Democratic voter, nothing could be funnier than to see Rush having helped Hillary to win the primary, and then have her go on to win the election, and beat McCain. It would serve him right, IMO. Can't blame for for laughing over the thought of watching that whole fiasco blow upin his face, now can you? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Bobbyrx
04-23-2008, 10:33 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Becausae you can't completely control either side without a 60% majority, and the Republicans vote in a block on everything involving spying on Americans, and funding this militarily un-winnable civil war. How many times does it take, before you get it? Two thirds of both houses are required. </div></div>
<span style="color: #FF6666">You mean that the 2006 elections weren't a mandate from the people about the evil Republicans? They didn't give the Dems 66.6% majority so what was the big deal. Why was everyone on the left so excited? If two thirds is the big watermark then it seems that hundreds of bills that passed both houses correcting all these injustices would have been vetoed. I think Bush averages about one per year......and Democrats never vote in a block????? right.... who doesn't get it </span>

Bobbyrx
04-23-2008, 10:44 AM
I'm not so sure if he does or doesn't Deeman but whats galling is comments like "Deeman, the US has interfered in the domestic affairs of 72 countries since the end of WW2!" Why not include during WWII ???? Sprechen Sie Deutsch ?

Deeman3
04-23-2008, 10:46 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bobbyrx</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm not so sure if he does or doesn't Deeman but whats galling is comments like "Deeman, the US has interfered in the domestic affairs of 72 countries since the end of WW2!" Why not include during WWII ???? Sprechen Sie Deutsch ? </div></div>

It is funny that none of these countries had problems with American fighters and bombers "interfering" with them then. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

The Dutch in particular....

eg8r
04-23-2008, 11:16 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">All this being said, I'll listen to all the candidates and make a decision on who will put forward specific plans to change the exit of manufacturing jobs</div></div> I can help you out with this one...none of the candidates will help you and I am sure you already know this. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Basically the jobs are going overseas because it is flat too expensive to stay here and be profitable and make your shareholders happy. In order for the manufacturing jobs to stay here some very complex things need to be changed starting with taxes and wages. To reduce taxes and wages you will get support from the Reps and not the Dems. However even though the taxes were reduced the profitability is still greater overseas and the shareholders are the boss so there is still no incentive for the businesses to stay.

There is one fix that has been mentioned but those on K street will put all their money on the candidate that would oppose it. The easy fix is the Fair Tax. This will remove all tax liability (except sales tax) on the business and make it profitable to stay here.

eg8r

eg8r
04-23-2008, 11:18 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Neither. Those with their heads in the sand are the ones who think that Republicans </div></div> Blah blah blah, your head is in the sand.

eg8r

Qtec
04-24-2008, 06:33 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Q, chill out before I call GWB and have him invade Holland and drive the Infidels out. </div></div>

Well, if you are going to invade I must warn you that we have a lot of water over here-thousands of miles of canals etc. So if you are going to invade, make sure its an all white army because we all knows blacks can't swim. LOL you didn't know? (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8373430295407428837&sourceid=docidfeed&hl=en)


LMAO.

Q

Deeman3
04-24-2008, 07:23 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Q, chill out before I call GWB and have him invade Holland and drive the Infidels out. </div></div>

Well, if you are going to invade I must warn you that we have a lot of water over here-thousands of miles of canals etc. So if you are going to invade, make sure its an all white army because we all knows blacks can't swim. LOL you didn't know? (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8373430295407428837&sourceid=docidfeed&hl=en)


LMAO.

Q </div></div>

Q, having been in your beautiful country many, many times, I only say I won't have to bring three things with me, a bicycle or sheep or canals. You have plenty of each. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Gayle in MD
04-24-2008, 08:36 AM
Yet another informative post, chock full of inspring information, and thoughtful analysis.

Here's my fix for the economy. Lets, suspend all salaries going to those in the defense industry who spend all their worktime, on the internet posting bull****. that would probably save us trillions!

eg8r
04-24-2008, 09:01 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here's my fix for the economy. Lets, suspend all salaries going to those in the defense industry who spend all their worktime, on the internet posting bull****. that would probably save us trillions!</div></div> There you go, the lead sheep sees the edge of the cliff but you can't stop yourself from continuing your march.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
04-24-2008, 09:57 AM
Hey Ed,
You, your party, and it's philosophies, are on the way out. American has seen the results of borrow, borrow, borrow, War, War, War. You've already gone over the cliff, and you don't even know it. You'll never see another bunch of oil people running this country, and you won't see McCain in the White House. Relatively speaking, you're pretty irrlevant.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

eg8r
04-24-2008, 03:40 PM
Watch out the queen sheep is herding her sheep closer to the ledge.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
04-26-2008, 09:36 AM
Deeman,
Do you think our country is better off now, than it was before the Bush Administration?

Is Terrorism down. NO

Are Oil prices lower? NO

Is the Economy good? NO

Are jobs up? NO

Are job losses down? NO

Is the automobile, steel, housing market good? NO

Did we get bin Laden yet? NO

Is our infrastructure improved? NO

Was Iraq successful? NO

Is the Talliban gone? NO

Is Iran worse off? NO

Is our reputation around the world better? NO

Do we have a surplus? NO

Do more people have health care? NO

Is small business doing better? NO

Are earnings up? NO

Are Deficits down? NO

Is our educational system improved? NO

Are salaries up? NO

Have we made any strides in social security solvency? NO

McCain backed all of George Bush's policies.

Maureen Dowd isn't the end all, Americans are fed up with the mess made by Bush, and the Republicans. Iraq is killing us. Trade deficits are killing us, and corruption at the highest levels of government, and business, are driving this country into the pits. If Democrats had created this mess, I'd hate to think what we'd be reading. Even the vastly right wing press, isn't going to pull it off this time. Bush, and his father did exactly the opposite of what they promised, and McCain has flip flopped on everything. He doesn't even know who we're fighting!

Qtec
04-27-2008, 05:20 AM
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/pics/0612mccain-autosized141.jpg

Q

hondo
04-27-2008, 08:54 AM
Excellent post, Gayle.
Not only is the answer " no" to your questions but many things are much worse.
If the stock market collapses, and it could, we're screwed.

Deeman3
04-28-2008, 07:20 AM
Gayle,

Why would you ask me a series of questions and then provide the answers instead of letting me answer them?

This, of course, is not a series of questions but a forum for your beliefs with a tenuous grasp on reality. It will do no good to give you my answers if you won't consider changing your mind.

My friend, Rev. Wright, said it best. "The chickens be comin home to roost."

The Democratic candidates have now painted themselves into a corner all on their own with no help from the right. They are now getting ready to further tear the party apart and no one can fingure out why.

If Hilllary will acuse Rev. Wright or Obama of rape next week, she can win and the party will rally around her. The black vote is traded for the Hispanic and sex offender vote and you guys are home free. I should have seen it coming.

SKennedy
04-28-2008, 03:35 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Watch out the queen sheep is herding her sheep closer to the ledge.

eg8r </div></div>

Sheep? Oh no....here comes Lenny!

Gayle in MD
04-28-2008, 08:36 PM
I have a tenuous view of reality? ARe you saying that the answer to any of those questions I listed would be Yes? I don't think so, Deeman, and I also think that Republicans leave a lot out of their statments about everything, like for example, that fact that plenty of people made billions over this whole mortgage crises, and I've already posted the piece about how Bush used an outdated law to pave the way for this mess.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24236715/

Check it out, Deeman, and tell me that if Democrats had been running this country for the last eight years, you wouldn't be screaming about the mess they had made!

There's nothing equal to the mess that Bush and the Republicans have made of this country this time! How the hell, why in the world, would any American go out and vote for another Republican? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Gayle in MD
04-28-2008, 08:38 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24236715/

Yep! Republicans are sooooooooooo good with money, ya know, that's why they're always yapping about Economics 101, condescending little bastards, aren't they? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

Gayle in MD
04-28-2008, 08:54 PM
/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/whistle.gif

Hey Ed, this icon is supposed to mean whistle, but when I use it for you it means you're still blowing smoke!

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/whistle.gif
/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/tired.gif

hey Ed, Bush, and your Republicans have done such a superb job. the country is on the brink of a depression, there have actually already been runs at certain banks.

Oil is approaching $4.00 a gallon, gee, that's got to be a real improvment huh?

bin Laden is still planning his next attack, but what they hey, if little Bushy couldn't get the folks that brought those buildings down, atleast he got the guy that didn't have anything but a big bluff, that had to be a step in the right direction, huh?

Oh, and Ed, gee, we can't get any people to go to work for us in covert positions lately. Seems they heard we didn't treat our secretaries well, so they decided not to be covert agents.

Health care costs are throught the roof, but gee, as long as the guys that work for Defense have good health care, who the hell cares about the rest of America, anyway.

Oh, and our troops, 20% of them have brain injuries, but, I sure as hell hope they don't try to redistribute any money from the wealthy CEO's that were selling them the poison water in Iraq, and give it to the VETS! AWE, no, McCain, that's right, we can rely on McCain, to stop that vote, right? the former POW&lt; who backed off his own torture bill?

Oh, and Ed, estimates are now higher on what your kids owe on this debt, it's gone up to $40,000, each, you know, and the interest is still compounding, but then, gee, how time flies, huh? And, after all, it's all for the betterment of the free market right?

I just know that both you and Steve will love all the glowing historical reports about the Bush administration! Those historians have already gotten their "Special Tax Cuts" kind of like those reporters they paid to write glowing reports on Iraq, and the Generals that are all for Bush's Iraq Surge, only their also talking about staying a hundred years, but oh, they're all on the Iraq Contractor payroll, ha ha, that's right, I almost forgot! McCain's lobbyists, and Bush's Generals, and they ALL want to stay in Iraq for a hundred years! Man, what patriots. What Proud Americans! What a great sacrifice they've made! I can hardly hold back my tears!

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/whistle.gif

Bobbyrx
04-28-2008, 09:56 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Oh, and our troops, 20% of them have brain injuries
</div></div>

<span style="color: #FF0000"> Are you saying that 20% of all our returning troops have serious brain injuries???</span>

pooltchr
04-29-2008, 04:34 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24236715/

Yep! Republicans are sooooooooooo good with money, ya know, that's why they're always yapping about Economics 101, condescending little bastards, aren't they? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif </div></div>

Only when we are dealing with closed minded people who act like children, and show they have no concept of simple economic terms such as the difference between profit and profit margins.
It's impossible to teach anything to someone who doesn't want to learn.
Steve

Gayle in MD
04-29-2008, 05:56 AM
http://www.startribune.com/nation/17850574.html

Read it for yourself.

Then read this....http://www.zogby.com/news/readnews.dbm?id=1075

Gayle in MD
04-29-2008, 06:03 AM
The poor oil companies. I feel so sorry for them, and for the Corporations that are racking up billions in Iraq, only they aren't delivering what they were hired to do.

Yakking about socialism, while Bush, and the Republicans who blocked all the investigations into all the billions that were lost and stolen in Iraq doesn't exactly represent an open mind, to me, atleast.

Wasting billions every month, borrowing us into the pit to pay for it, while the country goes down the drain, with nothing to show for it except hundreds of thousands of brain injured, and mentally ill young Americans, while Cheney's old cronies get rich in the Middle East, and McCain travels around the country with a campaign full of his lobbyist friends, really the thinking of an open minded American, who then goes out and votes Republican.

I think a closed mind just might be someone who yaps about waste and spending, but doesn't seem to know a thing about how Condoleeza Rice has completely failed to oversee spending in the State Department. Oil Companies that are recieving billions in subsidies, have not spent that money in accomplishing what they were given it to accomplish, but racking up record profits, none the less. Too bad the secret meeting still remains secret. It's clear to me what the agreement was, and also clear that there have been no new refineries built in eight years, but oil CEO's retiring with hundreds of millions in retirement packages.

Hey, a closed mind would belong to anyone who is defending Big Oil, Republicans and Bush, in my opinion. Pedal it to someone else, Steve, it doesn't fly with me.

I hear the Governor in North Carolina has come out for Hillary? Guess he must think she's going to win.

Gayle in Md.

Deeman3
04-29-2008, 07:35 AM
I now believe she is going to win. I think Obama has played out and his pastor is closing the door for him. If she beats McCain, i will support her efforts to make things better. I think she will have swung so far to the center, she will nt dare propose any spending major spending for the near future and, of course, she is willing to nuke Iran.

What more could we ask?

Did you hear about her growing up as a Nascar brat in NC? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Kidding aside, I think she will now prevail in the convention. She will be able to do without the black voters in November anyway.

eg8r
04-29-2008, 07:38 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's impossible to teach anything to someone who doesn't want to learn.
</div></div> You know what they say about mouthy old women(I meant dogs). /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

This post was meant as a joke. I have to add this disclaimer because some of those on the left are usually wound so tight they don't bother to try and read and understand what is actually happening. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r

Bobbyrx
04-29-2008, 09:11 AM
from MSNBC: " It estimated that from 10 percent to 20 percent of soldiers and Marines FROM TACTICAL UNITS leaving Iraq and Afghanistan are affected by mild traumatic brain injury. The most common cause was blast from an explosion. Concussion is a common term for mild traumatic brain injury, or TBI. " So 20% of our troops don't have brain injuries, only the ones fighting in tactical units and the vast majority of these are concussions.
"The symptoms can include headaches, dizziness, nausea, light sensitivity, sleep problems, memory problems, confusion and irritability. With treatment, more than 80% of patients recover completely, the task force said."

You just throw these things out there: "Oh, and our troops, 20% of them have brain injuries" with just enough truth to make it look like 20% of ALL our troops are getting their brains blown out when the ENTIRE truth, while still a concern, is entirely different.

eg8r
04-29-2008, 03:31 PM
Gayle likes to scare people, she feels that her best tactic to lead her sheep.

eg8r

wolfdancer
04-29-2008, 04:47 PM
I think it's 20% of the voting public that have brain injuries...the ones that would still vote for the "War President" if he could run for a third term.
So, just like in another post that tried to compare casualties "favorably" between this war and WWII....some want to argue the percentages down to an acceptable level???

pooltchr
04-29-2008, 06:32 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The poor oil companies. I feel so sorry for them, and for the Corporations that are racking up billions in Iraq, only they aren't delivering what they were hired to do.
<span style="color: #FF6666">What do you think the big bad oil companies do with all those big bad profits? Do you have any idea how much is rolled back into R&D , exploring for more oil, more efficient refining techniques, and, yes, alternative energy sources. They want you to have plenty of fuel to take your big boat out on the water whenever the urge strikes. Do you really think they are so shortsighted that they would build their future on a product that has a finite limit on how much there actually is for them to sell...today as well as 50 years from now? That would make them pretty stupid, and if they are that stupid, how can they be outsmarting an entire country? </span>


I hear the Governor in North Carolina has come out for Hillary? Guess he must think she's going to win.
<span style="color: #FF0000"> Yes he did. Not that it means a whole lot. After all, he is just another ignorant southern Bubba like the rest of us who don't live in "the heart of the country"</span>

Gayle in Md. </div></div>

<span style="color: #FF0000"> I have every reason to believe that the Clinton machine will find a way to steal the nomination even without winning the popular vote, or the largest number of deligates. And I actually hope she does. If we are going to have Socialism, at least she isn't so far out there as Obama.
Steve</span>

wolfdancer
04-29-2008, 08:01 PM
"What do you think the big bad oil companies do with all those big bad profits? Do you have any idea how much is rolled back into R&D , exploring for more oil, more efficient refining techniques, and, yes, alternative energy sources."

I didn't go to Wharton, but aren't net profits reported after the expenses of R&D ?
Record profits are just that, record profits..not some altruistic funding program to help the American public....


"I have every reason to believe that the Clinton machine will find a way to steal the nomination even without winning the popular vote, or the largest number of deligates."

you wrote this with a straight face.....considering the many charges of voter fraud against the Republican Party?

"If we are going to have Socialism......"
you mean like SS, medicare, and that free milk program for school kids?
Think of it as "Social Democracy"
"social democrats aim to reform capitalism democratically through state regulation and the creation of state sponsored programs and organizations which work to ameliorate or remove injustices inflicted by the capitalist market system."

pooltchr
04-30-2008, 04:25 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"What do you think the big bad oil companies do with all those big bad profits? Do you have any idea how much is rolled back into R&D , exploring for more oil, more efficient refining techniques, and, yes, alternative energy sources."

I didn't go to Wharton, but aren't net profits reported after the expenses of R&D ?
Record profits are just that, record profits..not some altruistic funding program to help the American public....
<span style="color: #FF0000"> True, but as I posted earlier, those record profits are to be expected with the volume of business they do...record volume should result in record profits. The margins are held down because of the investments they make with them.</span>


"I have every reason to believe that the Clinton machine will find a way to steal the nomination even without winning the popular vote, or the largest number of deligates."

you wrote this with a straight face.....considering the many charges of voter fraud against the Republican Party?
<span style="color: #FF0000">Charges are nothing more than accusations. And the charges have been leveled against both parties. And yes, it looks as if Obama will end up with more delegates and more of the popular vote, yet I anticipate Hillary will somehow end up with the nomination. If someone doesn't win the numbers, but wins the nomination anyway, what else would you call it? </span>

"If we are going to have Socialism......"
you mean like SS, medicare, and that free milk program for school kids?
Think of it as "Social Democracy"
"social democrats aim to reform capitalism democratically through state regulation and the creation of state sponsored programs and organizations which work to ameliorate or remove injustices inflicted by the capitalist market system."
<span style="color: #FF0000"> By the injustices inflicted by the capitalist market system, are you refering to the fact that if one person works hard to accumulate wealth while another doesn't, that the hard working one should be forced to share the results of their efforts with the slug? Yes, it's so unfair that Bill Gates has more money than I do. Why doesn't someone take some of his money and give it to me?</span>
</div></div>

<span style="color: #FF0000">Wolf, I'm not that cold hearted. My concern is the rate of expansion of those government "programs" that are going to continue to redistribute the wealth. We already give back about 40% of what we make in the form of taxes. Imagine how much good we all could do if we had even half of that to use as we see fit. My overhead isn't anywhere as high as the government's when it comes to "sharing" out tax dollars.
Steve </span>

Gayle in MD
04-30-2008, 07:35 AM
LOL, well, lets just say that Republican SHEEP have a way of ignoring the point, and splitting hairs.

7.8 billion profit on 114 billion revenue, is 7 1/2 %. but 7.8 billion profit from companies that are getting billions more in subsidies, but doing nothing they were supposed to do. like invest in reusable energy, refine enough oil to prevent what we're seeing now, still a scam any way you look at it.

Saudi Arabia has decreased their output, anually, these last years, and laughed at Bush when he went pandering on his last trip, even the sword dancing didn't turn on the Saudis. They laughed in his face.

But then, Bush has spent billions upon billions, sending messages. Gee, ain't it wonderful to have a president who puts the country into the money pit, sending messages? Maybe if he learned how to say Nuclear, and Message, somebody would "Get it" and maybe if Republcians didn't block everything and anything that could improve things in this country, we could get somewhere.

I'm just thankful that Americans have seen through this bunch of outlaws. Bush gets 21% approval rating on the economy. That's got to account for Republicans having only 28% of the voting public, registered as Republican. Funny, I've always said, 28% of them were nuts. Looks like I had it right on the nose!

Love,
Gayle

Gayle in MD
04-30-2008, 08:05 AM
You obviously didn't see them testifying several weeks ago. Too bad. You really should go to Capital News .org, and watch the entire performance.

Too bad, you didn't see it, you'd know that their performance has been miserable, particularly EXXON. Several Senators asked, "Why are we subsidizing you when you aren't doing anything to bring about the improvments in our energy situation to justify it?"

If you spent more time investigating the waste and corruption by Republican friendly contractors, Bush's cronies, and Bush's appointed Department heads, maybe you'd understand all the damage your party, and your president, have done to this country.

Bush will leave office having put this country into the worst state since the great depression, and all you can focus on is earmarks, nothing compared to what has been lost through Republican led incompetence and waste from 2000 to 2006.

Our tax system favors the rich. The trickle down theory doesn't work. You talk about redistribution of wealth, but ignore the fact that Bush's policies redistribute the wealth upwards, not only through his tax policies, but through no bid contracts, and no oversight in corruption and waste.

Any way you slice it, Bush gets 81 % disapproval rating on his economic policies, but you overlook all that, and continue to defend policies that have proven to favor the rich, at the expense of the Middle class American workers.

Regardless of which Democratic candidate wins the election, Republicans represent only 28% of the voters. Maybe you should ask yourself why. Maybe you should look into all the waste and corruption that represent this administration. maybe YOU could actually learn something, instead of trying to twist and split hairs to justify the Republican philosophy of rich friendly tax policies, and corporate corruption, with no oversight on their corrupt contractors, and no oversight on regulations that could have prevented a lot of the mess we're in right now.

I watched those oil CEO's testify. Don't try to defend them to me, it won't fly.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
04-30-2008, 08:49 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I now believe she is going to win. <span style="color: #000066">I hope you're right, but I think it's too soon to tell. She'd have to win Indiana by a good margin, and make a good show in North Carolina. I think we'll know more after those two states come in, and I also think that if she doesn't make a very good show in both, she'd be likely to drop out, and that you will see the biggest Clinton Machine, vested in support for Obama, that anyone could imagine. She will win accolades from her party. If I'm wrong about this, you can all throw it up in my face, but I'll wager you, you'll see both Hillary and Bill work their butts off for Obama, if he wins fair and square.</span> I think Obama has played out and his pastor is closing the door for him. <span style="color: #000066">I don't think so, friend. I think this may be Obama's moment to show that he can overturn yet another blunder. He's made so much over Hillary's bad judgement, voting for the President's ability to use force against Saddam, and frankly, I think that was unfair, given that the administration cooked the intel, and fooled all of us in the process, including me, but I still think that Obama can turn it around. He's brought a lot of new voters into the Democratic party, and this problem, (I realize that your post was made before Obama officially rebuked Wright) with his pastor may generate him some sympathy after the public has watched Wright try to throw Obama under the bus. Wright is the subject of attack from the black population that supports Obama. Wright look to be the big loser, now, and McCain will only look like a fool if he uses this, which he most likely will, in the end.</span> If she beats McCain, i will support her efforts to make things better. <span style="color: #000066">I believe you, and I don't put you in the company of some of the other posters on this board from the right. </span> I think she will have swung so far to the center, she will nt dare propose any spending major spending for the near future and, of course, she is willing to nuke Iran. <span style="color: #000066">I believe that she would nuke Iran if they were a threat, and if we had actionable intelligence. I don't think she would cherry pick intelligence for a hidden agenda. She has spoken out against nation building, and also against using aggression before exhausting diplomatic efforts, unless there is a real and present danger. Unfortunately, Republicans are now known as the party that jumps for the boms first, and contemplates the devastating results, later. That's going to be a tough M.O. for Republicans to overcome, and given the state of our economy, I do not think McCain has a ghost of a chance.</span>

What more could we ask? <span style="color: #000066">Impeachment? </span>

Did you hear about her growing up as a Nascar brat in NC? <span style="color: #000066">I haven't heard that she has been proven to have never atended those races. I think of myself as growing up as a North Carolina beach kid, although I've always lived in Maryland. </span>

Kidding aside, I think she will now prevail in the convention. She will be able to do without the black voters in November anyway.

<span style="color: #000066">I'm not so sure, but as I said, your post was made before Obama came out against Wright. I really don't have a clue about whether or not he can overcome the damage caused by his association with Reverend Wright, but Obama has had taken the right steps in disclaiming Wright, and his statements. The question now is whether or not the White voters will overlook all of it. Time will tell. As you know, I am of the belief that religion has no place in our electoral process. Religion and God, have nothing to do with running a country, IMO.

love,
Gayle</span>
</div></div>

Gayle in MD
04-30-2008, 09:02 AM
On would think you would have known that I was talking about combat troops.


I think it's safe to say that if Bush had given a damned about our troops who are fighting in combat, he, the most powerful man in the world, COULD have made damned sure that they had the qeuipment they needed to protect them from the horrible infuries they have endured throughout this mistaken occupation of Iraq, and in their efforts in Afghanistan.

It's bad enough he hides their flag draped coffins from public view, and hides behind Military Generals, using them as his pawns in Congressional testimony. His treatment of our combat troops has been a disgrace, overall, and forcing them to stay there again this summer, some on their fifth deployment, in 110 degree heat with 70 to 80 pounds on their backs, again, while the Iraqi Parliament goes on vaction to the seashore, will be the last straw for voters who care about our troops. That obviously doesn't include you, or ED.

Deeman3
04-30-2008, 09:42 AM
I think Obama did a credible job in rubuking Wright but it may be too little too late for many.

Gayle, I really wish I could beleive that any of the candidates would do, in the end, what is best for America, regardless of political promises and next election preening. That would be all I could ask.

Maybe I am wrong and one of them will. It just seems they are all pandering to beat the band while a real leader would be telling us as an unvarnished truth as politics will allow.

Of course, would they ever get elected? I guess we deserve what we get. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/frown.gif

Gayle in MD
04-30-2008, 09:50 AM
George Bush has expanded the Federal Government more than any recent president, and through all of the expansion, we have seen increased incompetence and corruption and waste.

Not that you'd be worried about anything that had "Republican" stamped on it, you're the last person here that ought to be condescending in your posts, as you always are. You voted for Bush, TWICE. Where do you get off accusing others of any inability to learn.

There is a library of books by Economists that prove that our tax structure favors the rich, and plenty of material out there that proves that Republicans, Reagan, and both Bush's, and the Republican majority of the the Bush administration's six years of control, grew the government beyond anything we've seen in fifty years, and borrowed more money than all previous administrations COMBINED.

If there is anybody here who doesn't learn anything from facts easily proven, Republicans that are going out to vote REpublican AGAIN, are the ones, and particularly those who yap incessantly about spending!

There is only one good thing about these last eight years. WE'll never again see an administration full of OIL MEN AND WOMEN running this country!

From the Washington Post Article referenced earlier....

"You will damn well do this. You will make this a holiday. You're making us look like fools," he privately exploded two decades ago at a stunned group of Arizona Republicans who opposed creating a state holiday in remembrance of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.

Early during their days together in the Senate, Smith came to believe that McCain often used his temper as a strategic weapon, that if he "couldn't persuade you, he was going at least to needle you or [sometimes] belittle you or blow up into trying to have you believe you were beneath him, so that you'd be less likely to challenge him. He needed to be the top guy."

Smith admits to not liking McCain, a point he has often made over the years to reporters. "I've witnessed a lot of his temper and outbursts," Smith said. "For me, some of this stuff is relevant. It raises questions about stability. . . . It's more than just temper. It's this need of his to show you that he's above you -- a sneering, condescending attitude. It's hurt his relationships in Congress. . . . I've seen it up-close."

Smith, whose service in the Navy included a tour on the waters in and around Vietnam, said he stood stunned one day when McCain declared around several of their colleagues that Smith wasn't a real Vietnam War veteran. "I was in the combat zone, off the Mekong River, for 10 months," Smith said. "He went on to insult me several times. I wasn't on the land; I guess that was his reasoning. . . . He suggested I was masquerading about my Vietnam service. It was very hurtful. He's gotten to a lot of people [that way]."

While in the course of a policy disagreement at a luncheon meeting of Republican senators, McCain reportedly insulted Pete V. Domenici of New Mexico with an earthy expletive. Domenici demanded an apology. "Okay, I'll apologize," McCain said, before referring to an infuriated Domenici with the same expletive.

Salter insists that many of McCain's run-ins with colleagues and activists have resulted from McCain's conviction that his honor in some way has been questioned. "If he feels a challenge to his integrity, then he'll say something," Salter said. "If he thinks you betrayed him . . . he'll tell you, he'll be angry. . . . But he's also exceedingly forgiving."

During the early 1990s, McCain telephoned the office of Tom Freestone, a governmental official little known outside Arizona's Maricopa County. McCain had an unusual request. He wanted Freestone, then chairman of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, to reject a job applicant named Karen S. Johnson, whose last governmental position had been in the office of a former Arizona governor and who had just interviewed for a position as an aide in Freestone's office.

According to two employees in the office, McCain told Freestone that the applicant's past political associations left her carrying unflattering baggage.

The pair of Freestone staffers thought it odd that a U.S. senator would even know that Johnson had applied for a job in their office, let alone that he had taken time out of his workday to pick up a phone and weigh in on a staffing matter so removed from the locus of Washington power. But McCain's disenchantment with Johnson was personal: A few years earlier, he had an angry exchange with her while she was the secretary for Republican Arizona Gov. Evan Meacham, who was impeached and forced out of office for campaign finance violations.

Around the time of Meacham's ouster, Johnson said, McCain paid a visit to him. Johnson recalled that McCain swiftly used the opportunity to lecture Meacham: "You should never have been elected. You're an embarrassment to the [Republican] Party."

A stupefied Meacham just stared at the senator. An indignant Johnson, as she tells the story, snapped at McCain: "How dare you? You're the embarrassment to the party."

As Johnson and another person working in Freestone's office remember, the surprised supervisor told Johnson about McCain's objections to her. "But I'm hiring you anyway," Freestone told her.

For Johnson, McCain's call raised questions as to whether he bore a lasting animosity against anyone who ever challenged him. "Everyone in [Freestone's] office thought it was all ridiculous . . . and petty," remembers Johnson, a devout Republican conservative who today is an Arizona state senator.

"Senator McCain says he has no recollection of ever making a phone call to block a job for Karen Johnson," Salter said.

During roughly the same period, McCain requested the firing of an aide to Arizona's senior U.S. senator, Dennis DeConcini, according to two top figures in DeConcini's office.

The aide, a veterans affairs expert named Judy Leiby, first ran into problems with McCain in the late '80s, when she sought to correct what she regarded as a McCain misstatement about DeConcini's record on a veterans issue. She was attending a Phoenix meeting between McCain and some veterans when she rebutted a McCain assertion that DeConcini, a Democrat, favored a bill that included a cut of some veterans benefits. "That is incorrect," Leiby said, detailing the specifics of DeConcini's position as McCain listened stonily.

Sometime afterward, McCain called DeConcini and asked that he dismiss Leiby, insisting to the senator that his aide had become a toxic, partisan figure. According to the two people in the office, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, DeConcini defended Leiby and, praising what he characterized as her bipartisan fairness and expertise, urged McCain to give her a second look. McCain refused, repeating his demand that Leiby be fired.

DeConcini "politely told McCain to go to hell," according to a source close to the conversation, adding: "Not once in [DeConcini's 18-year Senate tenure] did another senator ask for an aide to be dismissed. Not once did anyone speak about an aide like that."

Episodes such as the Johnson and Leiby incidents, along with McCain's oft-chronicled blowups on Capitol Hill, have led critics to say he has a vindictive streak, that he sees an enemy in anyone who challenges him.

"I heard about his temper more from others," said Grant Woods, McCain's first congressional chief of staff, who is generally regarded as McCain's closest confidant in his early political years. "According to them, he really unleashed on some of them, and they couldn't figure out why. . . . It happened enough that it was affecting his credibility with some people. If you wanted a programmed, subdued, always-on-message politician, he wasn't and will never be your guy."

Woods helped orchestrate McCain's first House campaign in 1982 and worked to get him elected to the Senate in 1986. That year the Arizona Republican Party held its Election Night celebration for all its candidates at a Phoenix hotel, where the triumphant basked in the cheers of their supporters and delivered victory statements on television.

After McCain finished his speech, he returned to a suite in the hotel, sat down in front of a TV and viewed a replay of his remarks, angry to discover that the speaking platform had not been erected high enough for television cameras to capture all of his face -- he seemed to have been cut off somewhere between his nose and mouth.

A platform that had been adequate for taller candidates had not taken into account the needs of the 5-foot-9 McCain, who left the suite and went looking for a man in his early 20s named Robert Wexler, the head of Arizona's Young Republicans, which had helped make arrangements for the evening's celebration. Confronting Wexler in a hotel ballroom, McCain exploded, according to witnesses who included Jon Hinz, then executive director of the Arizona Republican Party. McCain jabbed an index finger in Wexler's chest.

"I told you we needed a stage," he screamed, according to Hinz. "You incompetent little [expletive]. When I tell you to do something, you do it."

Hinz recalls intervening, placing his 6-foot-6 frame between the senator-elect and the young volunteer. "John, this is not the time or place for this," Hinz remembers saying to McCain, who fumed that he hadn't been seen clearly by television viewers. Hinz recollects finally telling McCain: "John, look, I'll follow you out on stage myself next time. I'll make sure everywhere you go there is a milk crate for you to stand on. But this is enough."

McCain spun around on his heels and left. He did not talk to Hinz again for several years. In 2000, as Hinz recalls, he appeared briefly on the Christian Broadcasting Network to voice his worries about McCain's temperament on televangelist Pat Robertson's show, "The 700 Club." Hinz's concerns have since grown with reports of incidents in and out of Arizona.

In 1994, McCain tried to stop a primary challenge to the state's Republican governor, J. Fife Symington III, by telephoning his opponent, Barbara Barrett, the well-heeled spouse of a telecommunications executive, and warning of unspecified "consequences" should she reject his advice to drop out of the race. Barrett stayed in. At that year's state Republican convention, McCain confronted Sandra Dowling, the Maricopa County school superintendent and, according to witnesses, angrily accused her of helping to persuade Barrett to enter the race.

"You better get [Barrett] out or I'll destroy you," a witness claims that McCain shouted at her. Dowling responded that if McCain couldn't respect her right to support whomever she chose, that he "should get the hell out of the Senate." McCain shouted an obscenity at her, and Dowling howled one back.

Woods raced over, according to a witness, and pulled Dowling away. Woods said he has "no memory" of being involved, "though I heard something about an argument."

"What happens if he gets angry in crisis" in the presidency?" Hinz asked. "It's difficult enough to be a negotiator, but it's almost impossible when you're the type of guy who's so angry at anybody who doesn't do what he wants. It's the president's job to negotiate and stay calm. I don't see that he has that quality."


Only the nutty 28% of registered voters left in the Republican party will vote for this nut, and you're one of them. And you accuse others of being unable to learn? BWA HA HA HA....Pahleeeeze!




Gayle in Md.

eg8r
04-30-2008, 10:39 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You talk about redistribution of wealth, but ignore the fact that Bush's policies redistribute the wealth upwards, not only through his tax policies, but through no bid contracts, and no oversight in corruption and waste.
</div></div> I wish for once you would take your own advice (actually do a little research) and come back to the board with a little knowledge in hand instead of regurgitating your favorite talking head. The idea of redistributing wealth to the rich is by far the most ignorant thing you have said all day. The rich pay the lion's share of taxes so tax breaks, refunds, etc is not redistributing wealth, in actuality it is just GIVING THE MONEY BACK TO THOSE PAID IT IN TO THE GOVERNMENT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
04-30-2008, 11:03 AM
"Only the little people pay taxes." From a well known wealthy American.

There is over seven trillion of our tax dollars hidden in the Carribbean. You get the prize for ignorance. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif

eg8r
04-30-2008, 11:23 AM
Keep your head in the sand queen sheep.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
04-30-2008, 11:49 AM
I think Ron Paul told a lot of truth, but just look how much it helped him.

Look how the media has highjacked any reasonable discussion of our urgent issues with discussions about Wright, Hillary's Sniper exaggeration, or call it a lie, who cares, they all do it in campaigns.

What the hell does it have to do with who is best suited to lead this country.

I'd have to say that we Americans are spoiled. Everytime we get a president who tries to make us face the truth, and bite the bullet, he's ambushed by special interests.

OK, Carter wasn't perfect, but he did more than any other president to get America to face up to this energy problem. He was the only one who actually reduced our oil consumption, and he got bashed left and right, and the corporate powers that run this country were furious over his conservation efforts. That's why I call them corporate fascists, because they do a pawltry job of addressing anything but their own bottom line.

Now, Carter's being bashed for talking with Hammas, and they were elected in a fair democratic election, and then branded as terrorists. Since when is it Unamerican to talk with ones enemies? That's why I'm against Republicans, because they have shown that they reach for bombs first, and degrade the whole idea of communicating with our enemies, and working for compromise. Now, I'm not talking about al Qaeda when I say that, but obviously, al Waeda is supported by countries that are supposed to be our friends, and by countries that are definately our enemies, so there is where we need to put our efforts, not spending billions and billions more to send another ship into the Persian Gulf, to send a message! It ridiculous!

There are two things that should be taken out in the daylight and completely exposed, our hidden dealings with Saudi Arabia, and the Powerful Israeli Lobby. Why do we support Israel for taking over another countries land? Why is it that they refuse to compromise enough to bring about peace in their region? Look at all the prisoners they insist on holding, women and children, many of them. Israel isn't perfect, either. I get sick and tired of how they get a bye for everything they do, when they were the occupiers in the first place. I'm confused about why we support them, with no questions asked, when they turn around and spy on us.

Jimmy Carter has a Foundation For Peace. He's been bashed for going overthere, and he states that no one in our government asked him not to go. He obviously spoke with them, but apparently they thought it would be better not to throw up any roadblocks so that they could condemn him after the fact. Rice bashed him, and I think she's afraid he will accomplish something, which is more than we can say for her after eight years. I'm sure you probably heard his reports when he returned. Israel won't compromise.

Both parties are involved in actions that should be brought out into the daylight, IMO, and I really would love to have seen a strong Independent candidate this time. We the people do not have equal power to the corporate interests, and until we can bring that about, there won't be much improvment regardless of which party is running the show, IMO. I'm afraid that we have become too apathetic, and too divided, to manage any change of the status quo, and I believe that distractions into private, personal matters, such as religious dogma and affiliations, sex, and abortion, are the great distractions away from the issues of government that should be addressed.


I wrote here long ago, that Government is about economics, not social and sexual preferences. That's all we need our government to do, handle the money, and protect us from invasion, and represent us when we're attacked. All I can say is that Bush didn't do any of that, adn we're being invaded every day, by illegals that big business loves, and needs, for cheap labor that drives down American wages, and fills our streets with criminals.

How can anyone discuss our economic mess while at the same time ignoring completely the costs of this absurd campaign in Iraq, which is no better now, than before. It's a total waste of our revenue, and the lives of our troops. It is the most F-ed up situation we've ever been in, and it's going to put this country into the pit. How can anyone vote for a man who denies the reality of Iraq, just like Bush has done for six years?

It's beyond me!

eg8r
04-30-2008, 12:49 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Look how the media has highjacked any reasonable discussion of our urgent issues with discussions about Wright, Hillary's Sniper exaggeration, or call it a lie, who cares, they all do it in campaigns.
</div></div> Yes, it is awful of the media to point out when a pastor goes off half cocked on all things wrong, and a presidential candidate that blatantly and repeatedly lies. We should just ignore that because others have done the same. Despite the fact that all those lies are mentioned in all those other campaigns also.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">OK, Carter wasn't perfect</div></div> Quit sugar-coating Carter. He is a terrorist appeasing buffoon whom everyone on the planet, except the lefties, wish would just go back under his rock.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I wrote here long ago, that Government is about economics, not social and sexual preferences. That's all we need our government to do, handle the money</div></div> Wow isn't that a mouthful. It is obvious you have done zero research on how well the Government handles money.

eg8r

Bobbyrx
04-30-2008, 01:47 PM
Obama acting surprised about Rev. Wright after 20 or so years of hearing him is about what it would be like for Hillary to act surprised next week that Bill has been cheating on her......

Deeman3
04-30-2008, 01:48 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think Ron Paul told a lot of truth, but just look how much it helped him.

<span style="color: #990000"> Good point.</span>

Look how the media has highjacked any reasonable discussion of our urgent issues with discussions about Wright, Hillary's Sniper exaggeration, or call it a lie, who cares, they all do it in campaigns.

<span style="color: #CC0000"> I've gotten over the lies on the dodging bullets pretty quickly and agree they all do some of it.</span>

What the hell does it have to do with who is best suited to lead this country.

I'd have to say that we Americans are spoiled. Everytime we get a president who tries to make us face the truth, and bite the bullet, he's ambushed by special interests.

OK, Carter wasn't perfect, but he did more than any other president to get America to face up to this energy problem. He was the only one who actually reduced our oil consumption, and he got bashed left and right, and the corporate powers that run this country were furious over his conservation efforts. That's why I call them corporate fascists, because they do a pawltry job of addressing anything but their own bottom line.

<span style="color: #990000"> I think Carter was honest and totally ineffective. </span>

Now, Carter's being bashed for talking with Hammas, and they were elected in a fair democratic election, and then branded as terrorists. <span style="color: #990000">I think they are branded terrorists for lobbing bombs at Isreal every day. </span> Since when is it Unamerican to talk with ones enemies? <span style="color: #990000"> If Hillary gets in and GWB goes over and talks with Hammas, we'll see how the left reacts!</span> That's why I'm against Republicans, because they have shown that they reach for bombs first, and degrade the whole idea of communicating with our enemies, and working for compromise. Now, I'm not talking about al Qaeda when I say that, but obviously, al Waeda is supported by countries that are supposed to be our friends, and by countries that are definately our enemies, so there is where we need to put our efforts, not spending billions and billions more to send another ship into the Persian Gulf, to send a message! It ridiculous!

There are two things that should be taken out in the daylight and completely exposed, our hidden dealings with Saudi Arabia, and the Powerful Israeli Lobby. <span style="color: #990000">Agreed, both the Bushes and the Clintons dealings and contributions from them. </span> Why do we support Israel for taking over another countries land? <span style="color: #990000">If you remember, they were attacked each time they got bigger and used the land to stge off further attacks. </span> Why is it that they refuse to compromise enough to bring about peace in their region? Look at all the prisoners they insist on holding, women and children, many of them. Israel isn't perfect, either. I get sick and tired of how they get a bye for everything they do, when they were the occupiers in the first place. I'm confused about why we support them, with no questions asked, when they turn around and spy on us. <span style="color: #990000">Maybe it's because they don't run planes into our buildings that often or support those who do. </span>

Jimmy Carter has a Foundation For Peace. He's been bashed for going overthere, and he states that no one in our government asked him not to go. He obviously spoke with them, but apparently they thought it would be better not to throw up any roadblocks so that they could condemn him after the fact. Rice bashed him, and I think she's afraid he will accomplish something, which is more than we can say for her after eight years. I'm sure you probably heard his reports when he returned. Israel won't compromise. <span style="color: #990000"> They will conpromise but won't risk their security. They have dealt with the Arabs for centuries and know the value of the empty promises form them.</span>

Both parties are involved in actions that should be brought out into the daylight, IMO, and I really would love to have seen a strong Independent candidate this time. We the people do not have equal power to the corporate interests, and until we can bring that about, there won't be much improvment regardless of which party is running the show, IMO. I'm afraid that we have become too apathetic, and too divided, to manage any change of the status quo, and I believe that distractions into private, personal matters, such as religious dogma and affiliations, sex, and abortion, are the great distractions away from the issues of government that should be addressed.

<span style="color: #990000">Again, agreed...for both parties. </span>


I wrote here long ago, that Government is about economics, not social and sexual preferences. That's all we need our government to do, handle the money, and protect us from invasion, and represent us when we're attacked. All I can say is that Bush didn't do any of that, adn we're being invaded every day, by illegals that big business loves, and needs, for cheap labor that drives down American wages, and fills our streets with criminals.

<span style="color: #990000"> Our government is about a lot of things but our moves left have seemed to get them into more each year, even with so called right in charge, it's more interviening each year, more invasive. </span>

How can anyone discuss our economic mess while at the same time ignoring completely the costs of this absurd campaign in Iraq, which is no better now, than before. It's a total waste of our revenue, and the lives of our troops. It is the most F-ed up situation we've ever been in, and it's going to put this country into the pit. How can anyone vote for a man who denies the reality of Iraq, just like Bush has done for six years?

It's beyond me!

<span style="color: #990000"> Most of the enemy is hunkered down in caves much too busy to find those planes and fly them into other buildings. Given the chance, they would do it again. We, right now, are not giving them that chance. That does have a high price. Don't worry, I think the troops will be home soon. </span>
</div></div>

Bobbyrx
04-30-2008, 02:24 PM
[quote=Gayle in MD]George Bush has expanded the Federal Government more than any recent president, and through all of the expansion, we have seen increased incompetence and corruption and waste. <span style="color: #FF6666"> I have to agree with you on this however I haven't seen a cry from Congress since 2006 to spend less</span>



From the Washington Post Article referenced earlier....

"You will damn well do this. You will make this a holiday. You're making us look like fools," he privately exploded two decades ago at a stunned group of Arizona Republicans who opposed creating a state holiday in remembrance of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. <span style="color: #FF0000">I don't have a problem with him going off on them for this at all. He was right. </span>

Deeman3
04-30-2008, 02:35 PM
Yes, what if he'd gotten pissed off for them for wanting the holiday. He'd be in a pickle now....

wolfdancer
04-30-2008, 03:25 PM
I'd like to begin a movement to have a national holiday instituted in honor of James Michael Curley who proved, unlike GWB, that you can be a crook and still be well liked and respected.

Deeman3
05-01-2008, 07:49 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'd like to begin a movement to have a national holiday instituted in honor of James Michael Curley who proved, unlike GWB, that you can be a crook and still be well liked and respected. </div></div>


/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/cool.gif

Gayle in MD
05-07-2008, 10:58 AM
McCain goes off, really off, and to blows, even, anytime anyone doesn't agree with him. You pick out one time when he was right, but there are many other time, documented, when his behavior has bordored insanity.

Gayle in Md.

Bobbyrx
05-07-2008, 02:38 PM
I just read the article YOU referenced in your post that you were using to show McCain is crazy. I figured you would be proud that I read the whole thing since I took your advice to try to learn how /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Gayle in MD
05-08-2008, 08:19 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think they are branded terrorists for lobbing bombs at Isreal every day. </div></div>

Does that make Israelis terrorists, also? Do they not lob bombs at civilian locations? Are they not holding the most prisoners, many fo them women and children? I can't see which is the worst.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Agreed, both the Bushes and the Clintons dealings and contributions from them. </div></div>

As far as I know, the Clinton's not only had nothing personally to do with Saddam before or during their term. They surely were not the ones who propped him up, nor were they part of the effort to arm the Talliban, or Saddam. that was Reagan and Bush I, as I recall. The Clintons, also, had no business dealings with the Saudi's, or any other Arab Nation, or with the Oil Industry. Both Bush's did, as did many in their administrations, such as Baker, and others.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If Hillary gets in and GWB goes over and talks with Hammas, we'll see how the left reacts! </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't think he'll be able to do much foreign travel without being arrested for war crimes. According to the Geneva Conventions, any nation can investigate him for his role in using torture, and there is a growing international outcry for war crimes investigations, which I hope will go forward. </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">They will conpromise but won't risk their security. They have dealt with the Arabs for centuries and know the value of the empty promises form them.
</div></div>

Which country took control of the other's land, first? What has Israel ever done for America? Do they not spy on us? Have they not refused to assist us in the past? How man soldiers do they have helping our own troops, in Iraq? In Afghanistan?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Our government is about a lot of things but our moves left have seemed to get them into more each year, even with so called right in charge, it's more interviening each year, more invasive.
</div></div>

What do you consider to be moves to the left? Did Bush not have the distinction of having only one successful move unrelated to his war. that being the prescription Drug Program, which nobody even wanted or liked, and the GAO stated would brake the bank? Did Bush not intervien into State Matters with hi No Child Left Behind? Did he not intervien into a private family matter when he flew home to stop the family of a brain dead woman from putting her out of her misery? Does he not support interferring into a woman's right to chose what to do with her own body? Did he not spy on Americans? Was he not the biggest spender and borrower in history? How does any of this indicate the LEFT?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Most of the enemy is hunkered down in caves much too busy to find those planes and fly them into other buildings. <span style="color: #000066"> So they can't spare twenty terrorists I suppose?</span> Given the chance, they would do it again. <span style="color: #000066">When they do it again, they will be making the chance, not given the chance, and their next attack will make the last one look like a tea party in comparison. They only have to be lucky, once, and regardless of how many are killing us in the desert sands, or in Afghanistan, they can easily spare twenty. This idea that we are soehow protected from an attack by what is happening on the other side of the world, has already been proven idiotic, Deeman, it didn't protect England, or Spain, did it? Terrorist attacks have actually increased, and you know that, so why do you continue with this illogical statement that they are distracted by all the loss of American blood they managed, conveniently, in their territory, when we know they have franchised all over the world, and grown by leaps and bounds, thanks to the Bush Administration's foreign policies. It is in our own National Security Estimate. </span> We, right now, are not giving them that chance. <span style="color: #000066"> A chance taken, is different from a chance given. there is no magic circle of protection from nuclear attack, or from dirty bombs, it is considered to be a thing of when, not if, and it wouldn't be framed that way by our own intelligence experts, if we were in fact under some vast protection afforded by this insane occupation in Iraq.</span> That does have a high price. Don't worry, I think the troops will be home soon. <span style="color: #000066">A high price, with no dividends. the only way they will be home soon is if McCain isn't elected. </span>
</div></div>