PDA

View Full Version : Osama the politician?



Vapros
06-15-2008, 10:06 PM
Both presidential candidates have received endorsements from some weird sources, and some have even been publicly rejected. Now, suppose Osama bin Laden declared himself in support of one of them. Would it be the kiss of death? Is it possible that he might have the power to decide the coming election?

While we're at it, which way would you expect him to lean?

hondo
06-16-2008, 06:57 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Vapros</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Both presidential candidates have received endorsements from some weird sources, and some have even been publicly rejected. Now, suppose Osama bin Laden declared himself in support of one of them. Would it be the kiss of death? Is it possible that he might have the power to decide the coming election?

While we're at it, which way would you expect him to lean? </div></div>


Well, I believe that he would definitely support McCain because he knows that's the candidate that would be the most likely to drag us into all out world war and ,thus, create chaos.

Deeman3
06-16-2008, 07:16 AM
I think it is totally unimportant who Osama would support. There have been a few Islamic extreamists who have voiced support for Obama but we should not read much into that. If a radical right wing government would back McCain, we should not pay much heed to that as well.

I believe there are those in the islamic world who would prefer that we remain engaged in Iraq for their purposes, much as Hondo has said but many that would prefer we go back to idle threats or ignoring terrorist attacks.

I hope it comes down to an honest debate on who is best for the country although I doubt we can have that discussion anymore.

LWW
06-16-2008, 10:38 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Vapros</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Both presidential candidates have received endorsements from some weird sources, and some have even been publicly rejected. Now, suppose Osama bin Laden declared himself in support of one of them. Would it be the kiss of death? Is it possible that he might have the power to decide the coming election?

While we're at it, which way would you expect him to lean? </div></div>


Well, I believe that he would definitely support McCain because he knows that's the candidate that would be the most likely to drag us into all out world war and ,thus, create chaos. </div></div>
If we went to all out world war it would be over this afternoon.

We have the means to do this but not the will.

We face an enemy that has the will but not the means.

Because of this we are dying the death of a billion paper cuts because they know they have no chance in a set piece battle but that they a good chance in bleeding us out 1 and 2 at a time. So far they have been proven correct.

During the Iran - Iraq War there were multiple "HUMAN WAVE" battles wher over 50,000 casualties were inflicted. In Viet Nam we couldn't take in a decade the losses that they would sustain in a day. Today our people can't withstand a war with 5,000 casualties. Will the next time be 500?

As I said earlier, we have the means ... they don't. This will not last indefinitely. What do we do when they have the means? We already know what they will do. How many in the west will wish to surrender when this happens, rather than defend western civilization?

LWW

hondo
06-16-2008, 01:04 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think it is totally unimportant who Osama would support. There have been a few Islamic extreamists who have voiced support for Obama but we should not read much into that. If a radical right wing government would back McCain, we should not pay much heed to that as well.

I believe there are those in the islamic world who would prefer that we remain engaged in Iraq for their purposes, much as Hondo has said but many that would prefer we go back to idle threats or ignoring terrorist attacks.

I hope it comes down to an honest debate on who is best for the country although I doubt we can have that discussion anymore. </div></div>


Rather than indignantly yell about what a stupid thread this is, I chose to give him the exact opposite answer from what he was fishing for.
I had hoped that would be apparent among the veteran posters on here.

Deeman3
06-16-2008, 01:43 PM
Hondo,

Remember. I'm not as intellegent as the veteran posers here and certainly have not understood the concept of irony. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Vapros
06-16-2008, 03:02 PM
Hondo, I wasn't fishing for a particular answer at all. This thread was not so stupid until you chimed in. Did it ever occur to you to just pass it up? Be more like Gayle, if possible. She doesn't even read my posts.

hondo
06-16-2008, 07:58 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Vapros</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hondo, I wasn't fishing for a particular answer at all. This thread was not so stupid until you chimed in. Did it ever occur to you to just pass it up? Be more like Gayle, if possible. She doesn't even read my posts. </div></div>


Fair enough. Who do you think he would support and why?

Vapros
06-16-2008, 08:46 PM
Well, Hondo, I guess I would agree that he might choose to endorse McCain, but not to see him start another world war. He should be smart enough to know that his support for McCain would be the best thing he could do for Obama. His impact, I believe, would be negative, and he probably knows it. My question, in fact, was how great his impact would be. Maybe even, as I suggested, the kiss of death in a close race. Scary thought for both sides.

I doubt that bin Laden is hoping for a world war. I think he likes things pretty much the way they are.

Why did you call my post stupid?

hondo
06-17-2008, 01:03 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Vapros</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well, Hondo, I guess I would agree that he might choose to endorse McCain, but not to see him start another world war. He should be smart enough to know that his support for McCain would be the best thing he could do for Obama. His impact, I believe, would be negative, and he probably knows it. My question, in fact, was how great his impact would be. Maybe even, as I suggested, the kiss of death in a close race. Scary thought for both sides.

I doubt that bin Laden is hoping for a world war. I think he likes things pretty much the way they are.

Why did you call my post stupid? </div></div>

My thought was that this was another Obama is backed by terrorists thread.
If that was not your intent, I apologize.

mike60
06-17-2008, 03:26 PM
McCain as Naval Officer: Some of the unreleased pages in McCain's Navy file may not reflect well upon his qualifications for the presidency. From day one in the Navy, McCain screwed-up again and again, only to be forgiven because his father and grandfather were four-star admirals. McCain's sense of entitlement to privileged treatment bears an eerie resemblance to George W. Bush's.

Despite graduating in the bottom 1 percent of his Annapolis class, McCain was offered the most sought-after Navy assignment -- to become an aircraft carrier pilot. According to military historian John Karaagac, "'the Airdales,' the air wing of the Navy, acted and still do, as if unrivaled atop the naval pyramid. They acted as if they owned, not only the Navy, but the entire swath of blue water on the earth's surface." The most accomplished midshipmen compete furiously for the few carrier pilot openings. After four abysmal academic years at Annapolis distinguished only by his misdeeds and malfeasance, no one with a record resembling McCain's would have been offered such a prized career path. The justification for this and subsequent plum assignments should be documented in McCain's naval file.

McCain's file should also include records and analytic reviews of McCain's subsequent sub-par performances. Here are a few cited in two highly favorable biographies, both titled John McCain, one by Robert Timberg and the other by John Karaagac.

Go to the Huffington Post to see original by Jeffery Klien.

Bobbyrx
06-17-2008, 03:55 PM
Yeah I'll head over to the Huffington Post right after I finish over at the Daily KOS and My Left Wing........

mike60
06-17-2008, 04:13 PM
Bobbrx, It has always been the failure to understand the other side's view that causes trouble to continue dividing us. Lost in a one sided dead end you will never
understand compromise or equality. No one is always right.
Robert Timberg and John Karaagac are both worthy of a reading. The record is clear if you read it. If you don't you remain ignorant.
John McCain is a good Senator for his state, they elected him and good for them.
He would be a terrible President if he continues the insane policies of Bush.
Enjoy that $5 gasoline thanks to Cheneys energy poilcy?
If so inclined why don"t you call for full release of McCains Naval Records.
The truth is worth knowing unless you fear it.
mike60, Veteran and Proud.

sack316
06-18-2008, 01:33 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mike60</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Enjoy that $5 gasoline thanks to Cheneys energy poilcy?
</div></div>

Much more than I'll enjoy $8 gasoline we'll have if Obama gets to do his windfall tax (really... who do you think would wind up paying for that one? Perhaps the consumer? Maybe.. just maybe?). Do I think McCain will do much better in that regard? Probably not either.

Recently Gayle said something along the lines of how nobody from the right understands economics... I'd like to amend that to state that based on the ideas and policies currently underway and those proposed currenly, that at least nobody in Washington understands it... left or right.

Sack

mike60
06-18-2008, 04:09 AM
Sack, Go to Obamas website and read the text. The windfall tax will be on oil companies.
In an interview on local TV SF Bay area the head of Chevron said the prices are high because the public will pay. No other reason needed. There is less and less traffic
around NorCal since the price run up. If demand falls so will the prices.
Remember price wars in the 1950's? Lowest price i ever saw was in Tulsa Ok. Nineteen cents for a gallon of premium. Twelve cents for regular.

Congress is starting hearings on speculation in the oil market, drums fingers looks away, i don't expect much but remain hopeful.

Mike60 Veteran&dreading the fillup

sack316
06-18-2008, 07:18 AM
Indeed, the windfall tax will be on oil companies. Just as cigarette taxes are on the cigarette companies, but for some reason I pay several dollars more per pack than my Dad did. Sure the oil companies would be taxed under his plan, but do you honestly believe we won't be paying for it? That big oil will just suck it up out of their bottom line? If they were that altruistic would we even be having this discussion now?

And again, indeed if demand falls so would the price. But worldwide demand is up and we're not the only ones suckling at the teet. A few extra people on the trolley instead of SUV's isn't going to change the ebb and flow of supply and demand enough to make a considerable impact... especially on a non-renewable resourse. We may well be past the point of supply ever being in excess.

And I know I may not be aging that well /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif but I don't recall the price wars of the 50's... came along a few decades later. But I do recall the last windfall tax. When tax revenues fell short of projections by a mere $313 Billion dollars (and that's 1980's dollars) and US domestic production dropped off significantly.

Sack

Bobbyrx
06-18-2008, 10:54 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mike60</div><div class="ubbcode-body">the insane policies of Bush.
Enjoy that $5 gasoline thanks to Cheneys energy poilcy?
mike60, Veteran and Proud. </div></div>

<span style="color: #FF0000">I didn't know that Cheney had anything to do with China and India coming into the 21st century. If the gas prices are Cheney's fault then it seems logical that as soon as he is gone, then the prices will go back to $2.85 a gallon..... </span>

eg8r
06-18-2008, 01:48 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sack, Go to Obamas website and read the text. The windfall tax will be on oil companies. </div></div>We all know that any additional taxes on oil companies will be flowed down to the consumer.

eg8r

hondo
06-18-2008, 02:29 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bobbyrx</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yeah I'll head over to the Huffington Post right after I finish over at the Daily KOS and My Left Wing........ </div></div>


I'll take the other wing if you're not still hungry.

Bobbyrx
06-18-2008, 03:04 PM
push (http://www.instantrimshot.com/) /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/blush.gif

sack316
06-18-2008, 03:40 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sack, Go to Obamas website and read the text. The windfall tax will be on oil companies. </div></div>We all know that any additional taxes on oil companies will be flowed down to the consumer.

eg8r </div></div>

good job eg8r, now you and I have shown that at least 2 of us understand something about economics and capitalism. I covered it in my previous response, too. But I'm sure it will fall on deaf ears (or eyes in this case). Somehow they will still think oil companies will take the blow to their bottom line and merrily pay more taxes... with no effect on us. Yep, worked well in the 80's didn't it? Works well with tobacco companies. Obviously, it will work

Sack