GStwin.com GS500 Message Forum

Please vote whether you regret voting for Obama or not, or if you didn't vote for him.





(Original first post to this thread ) - "Wondering what the political tide of this board is.  Vote away!"

Is everyone shy?

As I thought.  So who is for this guy?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71Oo-BjKzCE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCNagTxA6Z0&NR=1

Shatner  :thumb:

you didn't vote

TBH it will ignite another Obama/mccain is like god, and the other guy is s**t flame war, and as far as the choices right now im choosing shatner. mainly because TBH i dont know who yet im voting for. these things i take seriously

An for president!!!

Sorry I forgot to vote.

Quote from: annguyen1981 on July 29, 2008, 08:03:17 PM
An for president!!!

dont you have a EWE to f**k or a kitten to  :laugh:kill?

Quote from: yamahonkawazuki on July 29, 2008, 11:31:58 PM

Quote from: annguyen1981 on July 29, 2008, 08:03:17 PM
An for president!!!

dont you have a EWE to f**k or a kitten to  :laugh:kill?

did and done my friend.
:D

shatner is canadian and therefore constitutionally cannot run.  obama won't die on us in office or keep us in iraq forever and possibly iran.

(I'm in need of some good contraversy right now...sorry if this starts a war here)

But will he have us become allies with iraq, iran, afganistan, pakistan, etc?  Since he is fairly anti-American.   :icon_twisted:

what?

You didn't know?

http://www.eyeblast.tv/Public/Video.aspx?rsrcID=2036

Just thought I'd put this out there.  I personally don't like any of the candidates, but I am really scared for myself, my family, and my country, if this man is voted into office.

If McCain gets in office and is a total dumbass, he isn't going to f%$k the country up any more than Bush has.  We could stand another four years of that.  If B. Hussein Obama gets in office and is a dumbass, he could have Iran buying all of our nuclear fuel......that would be great, wouldn't it!?!  I will vote for McCain hands down.  Anyone who plans to vote for Obama really, seriously needs to look into his past and think really long and hard about it before they finalize the decision in November.  Sure, I want a guy who doesn't show his allegiance to the National Anthem to lead the country.  :bs: That alone is enough for me to NOT vote for him.  How much more UN-AMERICAN can you get?

Obama disrespecting the Flag and The National Anthem ,that should have been enough to keep him out of the presidential race.

Quote from: frankieG on July 30, 2008, 01:12:34 PM
shatner is canadian and therefore constitutionally cannot run.  obama won't die on us in office or keep us in iraq forever and possibly iran.

Do youremember what Mccain said regarding Iraq?, ill condenseit. but the storyis out there. he basically said. We will stay in iraq until the job is done, and tehna reporter or saomeone asked somethignabout 100 years.he never did say he wants tostay iniraq for 100 years. cept this quote has been takenout of context somany times,by so manyonthe left, its a losingbattle. btw i know the whole liberal explanation on wright, aires ( sp?) and the otehrs in ObaMAs cirtcle of friends, why was it he waited until this was brought into light by people in the press. before he disavowed tehm.? would he have done this without the story?, i dont know. only him and god knows. as far as some saying Obama being a muslim. afaik, hes not. only a christian. brought up in a muslim family. that i will take him on his word for. a true christian will not lie about being a christian. that isgood enough for me.
and as far as some saying he is charismatic, well sure ill agree to that, hes also a bit of a socialist. ( my opinion, looking at his education, and groups he ran with back in the day. asnd his thoughts.) but adolf hitler, as well as a socialist. i dont know enough about obama to trust him. hell idontknow about Mccain either.( except his history in office. and the military. i do however would rather have a man/ or woman with military experience. in office. cause as president, they are our commander in chief,it would be like someone running for sheriff.butnever having been a cop. they would not know the intricacies of it.

Quote from: yamahonkawazuki on July 30, 2008, 11:53:51 PM
As far as some saying Obama being a muslim. afaik, hes not. only a christian. brought up in a muslim family. that i will take him on his word for. a true christian will not lie about being a christian. that isgood enough for me.

However, a non Christian WILL lie about being a Christian.  I don't know if he is a Muslim or not, but a true Christian, he is not.  A Christian does not follow a pastor with such outrageous/racist/marxist views, and does not follow in the foot steps of a Marxist dictator, and a true Christian would not be voted the most liberal man in the Senate in 2007.

He is not a Christian...he may claim that, but he is not.

Or maybe I'm "just a typical White Person. ( - Barake Obama)"



I'm not saying that McCain would be a great President, but he is the obvious choice out of the two people presented to us.

Dont you just hate it when only shaZam! people go for elections. It sounds to me like presidancy in your country has become a career rather than leading the country. Anyone can go for it regardless of their allegence and its just a career getting elected then being powerful then they will just leave and become a bank manager or something.

Thankfully (in some respects) it isnt quite like that here yet, (apart from prime ministers electing themselves) they are atleast allied to our country completely even if they do have shaZam! ideas. MP's on the other hand treat it as a job just go to work make up some policies meet and greet people then go home and never achieve anything because the only aim of government officials is to get reelected as often as possible regardless of achieving anything beneficial for the people.

Yeah, over the past few presidents, it seems to have gotten worse.  England seems to have things a lot better.  We have had many great presidents, and a bunch of horrible ones shuffled throughout, but ALL have had FULL allegiance to America in the past, until Obama.  There is no reason that he should not stand with his hand over his heart during THE NATIONAL ANTHEM.  (Although his supposedly 'Christian' church tells him not to).  If you put up a Marxist flag, he would probably raise his hand to his heart.

I dont think England is better just different, at least our prime ministers (we believe) are honorouable to this country even if their actions can be otherwise. However all our government is about is getting elected and making the most money (by not spending money) possible on the way. Our government should be a powerful one, we used to have one of the largest empires known, yet now its in tatters and we spend every day sucking the tite of the EU and kissing your presidants arse.

TBH i think all govt's are kissing the otehrs arse, to see who can make whoms bed teh softest, the british empire used to be the DOMINANT force to be reckoned with, now although still strong, ( with a kick ass military btw) its a small part of its former self, i think all politicians nowadays are looking out for tehmselves. NOT whom they were elected to serve ( THE PEOPLE)

Quote from: yamahonkawazuki on July 31, 2008, 08:33:35 PM
TBH i think all govt's are kissing the otehrs arse, to see who can make whoms bed teh softest, the british empire used to be the DOMINANT force to be reckoned with, now although still strong, ( with a kick ass military btw) its a small part of its former self, i think all politicians nowadays are looking out for tehmselves. NOT whom they were elected to serve ( THE PEOPLE)

Well said  :thumb:

hell they owned most of the civilised world, more so than the romans btw, but damn that had to be a logistical nightmare to keep up  :laugh:

I honestly don't even know If I'm going to vote, I may spend the time I would have taken voting to buy emergency supplies, and guns.

Quote from: quiktaco on July 31, 2008, 10:30:49 AM
Yeah, over the past few presidents, it seems to have gotten worse.  England seems to have things a lot better.  We have had many great presidents, and a bunch of horrible ones shuffled throughout, but ALL have had FULL allegiance to America in the past, until Obama.  There is no reason that he should not stand with his hand over his heart during THE NATIONAL ANTHEM.  (Although his supposedly 'Christian' church tells him not to).  If you put up a Marxist flag, he would probably raise his hand to his heart.

So are you on the payroll or what?  

There are some very valid reasons to oppose Obama for this job and, make no mistake, it's a job first and foremost.  No matter what trappings of patriotism or "hope" the spin doctors have wrapped around the campaigns this year don't forget that you're electing the CEO of the most powerful business in the world.  That person's intelligence, experience, and dedication are what matter.  Not their f%$king religious beliefs, sexual preferences, wife's hairstyle or pastor's obsession with evil whitey.    All of that shaZam! is nothing but a smokescreen very carefully put into place to make ignorant people vote with their hearts instead of their brains.  It's disgusting, don't buy into it.  

Quote from: bombadillo on August 01, 2008, 10:55:16 PM
I honestly don't even know If I'm going to vote, I may spend the time I would have taken voting to buy emergency supplies, and guns.

but if you dont vote, and are able to, then you dont imho have a right to Buddha Loves You. hell even if you dont like either choice, vote for yourself, or write in suzuki gs500 as the candidate, that way youll be able to say, " dont blame me, i voted for ( whomever)"

A comparison to CEO is very apt.  In this case, Obama's considerable charisma and organizing experience will pay off.  He will be a leader of people, and a real uniter (not just someone who says he is).  He will surround himself with competent people (he already has) not with those to whom he or his family owes favors, as W did.  His will be a VERY different administration than W's.  There is a real reason why people are excited to hear him speak -- his ideas, courage, and convictions are inspirational.  It's not just "hope" or "change" -- those are the slogans, but it doesn't end there.

well, TBH you know another person who had charisma, and united people?, well adolf hitler , while im not saying obama is anywhere near hitler, what im saying is, charisma, and uniting of peoples can only go so far. what else can he do? ( or has he done?)

I think uniting is the first thing need as a country right now.  Bush/Cheney (with the able assistance of their propaganda arm, Fox News) has been so divisive and destructive that uniting is one of the first goals.

Read Obama's platform.  Then argue about issues if you want.  So far your argument is what has he done?" -- do you ask the same of McCain?  What platform issues of McCain's do you agree with?  Name-calling (directly or indirecty through rumors of Obma's religion or race) is counter-productive.

Like I said, there is a reason people are drawn to him, and he is not spouting hate or revenge like Hitler, so that's not it.

agreed. i ask about mccain as well, but i can read his voting record there.  ( senate/govt), not much on obama, thats why im asking what has he done?  :thumb: and obama has his own propaganda stations as well, cnn, cbs,abc, etc etc etc, so its somewhat balanced in that department  :thumb:

I'm not pro-McCain, I'm just anti-Obama.  The biggest reason why I don't want him to be president, is because he is a Marxist.  It's a simple as that.

However, there are many other reasons, such as his pastor and mentor of 20+ years (someone who you try to emulate), has shown who he really is, and this indirectly shows who Obama is.  His church, his pastor, tells everyone in the church to not put their hand over their heart during the national anthem; Obama obeys...so this means that he does follow what this pastor/mentor says.

For those of you who are swept up by the 'Hope' of 'Change', you should look at the actual person who is running.  Like said, Hitler was a charismatic person who brought the country together.  Black Liberation Theology says that Hitler was a great man.  So who's to say that Obama is not going to be as bad for the world as Hitler?

Quiktaco, can you offer any evidence that Obama is a Marxist, as you say?  Or evidence that Black Liberation Theology considers Hitler a great man?  I have found right-wing bloggers asserting such foolishness, but none from the primary sources (i.e. Obama himself or pastors who espouse BLT). 

There are pictures and video of Obama holding his hand over his heart during the national anthem, and there is a picture of him not holding his hand over his heart.  Can you provide evidence that his former church instructs members not to hold their hand over their hearts at the playing of the national anthem?  Have you ever forgotten to do so at a football/baseball game or any other time?  Does that make it valid for us to question your patriotism?  Of course not.

Stick to the facts and the issues.  Is that so hard to do?

Please read this whole thing.  I took the time to compile my findings, and research, so the least you can do is to read the whole thing before responding.  Thank you.


Both communism and socialism trace their roots to Karl Marx, co-author of the Communist Manifesto, who endorsed the first meeting of the Socialist International, then called the "First International." According to Pierre Mauroy, president of the SI from 1992-1996, "It was he [Marx] who formally launched it, gave the inaugural address and devised its structure..."

Frank Marshall Davis is a Communist Party member and anti-American revolutionary, who Obama writes about as his Childhood mentor, Dreams From My Father.

Obama's socialist backing goes back at least to 1996, when he received the endorsement of the Chicago branch of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) for an Illinois state senate seat. Later, the Chicago DSA newsletter reported that Obama, as a state senator, showed up to eulogize Saul Mendelson, one of the "champions" of "Chicago's democratic left" and a long-time socialist activist. Obama's stint as a "community organizer" in Chicago has gotten some attention, but his relationship with the DSA socialists, who groomed and backed him, has been generally ignored.   

Blogger Steve Bartin, who has been following Obama's career and involvement with the Chicago socialists, uncovered a fascinating video showing Obama campaigning for openly socialist Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont. Interestingly, Sanders, who won his seat in 2006, called Obama "one of the great leaders of the United States Senate," even though Obama had only been in the body for about two years. In 2007, the National Journal said that Obama had established himself as "the most liberal Senator." More liberal than Sanders.

A Cuban flag with a picture of Communist mass murderer Che Guevara (who is portrayed as a Christ-type in Liberation Propaganda) hangs in Obama's Houston campaign office.
(http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pictures/20080211ObamaCheHouston2.jpg)
(http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pictures/20080211ObamaCheHouston.jpg)


Here is a passage from one of James H. Cone's Books, A Black Theology of Liberation.  Cone being the founder of Black Liberation Theology.  I think this passage speaks for itself.  James H. Cone is a man that Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright (the pastor of Obama's church) looks to for inspiration and direction in his church, which Wright describes as a Black Separatist Congregation.

The definition of Jesus as black is crucial for christology if we truly believer in his continued presence today. Taking our clue from the historical Jesus who is pictured in the New Testament as the Oppressed One, what else, except blackness, could adequately tell us the meaning of his presence today? Any statement about Jesus today that fails to consider blackness as the decisive factor about his person is a denial of the New Testament message. The life, death, and resurrection of Jesus reveal that he is the man for others, disclosing to them what is necessary for their liberation from oppression. If this is true, then Jesus Christ must be black so that blacks can know that their liberation is his liberation. . .

The black Christ is he who threatens the structure of evil as seen in white society, rebelling against it, thereby becoming the embodiment of what the black community knows that it must become. . .

To be a disciple of the black Christ is to become black with him. Looting, burning, or the destruction of white property are not primary concerns. Such matters can only be decided by the oppressed themselves who are seeking to develop their images of the black Christ. . .

Whites do not recognize what is happening, and they are thus unable to deal with it. For most whites in power, the black community is a nuisance –something to be considered only when the natives get restless. But what white America fails to realize is the explosive nature of the kingdom. Although its beginning is small, it will have far-reaching effects not only on the black community but on the white community as well. Now is the time to make decisions about loyalties, because soon it will be too late. Shall we or shall we not join the black revolutionary kingdom?


An excellent overview of the grave dangers of Liberation Theology was written in 1984 by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI).

Here are some of the important points Ratzinger makes about Liberation Theology:

1. Liberation Theology has it center of power in Latin America and in African Theology, but is found in many Christian denominations throughout the Third World.

2. Liberation Theology is a new interpretation of Christian reality.

3. Liberation Theology is radically Marxist. " . . .the world must be interpreted in terms of the class struggle and that the only choice is between capitalism and Marxism."

4. Liberation Theology thrives on perpetuating class struggle. The only people of the Church are those who participate in class struggle.

5. Liberation Theology is a theology of bloody political revolution. All of Christian reality is reduced to politico-social liberation praxis (action).

6. Liberation Theology rejects traditional scriptural interpretations. "The experience of the "community" determines the understanding and the interpretation of Scripture. . . Ultimately, what is normative for interpretation is not historical research but the hermeneutic of history experienced in the community or the political group."

7. Liberation Theology makes the Bible subject to a Marxist view of history. "The "historicality" of the Bible must justify its absolute dominance and thus legitimize the' transition to materialist-marxist philosophy, in which history has taken over the role of God. . . historical criticism has loosed Scripture from the traditional interpretation, which now appears to be unscientific.

8. Liberation Theology is a threat to the faith of the Christian Church.



I apologize for misspeaking.  Black Liberation Theology did not think that Hitler was a great man.  What was misconstrued was that many Black Liberation Theologists believe that their race is superior, the same mind set as Hitler.  Again, I apologize.


Yes, there are pictures and video of Obama with his hand over his heart and without on multiple ocassions of the national anthem, and the pledge of allegence.  However, someone in his position, doesn't forget;  "Sometimes he does, sometimes he doesn't [put his hand on his heart] - Obama spokesperson replied on Inside Edition.  This is not the character of man that should be in the presidency.  US flag code states that those present should stand with the right hand over the heart during the national anthem.  As for the evidence of his church saying not to hold their hand over their heart, I can not find where I had read this, however Wright does say in a sermon that he and the church should not sing "God Bless America."

Whether or not someone puts his/her hand on her heart during the national anthem is not a measure of their character.  One thing has nothing to do with the other, and it's certainly has no bearing on how effectively a candidate will conduct the business of government.  I'd rather my candidate scratch his ass if he has to rather than putting on his best "solemn" face when the cameras are rolling.  Does that make me a socialist? 

Your posts are nothing but inane name calling and thinly-veiled appeals to patriotic rhetoric.  Again, I ask you, are you on the Republican payroll?  I understand that ever since Ron Paul made his big splash on the net both parties have been heavily recruiting "viral" campaigners.  if so, you're not very good at it.

Let's talk about Obama's real shortcoming; his lack of experience in an executive role.  He was neither a born blue-blood or a captain of industry before his political career.  He doesn't have the wealth, the connections, or the decade-long relationships that it takes to be a truly effective leader in our system of government.  This is the only real and legitimate argument against him.  There is no doubt that he's an intelligent and dedicated individual.  If you believe that he's a terrorist, a black supremacist, or any of the other creative Neocon insinuations then you're a f%$king fool. 

Now let's look at the McCain alternative.  72 is a senior citizen, by anyone's definition.  By his own words he's admitted to knowing little about economic theory, technology, to the point of total computer illiteracy.  That's flabbergasting in this day and age.  He's a war hero, which is great for the powerful concerns who live and thrive on war.  you know the ones; our current VP used to sit in the big office for one of the largest. 

But it's been 8 years of war now with nothing to show for it except thousands of dead American kids and Trillions of dollars passed from the hands of foreign investment firms straight to the balance sheets of Big H, Raytheon, Lockheed, et. al.  8 years of deflating the value of the U.S. Dollar to crisis level and burying future generations under unimaginably tall mountains of debt.  For what?  So that Exxon breaks 11b in profit this quarter?  I've had enough of war.  It doesn't sound like McCain has, and the people who he will surround himself with, the same people who engineered this clusterfuck in Iraq, have certainly not had enough.  It's their bread and butter, and it's not their children dying to road-side bombs while we argue about whether "the surge" is a politically acceptable terminology.   

ill give obama credit, in laymans terms, hes got the looks, and the smarts, but again, i know not much about him. and i see no evidence, that teh left keeps saying Mccain will continute bush. i see only opinions. or partial quotes, posted to support the posters viewpoints  :dunno_white: , know what, heh i see htis every four years on this forum. this will make my seoncd pres election ive read through here. and barring banishment, ill see it again in 4 more years :icon_rolleyes:

No I'm not on their payroll.  That's probably why I'm not good at it.  I'm just a 25 year old, new father that lives in southern California.  Graphic Designer is my occupation.

I know people are going to think what they think, but it doesn't sound like you really read through, and thought about what I had written.  I never said that he personally was racist, however his pastor, other mentors, and people around him admittedly are.  On the other hand, he is quoted saying, "a typical white person" about his grandmother.  This does hint to a little bit of racism.

The thing that I am really concerned about is him being a Marxist.  He isn't admittedly a Marxist, but a Democrat.  However, my proof was in my writing.  Maybe it's because I am a Conservative Christian man, that he just leaps out as a bad person.  He's been backed by Socialist Organizations (same thing as Marxist), and the man (Cone), that his pastor looks to for inspiration, is a Marxist.  He (Obama) flies a flag of a Communist (same thing as Marxist) mass murderer Che Guevara next to the American flag in one of his Campaign offices.

These things alone are why he should not become president.

Not meaning to offend, but quiktaco why do you think communism/socialism/marxism is bad.  In theory they are great forms of gov't, its just the dictators that make it bad.  As everyone remembers from elementary school those systems fail because 'absolute power corrupts absolutely'.  I don't think that Obama can be blamed for keeping that flag in his campaign office, after all that is the heritage that he was born with from his fathers side.

I just believe that everyone is responsible for themselves.  If one works hard, then they can get ahead in life.  I don't want to be paying MY hard earned money so that some dumbass can sit watching TV all day and collect welfare.  Get a job, work hard, and make a living, so that you can enjoy life on your own dime.  THAT is what is wrong with those forms of government.  When everyone is equal and gets the same crap, then there is no joy in life.  The US would run like a union, where everyone doesn't give a crap about anything.  Everything being censored, controlled, banned, withheld, and mandatory, is not freedom.  Freedom is capitalism, where hard work pays dividends.  Yes, it can get corrupt, especially in big business, but that's not what I'm talking about.  Those other forms of governments would like to ban all choices that one may have.  Say bye bye to your motorcycles, cars, guns, entertainment, concerts, music, and any other freedom you enjoy right now.

Also, how is Cuba his heritage?  He was born in Hawaii to a Kenyan man and white woman.  His dad left them when he was 2 and he only saw him once after that.  He later moved to Indonesia and attended schools in Jakarta.  Then in the fifth grade returned to Hawaii to live with his Mother's parents.  He then moved to LA, NY, and Chicago.

I don't see anywhere that he ever lived in Cuba, or that he has a Cuban lineage.  Che Guevara was a Cuban Communist and Mass Murderer.  What reasons does he have for hanging that flag?  He should have flags of Charles Manson hanging along side the other ones.

Oh, also, all the homes in America would have to be torn down and reconstructed, cause it wouldn't be fair for Joe Blow to live in a 2000 sq ft home when Susie Shmow lives in a 1200 sq ft home.  And location is an issue also.  Cause Bettie Shmuch lives on a cliff over looking the ocean, and Joshua Dumbass lives next to a factory and has no view.

Here's something for you pro-communists
(http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/files/images/communist-party-poster.jpg)

I found this posted by Mirage V2.0 AWOL on Answerbag.com.  For the most part I agree with this person. 

In theory, communism is fine.
In practice it overlooks human nature.
The State should not be the ultimate authority.
There are too few ethical restrictions on corrupt leaders, and power does corrupt.
Lazy people have no incentive to participate.
Creative people have little incentive to participate.
Given the last two, you have a stagnant system where progress is minimal, at best.
It is a system where only those talented or favored people are rewarded by the State. While the remainder live at subsistence level.

If you disagree, give me one example of a prosperous communist state.

Liberal                                                                                                                                                  Conservative
Dictatorship>Marxism>Communism>Socialism>Democrat<------>Republican>Libertarian>Complete Anarchy / No government
Total Control   <------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------>  Total Freedom

I don't know why Democrats want to be controlled, freedom is having the choice to do what you please (within ethical/moral reason).

did i say i was pro communism. nope - assumptions suck

Quote from: yamahonkawazuki on August 05, 2008, 12:07:13 AM
ill give obama credit, in laymans terms, hes got the looks, and the smarts, but again, i know not much about him. and i see no evidence, that teh left keeps saying Mccain will continute bush. i see only opinions. or partial quotes, posted to support the posters viewpoints  :dunno_white: , know what, heh i see htis every four years on this forum. this will make my seoncd pres election ive read through here. and barring banishment, ill see it again in 4 more years :icon_rolleyes:

and finally I agree, election shenanigans on the moto forum woohoo  :icon_rolleyes:

I didn't say that you specifically were.  They do suck don't they.  I was just putting that out there for those that are.  You are, however, defending that form of government, so where do you stand?

I don't want this to turn into a war or people being angry, just a friendly debate on these issues.  I know these are things that we all get heated about, and I'm sorry if any of my posts are offending.

I've never really been able to get into the mind of a liberal person and I'd really like to know what they think about and why.  When ever I've talked with them about these issues, they never answer, just attack.  Please share your rational if you are liberal minded.

I reckon I am more on the liberal side of things.  I wasn't defending socialism just curious as to why you thought it was so bad and I agree with the response you gave, I like being rewarded for working hard, not just getting my portion of the pie no matter how hard I work.  And you don't have to much worry about offending me, I always pipe up and if something really gets to me take it off the forum to PM. 

The way I see Obama is he is not a perfect candidate but is the best right now.  I tend to vote for who i think is best not on party or the other and right now that is Obama to me.  What he says he wants to do is what a lot of people want to hear right now, that is why i am hesitant to support him all out but i know i do not support McCain and all.  I have had enough of Bush and I think McCain will continue what Bush started and honestly i don't see the point anymore.  I also admit i am not the most informed individual about politics but i am not dumb either.  I just think you are hasty to judge Obama on things that in a presidency are not all that important.  Sure maybe the Cuban flag is not the best and portrays a muderous bastard but that's not all that flag stands for.

The simple fact is that no two people think alike, and sometimes we all have to agree to disagree :laugh:

Quote from: natedawg120 on August 05, 2008, 01:13:34 PM
The simple fact is that no two people think alike, and sometimes we all have to agree to disagree :laugh:

Perfectly stated.


I don't think McCain is a great candidate either, but is more on the side of individual freedoms, that I and my family hold dear.

I don't think this war should continue forever either; I just had my best friend return home after his second tour in Iraq, and he doesn't want to return.  The media inflates what is really happening over there, and make that such a forefront issue.  However, things are getting very calm, and things are getting close to being turned over to their government.  However, like with any and almost all countries that we have ever gone into, we will now and always have troops residing in those areas.  That's part of the reason why we are the most powerful country in the world, and partly why we do have the freedoms that we have.  If it wasn't for the media, do you really think you would have even realized that we are in the middle of a war?  Not me, my days haven't changed.  That's the luxury that we have in America.

There are many, many other issues that concern me beyond the war, however.


I have a serious question as to why you are more on the liberal side.  What issues do you hold dear, and things that you feel strongly about that you personally get from a Liberal president as opposed to a Conservative one?

I want an end to the war in Iraq and an end to the U.S.'s projection of military power across the globe.  Does that make me liberal-minded in your point of view?  Because arguments about gun control laws, abortion, welfare programs, etc. are small potatoes.  We can talk about them once we've put and end to the federal government's squandering trillions of tax dollars, building an absolutely astonishing pile of debt to foreign investors, and throwing away American lives in a pointless war for the benefit of big business lobbyists.  

I don't care of Obama has a poster of Jeffrey Dahmer on his wall.  I don't care if he likes to molest kittens in his spare time.  I really don't care what the pastor of his church has to say about anything.  I cannot vote for McCain because he has made it abundantly clear that he is comfortable with more war, under the bullshit rhetoric of "national defense" and "war on terror" and will continue the same NeoConservative foreign relations policy.  He is funded by and entangled with the very same groups that led us where we are now; on the path to national bankruptcy.  

No, not completely.  There are many different views on many different issues that span across both sides.  I want an end to the war, also.  However, I don't think we should stop having military presence in other countries.

What Obama, as well as McCain, believes in, and what they have done in his past, and people they associate with and look to for guidance, makes up who they are as a people, and how they will rule this country.  If you don't look at all of that information with a judgmental eye, then you are overlooking the person, and looking at democrat or republican.  These things are necessary to make a well educated choice, based on more than just party affiliation.

Quiktaco,
Thank you for admitting that your statement "Obama is a Marxist" was a lie.  For once we agree.  Please do not spread any more lies about candidates.

As you are a self-admitted conservative Christian, let me ask you "When would Jesus lie?"

You are seriously deluded if you perceive that liberals want a dictatorship.  We are closer to a dictatorship in the USA than we have ever been, and we have neocons at the helm.  Opening your eyes would be a good thing.  I don't anticipate that it will happen...

I didn't admit it was a lie.  I said that he isn't a self proclaimed Marxist, but I still believe that he is, or at least fairly close to it.

I also ask you to not try to propose that I am a hipocrite and such.  All humans are sinners, and we all lie, cheat and steal.  We all have vices and evil thoughts.  So my answer to "When would Jesus lie?"  - He never would, because he is the Son of God and is perfect.  All I can do as an inperfect human is to live in his image, but you have to also realize what I said previously, I am not perfect, nor any other Christinn.  No Christian claims to be, but they do claim to be saved by the blood of Christ, which washed away our sins in the eyes of God, so that we may have eternal life in Heaven.

I didn't say that liberals want a dictatorship, however, liberal views tend to be more controlling of government, and tend to tax more, and have more initiatives, and programs to help those who are too lazy to help themselves.

I know that the US is very close to a dictatorship, however it is not.  It does have checks and balances, that will always keep it from getting that far.

Quote from: quiktaco on August 05, 2008, 08:52:29 AMHe isn't admittedly a Marxist, but a Democrat.

Says it all.  Earlier you said he was a Marxist.  Which is it?

Quote from: quiktaco on August 05, 2008, 02:40:54 PM
I said that he isn't a self proclaimed Marxist, but I still believe that he is, or at least fairly close to it.

I have proven this throughout this post with many references that you are welcome to check out on your own.  And by all means, do so.

It looks like you are just trying to attack me.  Do you not have anything constructive to add to this conversation?

So if I said McCain was admittedly not a Fascist, but a Republican, that would be constructive?

Let me ask you to consider that being a Republican or voting Republican is not the only option open to someone who considers themself a Christian.  Ask who Jesus would have invaded pre-emptively.  Ask how Jesus would torture prisoners of war.  Ask who Jesus would wiretap illegally.  All those things were done by the party in power now, and the party you plan to vote for again.

And I never called you a hypocrite.  I'll leave that to other readers to decide.

definition of  neocon

Noun 1. neocon - a conservative who subscribes to neoconservatism
neoconservative
conservative, conservativist - a person who is reluctant to accept changes and new ideas

now how are the people you define as neocon, or isthat your opinion :thumb:

I gave backing and references to my claims. Your claims are out of thin air and have no credibility. Now, if Jesus were running I'd vote for him, but he's not. Also, I never said I was voting for McCain. i just said that I'm not voting for Obama. If you want to have a credible part in this discussion, please give some references that we can check out. You were implying that I was a hypocrite. so I will now ask you to stop attacking my religion. it shows vast immaturity on your part to attack my religion when the rest of us are having an adult conversation.

Trust me, anything which is attackable is. BUT c'mon gstwinners, so far weve kept this thread out of teh TF. so far we've been mostly civil. can we keep it this way, im actually enjoying this thread. and so far, ive not met any close minded liberals/conservatives/socialists etc etc etc :cheers:

Quote from: yamahonkawazuki on August 05, 2008, 11:20:56 PM
Trust me, anything which is attackable is. BUT c'mon gstwinners, so far weve kept this thread out of teh TF. so far we've been mostly civil. can we keep it this way, im actually enjoying this thread. and so far, ive not met any close minded liberals/conservatives/socialists etc etc etc :cheers:

Thank you yama

Quote from: quiktaco on August 05, 2008, 08:52:29 AMMaybe it's because I am a Conservative Christian man, that he just leaps out as a bad person.

Quiktaco,
You are the one who brought your religion into this discussion.  I personally believe in the Constitution of the USA which says a candidate's religious beliefs will not be a test for office.   I also believe strongly in separation of Church and State -- we don't need a theocracy here.  They seem to like it in Afghanistan, however.

I want you to understand that I am not attacking your religion.  However, I am pointing out that many people who claim publicly to be Christian do very non-Christian things.  The current president and vice-president are good examples.  McCain represents a continuation of their disastrous policies.  McCain has joked "bomb, bomb, bomb -- bomb, bomb, Iran"  -- is that representative of your Christianity?  I hope not.

I don't want you to represent that BECAUSE you are a Christian you cannot vote for Obama.  That is ludicrous, as are many of your accusations about Obama.  I appreciate that you have retracted several of those statements, but I hope that you will be more selective about what you choose to read and listen to -- you're being fed a lot of BS and you're believing it.

I brought my religion into this discussion as a basis of who I am and what I believe in, not to be criticized.  The candidates' religious beliefs can be strayed from mine, however, that is not the thing that I've been talking about in most of this thread.  I've been talking about his extreme Socialistic views.  That is purely political, and hence, IS what the Constitution says to test a candidate on.

I'll take your word for it that you are not attacking my religion, however, with comments like you have made, you inadvertently are, so I will ask you to curve what you say when you are talking about my savior.

The thing is, this war, no matter how you look at it, or what anyone says, IS A RELIGIOUS WAR.  It's been going on for a very long time (not 7 years, 1000's of years), and it will continue until Israel demolishes their attackers.  It's all prophesied in the Bible.  So yes, these things are representative of my Christianity.

In the beginning of this thread, I do admit that I had a few misunderstandings about some things.  I heard things, or read them, and did not take note of their source, and did not research to verify their accuracy.  Since about page 2, however, I have tried to verify any findings that I have had, and for the most part, included the source.  My findings are not ludicrous; they are my opinions made from the sum of what I have found and presented here in this thread.  I have given strong evidence in this thread as to what I base my thoughts off of.

QuoteI don't want you to represent that BECAUSE you are a Christian you cannot vote for Obama.

I know you don't, because you want Obama in office.  But the fact is BECAUSE I AM CHRISTIAN, I CANNOT VOTE FOR OBAMA.  It's as simple as that.  For the most part, liberal views are very anti-Christian.

Same to you

Quotebut I hope that you will be more selective about what you choose to read and listen to -- you're being fed a lot of BS and you're believing it.

Quote from: quiktaco on August 06, 2008, 10:47:10 AM
I brought my religion into this discussion as a basis of who I am and what I believe in, not to be criticized.  The candidates' religious beliefs can be strayed from mine, however, that is not the thing that I've been talking about in most of this thread.  I've been talking about his extreme Socialistic views.  That is purely political, and hence, IS what the Constitution says to test a candidate on.

I'll take your word for it that you are not attacking my religion, however, with comments like you have made, you inadvertently are, so I will ask you to curve what you say when you are talking about my savior.

Go ahead and re-read all my comments.  Please let me know which ones attack your religion.  There aren't any.

QuoteBut the fact is BECAUSE I AM CHRISTIAN, I CANNOT VOTE FOR OBAMA.  It's as simple as that.  For the most part, liberal views are very anti-Christian.

Wow.  Whatever you say.  It must be great to have all the answers, dude.  Congratulations!

Quote from: quiktaco on August 06, 2008, 10:47:10 AM

The thing is, this war, no matter how you look at it, or what anyone says, IS A RELIGIOUS WAR.  It's been going on for a very long time (not 7 years, 1000's of years), and it will continue until Israel demolishes their attackers.  It's all prophesied in the Bible.  So yes, these things are representative of my Christianity.

What?  Sometimes in an argument there's a point where you look into the other person's eyes and realize that rational and compassionate discourse are no longer possible; that zealous insanity has taken hold and will crush out anything else. 

I think we just crossed that line here.  I'm backing away . . . slowly. 

Quote from: Mandres on August 06, 2008, 12:35:49 PM

Quote from: quiktaco on August 06, 2008, 10:47:10 AM

The thing is, this war, no matter how you look at it, or what anyone says, IS A RELIGIOUS WAR.  It's been going on for a very long time (not 7 years, 1000's of years), and it will continue until Israel demolishes their attackers.  It's all prophesied in the Bible.  So yes, these things are representative of my Christianity.

What?  Sometimes in an argument there's a point where you look into the other person's eyes and realize that rational and compassionate discourse are no longer possible; that zealous insanity has taken hold and will crush out anything else. 

I think we just crossed that line here.  I'm backing away . . . slowly. 

That's fine, but I hope at some point in your life that you will come to know God and invite Jesus into your heart, then you will see that it all makes since.

Let's get back on topic now and discuss less about religion.  That was a very small part of the original discussion, and I think it's got blown out of proportion since you guys found out that I'm Christian.

If anything that I say now is just going to be passed off as false, then that's fine.  However, I hope that everyone will look at the content of this thread and see the facts that are in here, and make up your own decision on who this person (Obama) is, and what he will really do if he gets voted into office.  I just don't see how someone can dismiss all of these things about him.

Also, I know Christianity, or any religion really, can be something that many don't want to hear about, because it scares them (although they don't admit that), or they have just been so corrupted, that they oppose it completely and try to fight against it.  I hope that I can at least open one person's eyes to see who Jesus really is.  Please PM me if you have any questions.  I'd love to help.  I'm not a Theological Scholar, but I'll do my best.

same here  :thumb:

I'm voting for Paris Hilton.

I will not vote for Obama. 

He has had a terrible record of voting on the things that matter to the constituents of his own state.  I do not trust him to obey the his constituents if he becomes the next POTUS. The man has talked a LOT about the "Hope" that he has to "Change" things, and has said relatively little about what he would change and how.

Obama supporters say that His reverend and other past influences shouldn't mar his identity.  If that is true, then others in McCain's past (specifically Bush who was brought up before) should not mar McCain's identity.  It's a two way street.

I don't think ANY of the three two candidates that we have had are perfect for the job.  I can think of someone close who I would have voted for had they made the primary, and that man was Fred Thompson.

If Obama makes it into office, I hope he can change things for the better and that he realizes what a great country he is in charge of, performs the will of the people of the United States, and not of any political agenda, and overall makes the world a safer place to live.  Can this actually happen when we have terrorist groups all over the world that hate us because of the way we live.  Are we going to change he way we live to appease these people so they lay off?  Should we kill off Hannah Montana and Silence Paris Hilton because they show too much skin or act out in public?  No.  in AMERICA, these people have a right to act that way.  A right that was given to them by the founding fathers of this country, and a right protected for them by our kick-ass armed forces who protect us every single day.

I will not sit idly by and watch our freedoms erode one by one with a person of questionable ilk at the helm of a desperately sinking ship.  I will instead back the person whose background and positions I can quantify.

Obama's voting record in the Illinois Congress shows his unwillingness to participate or at least face the issues.  In votes asking for "Ayes" or "Nays" Barack has over 130 times voted "Present" which is a way of saying "I'm here but not going to vote on that issue" and is a way of sidestepping any political fallout.  What will he do with the issues that matter to US the most?

I live in Illinois and do not feel that Barack has represented his constituents effectively.  But Mayor Daley like him.....   :icon_rolleyes:

Quote from: laserred97gt on August 06, 2008, 09:44:28 PM
I will not sit idly by and watch our freedoms erode one by one with a person of questionable ilk at the helm of a desperately sinking ship.  I will instead back the person whose background and positions I can quantify.

So I take it you have been out for seven years protesting the Bush/Cheney regime's antics?

Seeing freedoms erode is precisely the reason I cannot vote Republican this time around.  The party of wiretaps, torture, denial of habeas corpus, governmental incompetence at every turn, no-bid contracts for political cronies, etc. etc does not deserve my vote.  These are observed and reported facts, not rumors or slander.

Has anyone noticed that McCain's primary method of campaigning is to slander or distort Obama's positions?  It's almost as if he has no positions of his own to offer.  Maybe he just can't remember which side he's on this week.

anyone else know that halliburton was a favourite of teh clinton administration as well, and that teh contracts were bid out before iraq began, ( cannot remember the term for it, but the data is out there. and why is it Obama plays the race card, when there is no racism apparent?, hell even bill clinton brought that up  :dunno_white:, this election year is screwy  :cookoo:

Quote from: Mandres on August 06, 2008, 12:35:49 PM

Quote from: quiktaco on August 06, 2008, 10:47:10 AM

The thing is, this war, no matter how you look at it, or what anyone says, IS A RELIGIOUS WAR.  It's been going on for a very long time (not 7 years, 1000's of years), and it will continue until Israel demolishes their attackers.  It's all prophesied in the Bible.  So yes, these things are representative of my Christianity.

What?  Sometimes in an argument there's a point where you look into the other person's eyes and realize that rational and compassionate discourse are no longer possible; that zealous insanity has taken hold and will crush out anything else. 

I think we just crossed that line here.  I'm backing away . . . slowly. 

I must say i have to agree with Mandres here, religion doesn't scare me but when religion clouding anything rational from the followers eyes - thats what scares me. Thats what makes for dangerous people. And it doesn't have to be just religion it can be uncontrolled and unrational belief in anything but at the moment it appears to be religion.

yup religion acting toward the non religious, or vice-versa

elections are a waste of time. we've been burning up bandwidth, energy (TONS OF IT!), time, news-space, and generally everything on this election.

if as much energy and money were put into actually solving problems instead of electing another stooge to an office that doesn't matter, things might actually change. :(

1/2 the gov't of the US, and make them get a real job.

my 2 cents

Quote from: yamahonkawazuki on August 06, 2008, 10:51:53 PM
anyone else know that halliburton was a favourite of teh clinton administration as well, and that teh contracts were bid out before iraq began, ( cannot remember the term for it, but the data is out there. and why is it Obama plays the race card, when there is no racism apparent?, hell even bill clinton brought that up  :dunno_white:, this election year is screwy  :cookoo:

Perhaps Halliburton was the favorite of Clinton as well, BUT (and this is a big but) Clinton didn't take us into a five year (and counting) war based on intentional lies.

Even without the no-bid contract issue (which may be the REAL reason we went to Iraq) the list I gave leaves plenty of reasons never to vote Republican again, unless they have some major change in party philosophy.

Yeah, it's completely fair to judge an entire party by one man's actions.  In that case, let's go ahead and call Mr. Starr in, If Obama wins he's gonna be busy.

SPC, it wasn't one man, it was his entire administration, enabled later by the Supreme Court (with a new majority installed by Bush), and rubberstamped by a Republican Congress (until the American people began to catch on and removed their majority).  It's also the party of Richard Nixon, GHW Bush, and Ronald Reagan (subject of the book, Sleepwalking Through History).  Each led to huge deficits in spite of their talk about balancing budgets, deception of the public, etc.  Just to refresh your memory, Nixon=Watergate, Reagan/GHW Bush=Iran-Contra and Gulf War I.  Cheney was involved in all those administrations except Nixon's.  So was Rumsfeld.

McCain was a willing participant in the runup to the Iraq War, and backed Bush at every turn, despite how he has tried in his campaign to revise history to distance himself from the disastrous policies.

BTW, seven years ago today, Bush received (in his daily briefing) a memo entitled, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside US."  Result of his receiving the memo:  zippo (it was a good golf day, though).  Imagine if someone competent had been in charge.

Quote from: trumpetguy on August 06, 2008, 09:51:34 PM
Seeing freedoms erode is precisely the reason I cannot vote Republican this time around.  The party of wiretaps, torture, denial of habeas corpus, governmental incompetence at every turn, no-bid contracts for political cronies, etc. etc does not deserve my vote.  These are observed and reported facts, not rumors or slander.

You're very ignorant and naive if you think that these types of things haven't gone on in every administration.

QuoteI must say i have to agree with Mandres here, religion doesn't scare me but when religion clouding anything rational from the followers eyes - thats what scares me. Thats what makes for dangerous people. And it doesn't have to be just religion it can be uncontrolled and unrational belief in anything but at the moment it appears to be religion.

That's fine.  Rational is relative.  I don't like this war, and I'd like it to come to an end; at least our involvement at this time.  Like I had said, this 'war' has been going on for a very long time, weather we're involved or not.  It's always about the same issues, and always having to do with religion.  I don't see any unrational thinking in this.  Please explain, so that I can explain my thinking.  Maybe I'm speaking too general, let me know.

Quoteif as much energy and money were put into actually solving problems instead of electing another stooge to an office that doesn't matter, things might actually change. Sad
1/2 the gov't of the US, and make them get a real job.  my 2 cents

Sounds good with me.

QuotePerhaps Halliburton was the favorite of Clinton as well, BUT (and this is a big but) Clinton didn't take us into a five year (and counting) war based on intentional lies.
Even without the no-bid contract issue (which may be the REAL reason we went to Iraq) the list I gave leaves plenty of reasons never to vote Republican again, unless they have some major change in party philosophy.

It sounds like you've never voted Repulican.  You also are saying that there has been no good that's come from the war, however, I haven't seen anymore terrorist attacks on our soil, and the suppression of the Iraqi people has been lifted from their Terrorist Dictator Saddam Hussein.  We've also captured many other terrorist heads and their people have tried them.  We've brought a democratic form of government to the people there so that they can decide for themselves how they want to live.  I don't see all that much that has been bad about this war.  Yes it's drawn on, and yes, many lives have been lost, but not unnecessarily...IT'S WAR...$**T HAPPENS.  The men and women that have died out there, died doing a great thing for this country and this world.  So I ask you to tell the families of the deceased men and women that they died for nothing.  I didn't think so.

QuoteSPC, it wasn't one man, it was his entire administration, enabled later by the Supreme Court (with a new majority installed by Bush), and rubberstamped by a Republican Congress (until the American people began to catch on and removed their majority).  It's also the party of Richard Nixon, GHW Bush, and Ronald Reagan (subject of the book, Sleepwalking Through History).  Each led to huge deficits in spite of their talk about balancing budgets, deception of the public, etc.  Just to refresh your memory, Nixon=Watergate, Reagan/GHW Bush=Iran-Contra and Gulf War I.  Cheney was involved in all those administrations except Nixon's.  So was Rumsfeld.

McCain was a willing participant in the runup to the Iraq War, and backed Bush at every turn, despite how he has tried in his campaign to revise history to distance himself from the disastrous policies.

BTW, seven years ago today, Bush received (in his daily briefing) a memo entitled, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside US."  Result of his receiving the memo:  zippo (it was a good golf day, though).  Imagine if someone competent had been in charge.

You've stated in past parts of this thread that we shouldn't Judge Obama for who he has spent time around and what he learned in school, and the teachings from his church, and his voting record, but you'll judge the Repulican side with the same things. 

QuoteIt's a two way street.

Quiktaco,

You have a habit (apparently) of ascribing quotes and motives to things that people say.  You are free to do that, although it's untrue.

Some good has come from the war.  However (and I speak as the stepfather of an Iraq war veteran here) NOTHING we did was worth the loss of one American soldier.  You're of military age -- why are YOU not there?  You support it and the liars that sent us there, don't you?  Show us how much -- oh, you already have.

I have never voted Republican.  I guess I'm just not "moral" enough.  I tend to care about all people, not just rich people.  I care about the environment, civil rights, and a host of other things that Jesus would care about.  I have never seen Republicans (and I've been around this earth over twice as long as you have) care about those things.  That's why I have not voted for them.   I have voted libertarian many times -- I only registered as a Democrat after W came to office.  I don't think the Democrats are perfect -- I'm very irritated they have not shown a backbone and stopped the evil done by W -- but they are the best alternative, fiscally and socially.

Quote from: trumpetguy on August 07, 2008, 11:11:06 AM
Quiktaco,

You have a habit (apparently) of ascribing quotes and motives to things that people say.  You are free to do that, although it's untrue.

Some good has come from the war.  However (and I speak as the stepfather of an Iraq war veteran here) NOTHING we did was worth the loss of one American soldier.  You're of military age -- why are YOU not there?  You support it and the liars that sent us there, don't you?  Show us how much -- oh, you already have.

I have never voted Republican.  I guess I'm just not "moral" enough.  I tend to care about all people, not just rich people.  I care about the environment, civil rights, and a host of other things that Jesus would care about.  I have never seen Republicans (and I've been around this earth over twice as long as you have) care about those things.  That's why I have not voted for them.   I have voted libertarian many times -- I only registered as a Democrat after W came to office.  I don't think the Democrats are perfect -- I'm very irritated they have not shown a backbone and stopped the evil done by W -- but they are the best alternative, fiscally and socially.

I'm surprised that you've voted libertarian (although libertarians have many different views across the spectrum, other than just less government).  I have a lot of libertarian views.  I'd prefer a libertarian in the presidency, but they don't have a fighting chance, so I vote to one of the two that will count (not going to be a grassroots supporter).  The problem that I have with the Democrat and Liberal side is that they tend to initiate all these programs (not very libertarian if you as me).  I don't want my tax dollars going to anyone.  I'm sorry if that's mean, but I work for my money, and I don't want to support programs that I don't want to support.  These programs are fine, in and of themselves.  They just don't need to be funded by tax dollars and created by the government.  They can collect donations from independent people that want to make contributions.  If it succeeds, then it's a viable program that has support.  If not, then it wasn't needed in the first place.

religion is fiction and does not belong in political debate.  no more than the tooth fairy or santa claus  so let just keep it to the candidates huh? :cookoo:

Religion is in most peoples' hearts and mind and is what makes up the moral infrastructure of the world.  It's always going to be a major swing factor for all political races till the end of time.

Just thought I'd share this new video I came across.  It's not Religious or Political at all.  Just sheds a new light on Obama about something you may not have known.

http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=VIdbYjmbFzo&rel=1&eurl=&iurl=http%3A//i3.ytimg.com/vi/VIdbYjmbFzo/default.jpg&t=OEgsToPDskIoZiU7xcAbjC6TKoBXJGXl&use_get_video_info=1&load_modules=1&color1=11030525463&color2=13507105431&fs=1&hl=en

http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=VIdbYjmbFzo&rel=1&eurl=&iurl=http%3A//i3.ytimg.com/vi/VIdbYjmbFzo/default.jpg&t=OEgsToPDskIoZiU7xcAbjC6TKoBXJGXl&use_get_video_info=1&load_modules=1&color1=11030525463&color2=13507105431&fs=1&hl=en

http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=VIdbYjmbFzo&rel=1&eurl=&iurl=http%3A//i3.ytimg.com/vi/VIdbYjmbFzo/default.jpg&t=OEgsToPDskIoZiU7xcAbjC6TKoBXJGXl&use_get_video_info=1&load_modules=1&color1=11030525463&color2=13507105431&fs=1&hl=en

http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=VIdbYjmbFzo&rel=1&eurl=&iurl=http%3A//i3.ytimg.com/vi/VIdbYjmbFzo/default.jpg&t=OEgsToPDskIoZiU7xcAbjC6TKoBXJGXl&use_get_video_info=1&load_modules=1&color1=11030525463&color2=13507105431&fs=1&hl=en

http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=VIdbYjmbFzo&rel=1&eurl=&iurl=http%3A//i3.ytimg.com/vi/VIdbYjmbFzo/default.jpg&t=OEgsToPDskIoZiU7xcAbjC6TKoBXJGXl&use_get_video_info=1&load_modules=1&color1=11030525463&color2=13507105431&fs=1&hl=en

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOMdW4bTy6s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PePbtEABzGk

Yep, not religious or political at all.  Not real truthful either.  Typical Obama smear garbage.

Do you want the state making health care decisions or doctors and the people involved?  Abortion is sometimes a health issue, a fact which most rabid anti-choice people refuse to admit.

If anti-choice extremists truthfully wanted to limit abortions, they would support funds for family planning.  McCain has not.  He wouldn't even support making birth control available through insurance whenever Viagra is provided by insurance.

Any attempt to outlaw abortion is, like it or not, an attempt to legislate religion.  Taliban, anyone? :o

what about that issue with teh "botched" abortion in IL, and obamas position on that, the baby could have lived, and did briefly, from what i understand. i am a pro life person, HOWEVER, if it can be proven that say teh baby WILL absolutely not survive at all, or the mother will not if child is carried, ( ref. ectopic pregnancy), then i am willing to give in, but the abortion issue is here to stay, and will be for the forseeable future. next thing i wonder is when will Obama play the race card again?, clintons called him on it, , hell He has no reason to play it ( at least among his supporters anyway, and i would like to think we dont need to be repeatedly reminded of his skin color  :thumb:

Obama's opposition to the Illinois bill was due to the fact that he felt it threatened women's right to choose while criminal statutes already in force protected infants.  Quite different from the impression given in the videos, and that isn't accidental.

Obama has not played on his race, despite the mildly disguised racism in McCain's ads.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsOS_ZH9vFU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBlBIAt4YZA&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRFoWH_a3H4&feature=related

oh really?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQY_9ZcsjpQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=talCQHS6u2k and this, although being fox, IS a recording of him

Yama, how do you define "playing the race card"?

I just wasted fifteen minutes looking at your links and I find literally NOTHING that qualifies by my definition.  Obama has never said, "vote for me because I am black and you owe me your vote," or "vote for me because it's been pointed out that I am black."  He has specifically run his race as an American candidate, not as an African-American candidate.

Speaking the truth is not playing the race card.  The McCain campaign and its sleazy surrogates on the internet and hate radio have repeatedly done exactly what he said: trying to frighten the American public by lying about Obama.  Saying that the Republicans would do that and are doing it is not "playing the race card."

McCain cannot even answer a question about how many houses he owns.  He said he'd have to get back to the reporters on that.  Is that age, or that he's just lost track?  I don't know about you, but I can answer that question easily.  Why can't he?

The answer is: at least seven houses, probably ten.  He owns at least $18 million in real estate, yet he runs an ad criticizing how nice Obama's (one) house is?  And Obama's an elitist?  Please...  It's all code talk for "Obama's getting uppity" and you and the rest of the country know it.  THAT is the real race card.

well, im trying to find teh issue, said somethign refferring to, theyre going to try to scare you, because i dont look like all thos presidents on the dollar bills, ( a pseudo black reference), how i have a funny name ( that one i could care less about, his name and all) and " oh yeah did i mention hes black?" his comment, see there is no need for that shaZam!. at all, BY anyone. and regarding the rest of your post. do you have any comments of your own words?, i read this earlier, VERBATIM, from many sites. anyhoo take care  :bowdown:, no matter what i say, youll vote for him, no matter what you say, ill vote for whomever ill vote for, ( have yet to decide on whom ). anyhoo, i respect you enough where i am going to cease participation in this thread, because anyhtign further i post. could escalate it to petty name calling and stuff. and my respect for you and otehrs here is better than that. so anyhoo, have an E-Beer  :cheers:

 :cheers:

I'll take your e-beer and raise you one!  No disrespect intended from me either.

I would love to live in an America where ISSUES dominated political races and not attempted assassination by sleaze.

Even McCain was a victim of Rove's sleazebags in 2000 when they insinuated in the primary race (via push-polling) that McCain had a mixed-race illegitimate child.  But now that he's the candidate, he HIRES Rove's sleazebags to do the same kind of nonsense to Obama.  Not cool.

BTW, the entirety of my post was my own.  I didn't cut and paste from anywhere.  I'm simply pointing out the ridiculous nature of McCain calling Obama elitist.  And in my own words, to boot.

weird, your own words matched those i rea/heard earlier today, and yesterday lol O0, i dont consider Obama perfect. far from it. i dont consider Mccain perfect either. far from it. nor do i believe he is/will be bush III. that aside, like ive said in posts past, this will be a very close election, with many in a few select circles crying foul/recount. this wont end in november-january methinks

Quote from: trumpetguy on August 21, 2008, 08:32:49 PM
Yep, not religious or political at all.  Not real truthful either.  Typical Obama smear garbage.

Do you want the state making health care decisions or doctors and the people involved?  Abortion is sometimes a health issue, a fact which most rabid anti-choice people refuse to admit.

If anti-choice extremists truthfully wanted to limit abortions, they would support funds for family planning.  McCain has not.  He wouldn't even support making birth control available through insurance whenever Viagra is provided by insurance.

Any attempt to outlaw abortion is, like it or not, an attempt to legislate religion.  Taliban, anyone? :o

I was refering to just the first post as not political or religious.  Not the rest of them.  Those were just other videos that I had come across during the day.

The fact that you thing abortion in only a health care issue is where you went wrong.  It's murder.  It affects another human being.  Just because they're smaller and younger than you, you really shouldn't pick on them like that.  It hurts their feelings.

Family planning is murder as well.  The line for where life begins is different in your eyes than mine.  At conception, when the cells begin to grow into a person, is considered a life to me.  When say, 6 of those are created, and implanted, then the other 3-5 of them are killed when at least one takes completely is still murder.  And I am not anti contraceptives.  I'm glad my wife had her birth control.  If not, we would have had our baby girl before we were ready.

Abortion is not 'religion', as you call it.  It's murder, which infringes on another human beings life.  What if the age of 'living' was upped to 1 month old.  Then anyone could just go around killing 1 month olds if they didn't want them anymore.  Guess what, my daughter was 1 month preemie, and she's living just fine.  She had been alive inside my wife for a long time prior to that too.  Just cause she's getting nutrition through her umbilical cord doesn't me she's not alive yet.

These video's are not false statements.  They are showing what all the other pro-Obama stations don't show.  The side that people don't want to know about him.

One good point that has been brought up, What has Obama ever accomplished in offices.  He's not done anything.  His supporters agree.  They are just caught up in the fact that he has potential to do something.  But what is still unclear.  Things that we do know about him, are that he wants a one world government.  He wants to take away my right to own a gun.  He wants to take away my money and give it to people that are poor.  These communistic/socialistic/marxist views are not good for the common person.  They will destroy America.  Very rapidly at that.

I know that Obama will win in this next election.  There's no way that he can't.  I just hope that the American people can realize soon enough when he starts doing outrageous things, that he needs to be out of office as soon as possible.  That way we can all minimize that damage that he could cause.

This is a good video that really shed light on what issues he brings.  He is a very very far left person, but for the general election, he's changed a lot of views more toward the center.  He's very unclear on what he believes in, so what exactly are we going to get when he is president?  Most likely extreme left, but he's been changing his views recently, so we are still unclear on what he brings to the table.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvaT9RypDC8

As we are gettng close to the date ... its becoming increasingly clear to me ...

Dont ask me why, I am going with gut feeling and sorta what I have seen in India.

I dont think the majority of the US public is going to vote for a black man. They will never say it explicitly for fear of being called racist, and that really is the problem, they are ...

The democratic primaries only showed that over a white woman who clearly "wears the pants" in the family ... as in when she was in the white house ... and no other really viable candidates ... that 1/2 was very divided and with a very close margin picked the black man.

Get in the booth and people will not be driven by fear of racism. they will walk out and say they voted black ...

I anticipate a wide victory for McCain - which will be a huge acheivement against any viable democrat IMHO, cos after 8 bush years, the last thing they want to do is to go back to that same pool of governance but against non white - its almost foregone.

Its going to be like the OJ trial. Almost fall right along race lines.

People will not tell their gut feelings out to pollsters. Especially if the gut feelings are considered wrong.

We will just lead the candidates along and watch them crash and burn, and then claim I voted for him, but he lost.

All this is gut feeling, I cannot even vote ... so I have no stake really ... but No one is mentioning ... "I aint voting for a black man" and hence it is going to be kept hidden till the booth. if we hear that and there are people agreeing with that, then they go on to how he does share the fears and concerns of the white population - that will be a different story.

Cool.
Buddha.

Found a good video on the impact that Obama will have on the economy.  Watch it, you may be surprised.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0owetqLteg

Buddah, you may be right.  This country is still very racist at heart.  I'm not sure if it's to the extreme that he is a 'black man' that will be why people wouldn't vote for him.  I think if there was the right 'black man', there could be an overwhelming majority voting in his direction.  I'd have no problem voting, and following a black man as president, as long as he were the right man for the job, with similar beliefs to my own.  I think the majority of America would feel the same way.  Maybe since this is the first black man that has made it this far, race is at the front of peoples mind, and at the back of peoples conversations.  It may play a role, greater this time, than in future elections.

i can say with all honesty, i'm NOT voting for Obama. absolutely will not. in my eyes he doesn't have any answers. he claims he wants "change, we can all believe in". well, believing is all fine and dandy but tell me, how do you propose we do this? what are your solutions to this problem mr. obama? hmm...haven't gotten a real answer on that yet. at least with Mccain we know he has a plan. it may be a bit off in some areas, (the war, oil etc) but at least the man has an idea of what he wants to do for our country. obama reminds me of the students back in highschool running for class president. they all screamed about how they were gonna change this and do that. and of course they got elected only to realize they really couldn't do everything they promised. another reason i will not vote for obama, the man doesn't share my views on the 2nd ammendment. and i'd be lying if i didn't say the whole Rev. Wright fiasco didn't play some sort of role. whether it's wrong or right, not one of you can honestly tell me that you've never drawn an opinion of someone based on their friends, collegues etc. doesn't happen, sorry. and i'm also going to say i agree with the buddha, race will play a huge role in this election but people won't say so becuase they're afraid of how they will be viewed by others. this country is not ready for a black president yet. there is still too much hate/racism, from both sides, white and black.

See quiktaco - they have to mention it, and deal with it. Here it is not happening at all.

In India there was a long running populist movie star turned politician dude that died after sweeping elections for nearly 20 years. He had a second in command - ironically one who was much in the Hillary mould who was also his co star in several movies. Sharp woman really. She was acting Cheif Minister in the 2-3 years that dude was in hospital.

Upon his death, his wife who was a non political figure, who was not even mentioned ever in anything decided to make a run at the position.

It was a point where the public was thinking who the F*(k is this ... but no one ever even asked ...
The 2 women ended up entirely getting swept into oblivion with the previous Vice cheif minister getting ~80% of the votes, the wife getting 20% and handing a landslide to the opponent.

4 years later the wife dropped out (immediately after the loss) and the other lady swept with a land slide back into the post. I will anticipate that happening here. No one has said it, and no one has dealt with it.

Cool.
Buddha.

Quote from: quiktaco on August 22, 2008, 08:46:34 AM

The fact that you thing abortion in only a health care issue is where you went wrong.  It's murder.  (snip)

Family planning is murder as well.  The line for where life begins is different in your eyes than mine.  At conception, when the cells begin to grow into a person, is considered a life to me.  When say, 6 of those are created, and implanted, then the other 3-5 of them are killed when at least one takes completely is still murder.  And I am not anti contraceptives.  I'm glad my wife had her birth control.  If not, we would have had our baby girl before we were ready.

Dude.  Your beliefs are simply your beliefs.  They are that way because of your religion.  I don't share them.  Many people of other religions don't share them.  Why should the law of the land reflect YOUR religion?  You don't want an abortion in your family -- fine -- don't get one.  But keep your hands and your religious laws off MY family.

And you might want to check out the mechanics of your wife's birth control.  If it is an oral contraceptive, it prevents the implantation of a fertilized zygote.  The Catholic Church (for that reason) considers oral contraception the same as abortion.

Quote from: quiktaco on August 22, 2008, 08:46:34 AMAbortion is not 'religion', as you call it.  It's murder, which infringes on another human beings life.  What if the age of 'living' was upped to 1 month old.  Then anyone could just go around killing 1 month olds if they didn't want them anymore.  Guess what, my daughter was 1 month preemie, and she's living just fine.  She had been alive inside my wife for a long time prior to that too.  Just cause she's getting nutrition through her umbilical cord doesn't me she's not alive yet.

No one on either side of the aisle supports the abortion of viable (outside the womb) fetuses EXCEPT in the case of the health of the mother.  Straw man arguments don't work in the logical world.

Quote from: quiktaco on August 22, 2008, 08:46:34 AM
I know that Obama will win in this next election.  There's no way that he can't.  I just hope that the American people can realize soon enough when he starts doing outrageous things, that he needs to be out of office as soon as possible.  That way we can all minimize that damage that he could cause.

I hope you're right that he will be elected.  I don't need to respond to your other statements.  I already have in earlier posts.

QuoteAnd you might want to check out the mechanics of your wife's birth control.  If it is an oral contraceptive, it prevents the implantation of a fertilized zygote.  The Catholic Church (for that reason) considers oral contraception the same as abortion.

I am not Catholic, but I thank you for bringing this to my attention.  I admit that I did not know up until this point that certain versions of the pill can act as an abortant.  I was convinced that it simply stopped the fertilization process.  I will look into other forms of contraception, and to see if there are other pills that only act to stop fertilization, and see if my wife had been on this particular kind.  I am glad that my God does not judge based on ignorance.  Now that I know, He forgives me.

QuoteNo one on either side of the aisle supports the abortion of viable (outside the womb) fetuses EXCEPT in the case of the health of the mother.  Straw man arguments don't work in the logical world.

Obama does.  didn't you watch the video about it?  These babies could very well have lived, but they were allowed to die, because no medical attention was given to them.  He voted this way multiple times.  Not a single other person voted this way.

There is 8 billion people in the world. I think all the food shortages, the resource crunches and even global warming can be really traced back to this. 2-3 billion the planet can easily support with no effort, 4-5 Billion - we have to watch various things and not do this or that.
Anything to reduce it back to that point - I am in favor of. The reason is just that. Over population. If we were at 2 billion, I'd be pro life and non family planning and non ghey marriage too. This point in time, we will drown ourselves in our own filth if we dont stop multiplying like rabbits. We need quality, not just quantity.
Cool.
Buddha.

and now there are rumours that obama MAY be ineligible to be pres. granted, i look at this as i do the 9/11 theories, ( CT theories ) as in one ear and out the otehr, with a brief stop in the middle. ive got to see something resembling proof. im not an obama supporter, BUT on the odd chance this were true, then hell who knows. now the die hard obama supporters may say, blah blah neocon, vast right wing etc. but tehre are those within the hillary camp saying this also. so this may be BS, and it may not be. Me? ill call bs untl something more substantial surfaces , anyhoo links found so far:


http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/03/13/america/NA-POL-US-Obama-Natural-Born.php

http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/barackobama/a/obama_citizen.htm

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/56712 , this one and  ↑ that one seem to argue against each. not sure who is right. ( see why my view is a bit skewed atm? )

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread376451/pg1 i will withold views/opinions pending further proof. again, via the rumour mill, there may be a lawsuit challenging obamas candidacy, btu we shall see

Quote
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread376451/pg1 i will withold views/opinions pending further proof. again, via the rumour mill, there may be a lawsuit challenging obamas candidacy, btu we shall see

That's an interesting thread.  I hadn't heard about this whole thing with the Birth Certificate.  I'm sure he is a naturally born citizen, but like the people in that thread, he does need to prove it if he wants to be president.  I need to provide a birth certificate if I want to go on a cruise.  Why shouldn't he provide his if he wants to be president?  But again, I'm sure he is all good and legal to be president, or his own party wouldn't even had let him get this far, cause it would have been disastrous.

QuoteThere is 8 billion people in the world. I think all the food shortages, the resource crunches and even global warming can be really traced back to this. 2-3 billion the planet can easily support with no effort, 4-5 Billion - we have to watch various things and not do this or that.
Anything to reduce it back to that point - I am in favor of. The reason is just that. Over population. If we were at 2 billion, I'd be pro life and non family planning and non ghey marriage too. This point in time, we will drown ourselves in our own filth if we dont stop multiplying like rabbits. We need quality, not just quantity.
Cool.
Buddha.

I agree that this planet can't hold the amount of people that are here, but I don't agree with setting aside my morals so that there will be fewer people for the earth to support.

there are waaay to many people on the planet...i got rid of some but not nearly enough  :icon_twisted:  budda is right though, we send food to these countries with starving people.  they live and just make more starving people so the circle never ends.  bring on another black plague

Quotebring on another black plague

I was going to say something to that effect, but thought it would be taken the wrong way.  The world has a way of equalizing itself when it can't sustain a certain amount of people, being by plagues, or natural disasters, where millions can die.

anyone with even a basic knowledge of history or medieval Europe would know what i am talking about

Quiktaco - I agree with your morals - though I would say that its a case of religiously induced morals.

Abortion - hell no. Stop screwing around and stop getting knocked and for gods sake, dont have one after another because you're against abortion and cannot keep it in your pants or go to Planned parenthood.

Ghey marriage - yes, just keep it to yourself and dont shove it down everyone's throat (no pun intended), have a quiet parade once a year and whatever, just dont display on TV all the time ... its rather boring too. And, stop sperm poaching (heard some lesbians do 1 night stands with guys for getting pregnant and either sue him later for paternity etc) ... want kids - adopt ... Consult with above.

Planned parenthood - Problem is if they are smart enough and articulate enough to go and follow one, they have the qualities needed to be good parents. The riff raff needs to be rounded up and "planned parenthooded" the people that walk in on their own, need to be congradulated and well I guess help them too.

I doubt that this can do very much really, but stop calling up religion when you want to and "be against abortion" when you cant keep it in your pants. Religion says abstinence doesn't it, you have broken that. Now have this child and here after follow your religion. All of it, not just what is fun.

US population is shrinking except for illegal immigrants and their "anchor babies". Are they anchor babies cos they are likely to sink the US to third world status ???
The rest of the world is exploding. Idiotic.

Yea we need to stop shipping food everywhere. heck, we shipped relief supplies to china after the earthquake. Tents and chairs etc ... now, didn't we buy it from them in the first place. So why the F&*k didn't they send it there themselves ???

Cool.
Buddha.

I found this video.  Ignore the song in the background, cause it will probably piss the left off, but it does show in the second have of the video, a lot of the policies that Obama will have.  It shows specifics for what taxes will be increased also.  It's going to be an expensive next four years.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8wFzehGqX0

And yes, my morals are religiously induced.  Everyone's morals are religiously induced.  They develop over what they believe and/or don't believe.  If they don't have any religion, then they are usually atheists, which is what they believe, and their morals develop out of that.  It would be how they were raise, and what morals they were taught to as kids/young adults, through others.

Those will be values or religious values or belieifs. Morals are things that have nothing to do with religion but still considered wrong.
You ask me for 125 jets, and I send you 150's. That will make you mad, no matter what religion you are. Surely my religion does not say "do not bait and switch" and yours does not say, do not be a victim of "bait and switch".
Cool.
Buddha.

I guess I understand what you are saying, but Morals and Values cross over each other.  I don't know where my morals would end and values begin.  To me they are the same.  I think that people would get both morals and values from what they believe in.  They don't just pop up one day.  There has to be a basis for them, and most all people would base them on their beliefs.  the others would base them on what other people choose to accept as 'ok', so they adopt the popular opinion.

Something that would be wrong to all people regardless of religion will be a moral. That includes atheists, agnostics amnesiacs, appalachians etc etc.

Something that is totally dependent on religion like killing an animal and then eating it, most hindu's would rather die than do that ... dependent on religion.

Several aspects of things prohibited by christianity like evolution, contraception and ghey-ism and many other religions will have no effect on a hindu. Kill a cow and its the end of the world for them. That will be religious value not moral. Also In india they dont teach any thing religious in school. Hinduism believes in creation too, however most hindu's dont even know. In school, they only teach evolution.

Cool.
Buddha.

Why would something be wrong to all people?  It would have to have a basis somewhere?

I can see what you mean, also like a Vegetarian not killing animals.  They do it based on morals.  And if I understand correctly, Hindu's do it based on Values.  One is religious and the other is not.  However, it is still the vegetarian's beliefs.  They feel that it is wrong based on something.  I think there is an argument on both sides of determining Values and Moral, and I don't feel that it is that big of a deal based on words.  It is what people think whether it be morals or values.

Abortion can be a moral or a value - religion says it's wrong.  Or someone feels that it is murder, and they also feel murder is wrong, so then it's a moral, not based on religion.

Let's get closer on track with the presidental race.
Has anyone looked at this video? 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8wFzehGqX0
It's showing the high tax hikes that Obama will impose.  These are his views on the economy.  We will all be paying a lot more money to live. 

This video demonstrates Obama's knowledge and policies for the war in Iraq.  He doesn't know what is going on, and clearly said that he will send troops back after withdrawing them, if Al Quida comes to Iraq (which they are already in).  Also, he said in 2004 when he was running for Senate, that pulling out of Iraq would be a very bad thing.  Which is now what he is saying he wants to do.  Watch the video, and see that this man has been changing his views based on political gain.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQ70XwRZbRA

I love it when morals or values get nice and flexible ...

Hindu's will cringe when I suggest we should kill and eat a chicken.

However they are all OK with pulling silk from a silk worm ... where you boil the freaking thing alive.

There is a huge hazard in really imposing your moral compass on someone else. In my defence I ate the damn thing I just killed. In a silk wearers defence ... well it looks so pretty ... or heck, it was raised just for this purpose. Yea, not flying with me.

You break your moral compass, you cannot sleep, if you have one part of that compass that is not functioning, you leave it be, that is the only way you can live.
Cool.
Buddha.

I'm voting for Alexander Haig for President with Bo Gritz for Vice Prez..

obama increasing taxes...jesus h christ bush is spending us into the poor house with his bull shaZam! war.  and he is boring the money from the same cronies that are profiting from the war.  the republicans may not raise taxes but what they do is to increase the dept to just unforgivable proportions that can not be repaid.  then they scream the democrats are going to raise taxes.  well who f%&ked up our economy from the gold star it was at when bill clinton left?  the republicans and bush.  mccain will do the same, borrow borrow borrow which will hurt the economy more and them give tax breaks to big business to "stimulate" the economy which was f%&ked up to begin with because of borrowing from the same people they give the tax break to.   holy f%$k you guys you can't be that stupid not to realize what is going on.  eventually this whole balloon is going to collapse and then we, or our children or grand children will be busted.  then the US will be ripe for the same type of political take over that the nazis perpetrated 60 years ago.   before you start firing the flaming arrows please check out the facts and what i have said.  unfortunately you will see that it is true.  if it happens in our time then the only hope we have is for guys like terry and i going underground and mobilizing the good people like we have here on the board.  but i think we are a long way from that and with some progressive thinking, some hard choices when it comes to taxes and spending we can get out of this.  but i don't know if we, the american people, have it in us.  to give up the over spending and living beyond our means.   the housing and credit crunch that is killing the middle class is poised to do the same thing to our government and country.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PePbtEABzGk
Watch this video.  It explains the insane spending that Obama will impose. 

With Obama's Kyoto agreements the US will have to cut back tremendusly on production, and all the other countries of the world can either stay where they are, or even increase production.  This will cost american trillions in the long run

With Obama's 'Global Poverty Act', which recently blindsided congress, and recieved approval without being fully analized.  The US taxpayers will be paying other countries (not our own), and estimated 845 billion dollars, of which, the US recieves zero of.

With Obama's Tax increases, and letting tax cuts expire, the tax payers will be paying 197 Billion every year, so nearly 800 Billion during the time that he's in Office.

And of course we all want this war to come to an end, and stop that spending, but that spending doesn't come close to what Obama plans on doing.  This war needs to end in the proper way, or Troops will be leaving under fire, and many many more will die, and it will open up the country for an extremist tackover, so all these years there would be useless.  Most people aren't looking at those points.  It can't just end, because people want it to.  It has to end in the proper ways.

Here is a link that will explain the Kyoto Treaty.  It sounds like a great idea, and that it would stop global warming.  However, the only impact would be on America, and not the rest of the world.  Just watch it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vz-pE7b57h4

Quote from: frankieG on August 26, 2008, 09:44:24 AM
obama increasing taxes...jesus h christ bush is spending us into the poor house with his bull shaZam! war.  and he is boring the money from the same cronies that are profiting from the war.  the republicans may not raise taxes but what they do is to increase the dept to just unforgivable proportions that can not be repaid.  then they scream the democrats are going to raise taxes.  well who f%$ked up our economy from the gold star it was at when bill clinton left?  the republicans and bush.  mccain will do the same, borrow borrow borrow which will hurt the economy more and them give tax breaks to big business to "stimulate" the economy which was f%$ked up to begin with because of borrowing from the same people they give the tax break to.   holy f%$k you guys you can't be that stupid not to realize what is going on.  eventually this whole balloon is going to collapse and then we, or our children or grand children will be busted.  then the US will be ripe for the same type of political take over that the nazis perpetrated 60 years ago.   before you start firing the flaming arrows please check out the facts and what i have said.  unfortunately you will see that it is true.  if it happens in our time then the only hope we have is for guys like terry and i going underground and mobilizing the good people like we have here on the board.  but i think we are a long way from that and with some progressive thinking, some hard choices when it comes to taxes and spending we can get out of this.  but i don't know if we, the american people, have it in us.  to give up the over spending and living beyond our means.   the housing and credit crunch that is killing the middle class is poised to do the same thing to our government and country.

The plan is to get a ton of debt, and pass it on to the anchor babies and the illegal aliens who are running across the border. They claim its their country too ... so let them deal with it.
We will build a fence on the borders and post heavy patrols, but it will be to keep the illegals from going back without paying their debt.
Now mexico has plenty of oil and is on good terms with venezuela etc so they can get it cheap. We will start a program - bring 5 gallons of gasoline and you get a pass through the fence.
try to leave and the cost is 500 gallons or $5,000 - whichever is easier for you.
The only job for citizens will be to police the illegals. Its very high paying and no skill required. in fact, skill can only hurt.
Yea ... good plan.
Tax and spend democrats, and borrow and blow republicans. Neither of whom has any real way to solve anything. They can only argue about how to interpret the bible and cripple the medical advances needed to keep the aging population alive. We dont care, the entitlements will drive us into debt and cripple us, so better to have them die.

And here is the kicker ... We continue to confuse malfeasance for ignorance. Bush isn't stupid despite what his demeaner suggests. At a very basic level he knows how to subvert the truth for his gain. In the last few years whenever he made a speech referring to the 00-01 recession, he always made it a point to say "entered recession following the september 11th attacks" ... WTF, we were 6 months in at that point ... and we reversed by november 01. His credo is, look stupid and rip off people. Cheney is look like darth vader, and rip off people.
Cool.
Buddha.

BTW The war against Iraq ... its a case where the insurgents were not driven away, the insurgents melted away after the troop surge. The Surge isn't working, the surge has pushed it underground. If we withdraw, on any schedule, 16 months, 24 months, 36 months ... whenever, it will reverse right back to where it was. We also can forget about getting any oil from there. We now will probably be the only country who does not get any oil from there.
Afghanisthan, again wheever we withdraw, its back to whoever is the new thugs of the region.
These are places that cannot ever be brought under stable democracies. Pakisthan - same thing. The only thing these countries will do is, stay quiet under a iron fisted tyrant. Maybe Bin Laden.
India has been at this fight for 60 years. With them, nothing is final. They always keep moving the boundaries and want more and more ... watch as all 3 of these countries crash and burn. Its like this, you have an agreement with Bush, then whoever is next comes in and makes it all void. Then you go back to negotiate with the new ruler ... takes a few years, get an agreement, and he gets deposed in a coup or a failure of his government, the new guy moves somethign else, and says its all void. On and On. Tyranny is a viable option really. Put a puppet like the saudis in there, prop him up and watch the oil flow. Else its civil war for the next 2-300 years. Leave now, leave later - same thing.
Cool.
Buddha.

i'm not a finance major or political major or any of that shaZam!. but it's my understanding that a little war now and again actually has positive side effects. sure, the cost of all goods goes up but if it's only for a short time, this could actually be good. make some profits. "stimulate" the economy. as far as "tax cuts" and all that shaZam!, it's just smoke screen i think. the govt needs to learn to properly use the money i give them now before they 1)ask me for more or 2)tell me i don't have to pay em as much. i'm wondering at this point why the hell we even have a budget. alot of our tax money is misused. i'm sick of my tax money going to support "illegals". i'm sick of my tax money going to support lazy fucks that just wanna sit around and do drugs and over-populate my cities with trashy youth that have no respect for themselves or others. i'm sick of politicians who just wanna smear the other guy. who gives a f%$k who he got a blowjob from? (clinton fiasco was blown way out of proportion). i'm sick of people who think the word owes them something because of their skin color.  i'm sick of turning on the news and hearing how some guy got busted for drugs and is gonna do 30 years but the child molester is only gonna get 6 years. hell, i saw a thing on the news today some lady in wisconsin i believe was arrested for not returning 2 library books. yeah, that was a great way to waste tax payers money. i'm sick of double standard laws. (you have to wear a seat-belt because seat belts save lives, but you don't have to wear a motorcycle helment.) i'm sick of criminals having more rights and protection than honest citizens. i'm sick of seeing people getting privledges and such because of who they know(or who they blow). i'm sick of laws that say people of certain races have to be treated as "special" in the work place. i'm sick of stupid ass lawsuits put forth by morons. if you're dumb enough to put hot coffee between your legs, you deserve to get burned, you don't deserve to be a millionaire. if you're dumb enough to come into my yard and pester my dog, you deserve to get bit, you don't deserve a new house.  and as a result of such altercation, my dog does not need to be put down, he needs to be rewarded for protecting himself and my family.  i'm sick of people who want to censor everyone's thoughts and opinions just because they may hurt someone's feelings. i'm sick of the golden rule.(he who has the gold makes the rules). personally, no matter who our next president is, none of this is gonna change. neither of these politicians has the balls to stand up for america and do what's right for our country. f%$king pussies.  :2guns: :2guns:

Quote from: The Buddha on August 26, 2008, 11:20:14 AM
BTW The war against Iraq ... its a case where the insurgents were not driven away, the insurgents melted away after the troop surge. The Surge isn't working, the surge has pushed it underground. If we withdraw, on any schedule, 16 months, 24 months, 36 months ... whenever, it will reverse right back to where it was. We also can forget about getting any oil from there. We now will probably be the only country who does not get any oil from there.
Afghanisthan, again wheever we withdraw, its back to whoever is the new thugs of the region.
These are places that cannot ever be brought under stable democracies. Pakisthan - same thing. The only thing these countries will do is, stay quiet under a iron fisted tyrant. Maybe Bin Laden.
India has been at this fight for 60 years. With them, nothing is final. They always keep moving the boundaries and want more and more ... watch as all 3 of these countries crash and burn. Its like this, you have an agreement with Bush, then whoever is next comes in and makes it all void. Then you go back to negotiate with the new ruler ... takes a few years, get an agreement, and he gets deposed in a coup or a failure of his government, the new guy moves somethign else, and says its all void. On and On. Tyranny is a viable option really. Put a puppet like the saudis in there, prop him up and watch the oil flow. Else its civil war for the next 2-300 years. Leave now, leave later - same thing.
Cool.
Buddha.

I agree

Quotei'm not a finance major or political major or any of that shaZam!. but it's my understanding that a little war now and again actually has positive side effects. sure, the cost of all goods goes up but if it's only for a short time, this could actually be good. make some profits. "stimulate" the economy. as far as "tax cuts" and all that shaZam!, it's just smoke screen i think. the govt needs to learn to properly use the money i give them now before they 1)ask me for more or 2)tell me i don't have to pay em as much. i'm wondering at this point why the hell we even have a budget. alot of our tax money is misused. i'm sick of my tax money going to support "illegals". i'm sick of my tax money going to support lazy f%$ks that just wanna sit around and do drugs and over-populate my cities with trashy youth that have no respect for themselves or others. i'm sick of politicians who just wanna smear the other guy. who gives a f%$k who he got a blowjob from? (clinton fiasco was blown way out of proportion). i'm sick of people who think the word owes them something because of their skin color.  i'm sick of turning on the news and hearing how some guy got busted for drugs and is gonna do 30 years but the child molester is only gonna get 6 years. hell, i saw a thing on the news today some lady in wisconsin i believe was arrested for not returning 2 library books. yeah, that was a great way to waste tax payers money. i'm sick of double standard laws. (you have to wear a seat-belt because seat belts save lives, but you don't have to wear a motorcycle helment.) i'm sick of criminals having more rights and protection than honest citizens. i'm sick of seeing people getting privledges and such because of who they know(or who they blow). i'm sick of laws that say people of certain races have to be treated as "special" in the work place. i'm sick of stupid ass lawsuits put forth by morons. if you're dumb enough to put hot coffee between your legs, you deserve to get burned, you don't deserve to be a millionaire. if you're dumb enough to come into my yard and pester my dog, you deserve to get bit, you don't deserve a new house.  and as a result of such altercation, my dog does not need to be put down, he needs to be rewarded for protecting himself and my family.  i'm sick of people who want to censor everyone's thoughts and opinions just because they may hurt someone's feelings. i'm sick of the golden rule.(he who has the gold makes the rules). personally, no matter who our next president is, none of this is gonna change. neither of these politicians has the balls to stand up for america and do what's right for our country. f%$king pussies.  2guns 2guns

Welcome to the Libertarian Party my friend!  I agree 100%

Aaaaa Libertarian ... OK ... that makes sense ... the soap box etc etc ... OK. Sorry I didn't read too many of the posts before quiktaco.
Cool.
Buddha.

QuoteAaaaa Libertarian ... OK ... that makes sense ... the soap box etc etc ... OK. Sorry I didn't read too many of the posts before quiktaco.
Cool.
Buddha.

What do you mean by this?  If this was condescending, please explain.


I don't know if I'm really a Libertarian or not.  I've always been registered as a Republican, but don't agree with about half of their views.

Mostly what I like from the Libertarians is minimal government, retraction of frivolous laws, responsibility for self and family, and following the Constitution as it was meant to be followed, when written 2 centuries ago.  The government is there to serve the people, not the other way around.  And the Constitution was written so that the government can't (legally anyways) assume more responsibility than they had a right to.  The amendments (like the right to bare arms), were added so that the country could protect themselves against a corrupt government.  The Libertarian views are basic, meant for freedom and liberation from government restraints.

Just noticing ... not condescending. Libertarians tend to revel in situations where there is enough bashing of both sides. Essentially if you think both sides are wrong ... you're libertarian.
Green's tend to be a bit more in line with democrats, and the ross perot types tend to be republicans.
I dont know, I am not a citizen. I am thinking I should not become one, lest I find it harder to leave.
Though I believe I dont have to surrender my indian passport to get an US one, Dual citizenship baby.
Cool.
buddha.

Thank you for not being condescending.  I don't really agree with either side.  I don't think most people agree with either side, but those 2 sides are the ones that we're presented with to vote for.  Like I said on a previous page, I am not a grass roots type person, and I'm going to vote where it will have some impact on the current situation.  I won't be voting Libertarian.  If I thought they had a chance, I probably would.  I will be with the side that is most close to my views, which unfortunately right now is the republicans.  McCain is not an ideal candidate, and he would not have a chance if it weren't for the 2 democrats that had come forth.  McCain, other than his position on the war (which is actually a fairly good one, because he wants to withdrawal, but in the proper manner), he is a fairly liberal minded man.  This just isn't seen because he is labeled as a Republican, and is over shadowed by the extreme Liberal, Obama.

One weird thing that I have noticed.  A lot of people that are Obama supporters, are also Ron Paul supporters.  These two people are on opposite sides of the spectrum, which shows to me, that these people are looking at very shallow issues, and not the way they will run the country as a whole.  Ron Paul is for minimal government, and Obama is for as much government as possible.  Am I missing something.  The only thing Ron Paul has that I disagree with, is withdrawing troops from other countries of the world.  That might favor the Obama supporters, but I don't see much else.  If someone wants to explain this to me, that would be great.

I vote yellow dawg.

Let 'em do whatever the hell they want. 

evetybody including the clintons used halliburton frankie. so the cronies meh.im assuming that was whom you were referring to?, anyhoo yeah. globally everyones paying higher rates for transportation food  no matter what. it all ties into oil. we are still in a way paying for BC. he stripped teh military, and were paying for that. higher taxes i wouldnt mind IF and only IF this govt could spend wisely. which it has demonstrated the inability to do so ( no matter WHO was in teh whitehouse. liek all the extra crap which goes into bills put forth by house and sentate. hell  that shaZam! could be takn care of if they would bring back the line item veto. so the busshit spending by both liberals, AND conservatives AND whomever else, would and could be more closely scrutinised. hell i see no politician in office who would be qualified to manage a fast food restaurant. crap like thats been going on far longer than either bush or either clinton has been into politics. hell id be into some progressive aka liberal thinking if they coulde spend wisely?

Yea both sides are crap. We dont have any others ... total crap.
India especially northern India is really really good at organising protests. East too. For unpopular government ideas, thousands and thousands of people will protest in the streets, I dunno how they mobilise that well. It was so bad, the british had to split bengal into 2 halves.

In modern times I have heard that south korea is very good at mobilising people and they almost exclusively do it via text message. There ougtha be marches on washington both conventions and literally protesters everywhere they look. We have to learn somehting from these people and get doing it. Politicians need to be dragged into the street and beaten - happens in India, not sure of Korea.

The reverse - there is a total shutdown when a unpopular measure is implemented. The whole country goes on strike. We call it Bandh (closed in hindi) but, its worse than any damn national holiday. The whole country is a ghost town. We have to learn how to do both in the US. We are rapidly becoming a thrid world country and this is all that can stop it.

BTW now georgia is the new afganisthan is it. What say the US is going to arm the militias and get them to rebel and oppose russia ... not that I disagree, but we oughtta have an exit strategy, as in set up a few factories and train people and make compact cars and dum them in europe and asia. Some like that.
Cool.
Buddha.

hell ive got to admit/give credit to the clintons, was listening to teh copnvention, and ill be damned they gave a hell of a speech. as did biden. but its Meh, both/all politicians sound like used car salesmen, . eg telling you what you want to hear in hopes that you buy the car

unfortunately the pull out in Iraq is going to be eerily similar to that of Vietnam.  remember bush saying "this is not going to be another Vietnam"  guess what...he lied and it is.  McCain will just the the 3rd term of the bush administration.  the only hope for change and to get out of this whole we are quickly digging for our selves, not just with the war but other issues too, is to vote Obama.

Yeah Obama!  I vote for Obama!

Here's all my guns, here's 2/3rds of my paycheck, here's any amount of moral fiber I still had, Oh how I salute thee!  All hail Obama!


Sorry, just getting tired of fighting.  There's really no way to convince someone who's strong-held on one side, to make the believe the views of the other.  Same goes in both directions.  Some people believe that they have the right to freedom, and self reliance, and self responsibility, and others want their lives run by the government, and want to get free handouts, because they don't want to take responsibility for their own lives.

republicans are mortagaging your future and that of you children and grandchildren etc...so it is either raise taxes or have the country collapse.  our status as a superpower is gone.  china, Russia and others know we are on the ropes.  we need out of there and to get our economy up to snuff or we are in for serious trouble.  so you don't want your taxes to go up, right?  so how do we pay off a trillion dollar debt?  cut spending?  OK where?   policing(which is just out of control and we have more people per ca pita than any other country in jail)  the military(back to the fear thing and the cronies making billions on this)  those are the two biggies.  realistically it would have to be a combination of both.  cut back federal spending on the "fear" departments and raise taxes to get a balanced budget to begin with.  then go from there.   people can not just spend and spend , borrow and borrow without their being consequences.  neither can a government.

If you've read any of my previous posts, Obama plans to, over his first term, spend about 800 Billion on a world program, of which, none of that money will come back to the US.  Where does this money come from.  That would almost double the national debt along.  He also plans on implementing the Kyoto treaty.  This will cause only the US to reduce production which will cost billions, maybe trillions in the long run, and destroy our economy.  Also raising taxes on things like inharitance tax, and capital gains tax, which can cause the elderly to not be able to afford to downsize a home, or cause a family farm to go out of business because they have to pay so much in taxes when their parents died and left it to them.  Those are just a couple things that will have a great impact on pretty much everyone in the US.

I don't want McCain in the White House, cause he won't be all that great for America, but he will be a ton better than Obama.

Eventually, there will be bumper stickers that say, "Don't blame me, I didn't vote for the Socialist", and everyone will be a Monday Morning Quarterback, and say that he was bad for this country from the beginning.

Oh, and don't say that the Kyoto treaty will help with Global Warming.  That's BS.  Global temperatures haven't risen since 1998, and we've put out something like over 20% more CO2 since then.  Global Warming is a big sham, and everyone is following it so blindly, just like they are following Obama.

One more f%$king time, WE ARE STILL TECHNICALLY IN AN ICE AGE!!!!  So f%$k global warming and the bitchy douchebags that want to take my Internal combustion engines away......f%$k that.

i agree i don't think global warming is anything more than part of the earths natural cycle

Very true, it's no where near as hot as it's been in the past, and yes, we technically are still in an ice age.  We're talking about the Earth people, no one can change the temperature on an annual basis.  Even with offsetting the balance of gases in the air, it's going to do what it's going to do.

I'm surprised that Global Warmists haven't suggested to nuke a volcano so it errupts, so that a cloud layer will fill the sky for years to cool the Earth back down.

it is like the vegans or vegetarians. if it were not for homids eating meat we would not have evolved into humans with our large brain capacity.  we have canine teeth stupid...hello!!  has anyone met a vegan or vegetarian that is a big fit guy?  most of them a gaunt, skinny and look like heroin addicts.   i eat meat with every meal, with only slight exceptions.  breakfast is eggs and bacon, sausage or ham.   lunch is a hamburger(my fav food) or sandwich etc.  for supper it is always centered around a meat course,  it may be beef, pork, fish or what have you.  if ii eat a meal  with out meat it is just not filling, satisfying nor does it give me the energy or nutrients i need.  so you vegans and veterinarians....go into the line with the cattle and you will get the same air gun treatment they get  :2guns:

Quote from: frankieG on August 28, 2008, 01:11:50 PM
it is like the vegans or vegetarians. if it were not for homids eating meat we would not have evolved into humans with our large brain capacity.  we have canine teeth stupid...hello!!  has anyone met a vegan or vegetarian that is a big fit guy?  most of them a gaunt, skinny and look like heroin addicts.   i eat meat with every meal, with only slight exceptions.  breakfast is eggs and bacon, sausage or ham.   lunch is a hamburger(my fav food) or sandwich etc.  for supper it is always centered around a meat course,  it may be beef, pork, fish or what have you.  if ii eat a meal  with out meat it is just not filling, satisfying nor does it give me the energy or nutrients i need.  so you vegans and veterinarians....go into the line with the cattle and you will get the same air gun treatment they get  :2guns:

I agree on some of that.  However, I believe that God Created us to eat meat.  He gave us the animals around us to use for food, and their skins for clothing and warmth.  The bones for tools, and anything else we could use the rest of them for.

They can feed more people per acre with just vegetarians. Cows that feed on hay only used for milk, hens that ear insects and excess grain only used for eggs. India has vegetarianism tuned into a fine art. You need meat cos food does not have inherent "fun" built in. There is a million spices and so many ways to cook stuff it will make you faint.
However I eat meat and will always do ... except when I am in india. I have run through fields, and pulled corn right off the plant, roasted it and eaten it, I have uprooted sugarcane and hacked it in 3-4 and shared it with my brothers and sisters (each of us ate 3-4 feet of cane and we were sticky as glue), I ahve paid people 20 c to climb a tree and yank off palm or young coconut, stuck a straw in it and drank right off the coconut or palm fruit. List goes on and on. I have also rounded up chicken and had people make butter chicken and eaten it. The food game is a tie. I'll do one or other, or both.
Cool.
Buddha.

Ron Paul.

Quote from: quiktaco on August 28, 2008, 11:46:46 AM
Sorry, just getting tired of fighting.  There's really no way to convince someone who's strong-held on one side, to make the believe the views of the other.  Same goes in both directions.  Some people believe that they have the right to freedom, and self reliance, and self responsibility, and others want their lives run by the government, and want to get free handouts, because they don't want to take responsibility for their own lives.

That doesn't seem to stop you from lying to try to convince others.

You seem to value freedom, yet McCain's party has virtually shredded the constitution (with his willing help) in the last seven years.  Denial of habeas corpus, illegal wiretapping, treasonously outing a CIA agent involved in protecting us from real WMDs, etc., etc.

You seem to value fiscal responsibility but guess which party actually practices it?
http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm (http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm)

You seem to want a life free from government intrusion, but you propose making all abortion illegal.  That would make your religious views the law of the land, even though many other religions, including Judaism, do not believe that life begins at conception.  Is that not the ultimate government intrusion?

Obama said tonight that surely we can protect the second amendment and still keep AK-47s from the hands of street gangs.  Does "protect the second amendment" sound to you like giving up your guns?

Lie and mislead all you want.  Hate radio and email forwards have convinced a weak-minded 12% of Americans that Obama is a Muslim, but that doesn't make it true.  He is a Christian just like John McCain.  He just doesn't have as many houses.  :cheers:

what does having houses do or qualify one for pres. both sides lie. both sides tell only a partial shred of the truth. and this illegal wiretapping. is not illegal. i believe either SCOTUS or teh house/senate approved it. although id say it is designed to intecept talk from teh bad guys coming in. i hope thats the ONLY thing it does. no one has any proof of it being used elsewhere. ( i hope it isnt. ) cause getign a warrant can sometimes, be too time consuming for certain things, ive got to admit though TG, im not an obama supporter, BUT hillary, bill, biden and obama gave some pretty good speeches tonight, and over the past few days. ill keep my argument to this. and leave it here. if teh govt can curtail the porkbarrel spending, aka spend responsibly.  EVERYWHERE. we wouldnt need more taxes, like obama wants, says hes going to cut taxes to what was it 95% of the populace ehre?. hes got to pay for his programs somehow.. and hes running for pres. did he take a leave of absence from the senate? if not he needs to be there more than he is . hell were payin him, he needs to represent. same wiht mccain or whomever else is in the senate/house and is vying for the whitehouse. and i really dont see quiktaco as lying. nor do i see anti-abortion as a religious matter. i am religious, but i see abortion as taking life and this. liberal site  http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm  got anythign more of a central view. there are reasons BC didnt rack up a debt.  even though during his admin. we were at wars in several locations, he did a LTO of budget cutting teh DEMS are jsut as bad as teh repubs were in pork barrel spending. kinda like the song, " meet the new boss, same as teh old boss". gaah TG sorry bout the long winded rant err reply. but unlike many in liberal circles who will point fingers ONLY at non liberals as being at fault, or non liberals pointing fingers at ONLY liberals as being solely at fault. i stand in the middle and point at BOTH. i honestly dont think theres been a good congress, nor a good president in recent memory ( fiscally), and as far as teh houses mccain has( wife has anyway), whats the relevance?. you can cite that all day jsut like i cold cite obamas not being able to remember how many states there were. that trivial bullshit needs to stop. there is no need for it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws meh all i say is VOTE on voting day. NOW im officially done with this thread  :laugh: :laugh:

Owwww ... is McCain trying to lose ...
He could well be picking the next president ... he is getting kinda "of a certain age" you know ...
And while I have long said, a woman for president - yes, just not this one ... I do believe I'd vote for the McCain/Palin if I was so inclined - woman wont stop me, but neither will black man ... but now you have to wonder ... black man vs white woman - gonna be close, maybe if McCain was younger, he'd get an easy victory ... but at his age he cannot take that chance.
Anyway, will american voters take a black man over a white woman who is relatively unknown (huge advantage atleast that is ... thank god she's not Hitlery is what people will be saying I guess) ...
Cool.
Buddha.

please do not call those who disagree with your opinion on this board liars.  we and you are better than that.  i really hope that mccain loses and Obama wins.  he said today that he will cut taxes for 95% of Americans and remove our dependence on middle east oil within 10 years.  that alone should ensure his election as president.   mccain is too old, like Reagan, could be subject to health concerns. then do we want some first term Alaskan as our president?  i think not.  mccain has voted over 90% of the time with bush...so he thinks that this administration is 90% correct.  with our spending and deficit at record proportions and young Americans being killed in a illegal Vietnam type war.  i went over there in 88 for the cease fire, in 90 for the first gulf war and 03 for the invasion.  the first two times i was OK with it. the 3rd lead to my retirement and my distrust for this republican administration.  remember it is not just bush it is the entire republican party and their cronies.   i may go back as a privateer err mercenary(with terry in tow). but that is only for the money and nothing to do with helping anyone over there.  because to be honest i don't give a rats ass about them and neither does this government and most Americans.  if it were not for the oil we would just have left it alone. 

If someone lies about a candidate, they are a lying liar.  My disagreement has nothing to do with that.  I would never call someone a liar just because I thought they were wrong.

I will continue to call lies out whenever I spot them.  If someone lies about McCain I'll be the first to call it out.

Obama is not a socialist.  He is a Christian (as if that mattered for President).  He is not a radical Islamist.  He doesn't want to trash the second amendment.  End of story.

Obama IS a Marxist thinking socialist. He is representative of a party that is KNOWN globally for being anti-gun. Especially anti-handgun.
Believe me........they WANT to TAKE our guns. Words like "responsible gun ownership", registered ownership are nothing more than buzzwords for "acquiring your guns". Left to their own, aside from the military and police, we'd all have single shot .22 rifles and have to go fire at a "registered" "Government" shooting range. The last 'bout would be the closing of aforementioned Goverment ranges.
We can't even for one nanosecond allow them to get a toenail in the door. Don't believe me? Look at Great Britian and Austrailia.
These black-eyed bastard children actually believe that a woman in the emergency room having a rape-kit used on her is morally superior to a 110 pound woman standing above her graveyard dead attacker with a smoking .357 magnum.
Obama is certainly for "redistribution of wealth". Meaning taking from the worker and successful businesses and giving it to those who don't work, many of which have been on the taxpayer's dole for DECADES. That is SOCIALISM. My opinion on that is to FORCE them to work. FORCE. And if they keep having children that they can't afford and don't give a damn about, strap her ass on the stainless steel table and STERILIZE them FORCEABLY. If you tell me that if we don't keep giving them money, they will steal and riot. SHOOT THEM. Prob solved.
The Democratic Party has actually RUN OFF tens of millions over the last 44 years. Aside from a few die-hard Dixie-Crats, Delta-Crats, and a few very few white blue collar workers, it's turned into a damn freak show. It's been made complete with freaks, fruitcakes, fairies, veggie eaters, turd tapping-fudgepackers, tree huggers, save the whale types, damn PETA terrorists, carbon footprint idiots, immigrants that HATE the USA as much as they do, anti-gun, anti-hunting, anti-fishing (first came came the freaks that wanted to do away with barbed hooks then came the "fish feel pain too" idiots) and people that actually HATE America the way it is. People that are so politically correct that it'll make you wanna hurl just listening to them and those damned foolish ass feminists and sorry ass communists.
This is classic......read this......at the Million Mom March (let me paraphrase this), a woman got up at the mic and screamed "the next time you are confronted by a man with a gun, say these words...........listen, I know that you are angry but we need to realize that each has value".......................hahahahaaha that is INSANITY!!!!!!! These are the kinds of people you have "in the Dem party".
I'm not a big fan of the Repubs either but they haven't come after our guns, hunting, fishing, and things that "men" enjoy doing.

But back to Obama again. He is as green as a spring twig and I damn sure don't want his green thumb on the nuke buttons my friends.
He really doesn't have a lot of experience at doing anything other than setting up neighborhood committees. He hasn't even managed a Mom and Pop grocery store and people are dumb enough to allow him total reign over the entire Wal-Mart corporation.

That's my simpleton take on the situation.

lying liar?

no matter what happens in this election, race will be an issue. if obama wins, it's cuz he's black and some racist redneck will shot him. if he loses, it's cuz he's black and some young gang-banger will drop the prez. this election will not be pretty i'm afraid. Obama does want to take our guns. it's in the party. all the dems are like that. i'd rather be a broke nation and able to defend myself than be monetarily rich and under an iron fist. sure, obama has SAID he's gonna rid us of our "oil dependance". sure he SAID he's gonna do this, gonna do that. how? seriously? what is his great master plan? anybody? he doesn't have one. he's like every other politician, blowin smoke up our asses, telling us what we want to hear. mccain is the same way. at least mccain has a plan. sure, his plan might be lets keep doing what we're doing for the next four years. but i feel he's the least likely to f%$k us even worse than we are. and the comment about ak-47's..... maybe i'm wrong but i'm under the impression that our right to bear arms was given to us in the event we need to "take back" our government. if the government has access to a weapon, i should be allowed the same access. after all, if we're going to war, do you want to be the dumbass who brings a knife to a gun fight? i think not.

Quote from: pkhoff on August 29, 2008, 12:56:58 PM
lying liar?

Yup.

Quote from: Revere2 on August 29, 2008, 12:47:54 PM
But back to Obama again. He is as green as a spring twig and I damn sure don't want his green thumb on the nuke buttons my friends.
He really doesn't have a lot of experience at doing anything other than setting up neighborhood committees. He hasn't even managed a Mom and Pop grocery store and people are dumb enough to allow him total reign over the entire Wal-Mart corporation.

I don't have any trouble with this part of the post.  I disagree, and think it would be far worse to have a hothead like McCain with his finger on the nuke button.

Experience only matters if one has learned from it.  McCain does not appear to have learned from his experience.

Quote from: yamahonkawazuki on August 28, 2008, 11:49:30 PMand this illegal wiretapping. is not illegal. i believe either SCOTUS or teh house/senate approved it. although id say it is designed to intecept talk from teh bad guys coming in. i hope thats the ONLY thing it does. no one has any proof of it being used elsewhere. ( i hope it isnt. ) cause getign a warrant can sometimes, be too time consuming for certain things

The wiretapping WAS illegal or Bush wouldn't have insisted that Congress issue a get-out-of-jail-free card to the corporate co-conspirators.  Whistleblowers have testified that they installed equipment that let the government see EVERYthing that passed over the network, not just information and calls entering the country from terrorists.

The FISA act guaranteed presidents the ability to quickly respond to threats.  It allowed them to get search warrants (required by the US Constitution, I might add) AFTER the fact by applying to a special FISA court which almost never denies warrants.  They didn't do that, and instead secretly coerced telecoms to break the law by doing warrantless surveillance.

After they were caught, they said they were spying only on terrorists.  If that were the truth, why did they go outside the law to do it?  Another way of looking at it -- if they wanted to spy on political enemies, how could they do it and be virtually untraceable?  Do it in secret...

Obama's tax plan pays for itself -- it restores taxes cut by Bush on the top 5% of taxpayers, instead of putting the burden on the middle class.

BTW, the "houses" comment was a joke.  I'm in agreement that those are irrelevant details, like other unintentional gaffes made by all of them.  I only found it ironic that McCain calls Obama elitist, but then doesn't know how many houses he owns.

Being president is being a leader.  It has nothing to do with how many years spent in Washington or anywhere else.  Obama is a proven leader -- he can motivate people and he can fire them up.  He wasn't my first choice in the primaries (I actually wanted Edwards -- yikes) but I'll gladly vote for him over McCain.

crap i cannot leave this thread, its liek a drug or somethign. anyhoo. again my final comment, i heard of Mccains VP choice. and some in teh Obama camp caling her  "in-experienced" i just hope Obama doest say it directly, cause it would be liek teh pot calling teh kettle black :dunno_white:, but he might, and hell if hedoes, it will make for an interesting debate down the road. which i look forward to  :thumb:

Quote from: Revere2 on August 29, 2008, 12:47:54 PM
Obama IS a Marxist thinking socialist. He is representative of a party that is KNOWN globally for being anti-gun. Especially anti-handgun.
Believe me........they WANT to TAKE our guns. Words like "responsible gun ownership", registered ownership are nothing more than buzzwords for "acquiring your guns". Left to their own, aside from the military and police, we'd all have single shot .22 rifles and have to go fire at a "registered" "Government" shooting range. The last 'bout would be the closing of aforementioned Goverment ranges.
We can't even for one nanosecond allow them to get a toenail in the door. Don't believe me? Look at Great Britian and Austrailia.
These black-eyed bastard children actually believe that a woman in the emergency room having a rape-kit used on her is morally superior to a 110 pound woman standing above her graveyard dead attacker with a smoking .357 magnum.
Obama is certainly for "redistribution of wealth". Meaning taking from the worker and successful businesses and giving it to those who don't work, many of which have been on the taxpayer's dole for DECADES. That is SOCIALISM. My opinion on that is to FORCE them to work. FORCE. And if they keep having children that they can't afford and don't give a damn about, strap her ass on the stainless steel table and STERILIZE them FORCEABLY. If you tell me that if we don't keep giving them money, they will steal and riot. SHOOT THEM. Prob solved.
The Democratic Party has actually RUN OFF tens of millions over the last 44 years. Aside from a few die-hard Dixie-Crats, Delta-Crats, and a few very few white blue collar workers, it's turned into a damn freak show. It's been made complete with freaks, fruitcakes, fairies, veggie eaters, turd tapping-fudgepackers, tree huggers, save the whale types, damn PETA terrorists, carbon footprint idiots, immigrants that HATE the USA as much as they do, anti-gun, anti-hunting, anti-fishing (first came came the freaks that wanted to do away with barbed hooks then came the "fish feel pain too" idiots) and people that actually HATE America the way it is. People that are so politically correct that it'll make you wanna hurl just listening to them and those damned foolish ass feminists and sorry ass communists.
This is classic......read this......at the Million Mom March (let me paraphrase this), a woman got up at the mic and screamed "the next time you are confronted by a man with a gun, say these words...........listen, I know that you are angry but we need to realize that each has value".......................hahahahaaha that is INSANITY!!!!!!! These are the kinds of people you have "in the Dem party".
I'm not a big fan of the Repubs either but they haven't come after our guns, hunting, fishing, and things that "men" enjoy doing.

But back to Obama again. He is as green as a spring twig and I damn sure don't want his green thumb on the nuke buttons my friends.
He really doesn't have a lot of experience at doing anything other than setting up neighborhood committees. He hasn't even managed a Mom and Pop grocery store and people are dumb enough to allow him total reign over the entire Wal-Mart corporation.

That's my simpleton take on the situation.

Exactly how I was going to reply to all of this.

Quoteand the comment about ak-47's..... maybe i'm wrong but i'm under the impression that our right to bear arms was given to us in the event we need to "take back" our government. if the government has access to a weapon, i should be allowed the same access. after all, if we're going to war, do you want to be the dumbass who brings a knife to a gun fight? i think not.

Exactly!  I want to be able to own a tank if I felt the need for it.
And he is anti gun, completely.  Always has been.  He just changed his stand on it in that speech (and maybe from now on, who knows) to appeal to more people...specifically anyone who doesn't hate the NRA.

And what is this about taking ak's away from street gangs?!?!  Hell, go for it.  They're felons usually anyways, so they have no right to a small little pea shooter in the first place.  Just don't come knocking on my door asking for my guns, cause I'll protect myself, my family, and my property (ei. my guns), with a swift shot in your ass!

nice to see i'm not alone in my thinking.  :thumb:

Quote from: quiktaco on August 30, 2008, 10:44:56 AM
Exactly!  I want to be able to own a tank if I felt the need for it.

Please show me that plank in any party platform of your choice.  (insert sound of crickets here)

Even the Republicans support control of automatic weapons and heavier weapons.  So in this argument, McCain is just as "bad" in your estimation.

well if you got a tank you need 3 more qualified people to crew it so blllaaaaa :)   after watching mccains choice as vp i think he is sunk.  i mean gawd he might as well nominated his wife.  just another piece of arm jewelry.   put a thermometer in him cuz he is done done and done.

mccain's vp choice actually makes sense given the way this election is going.  i think it was a smart move for mccain.  and if obama had any brains/balls he would have had clinton as his vp.

no on want Hillary...that shrill voice and fat ass no way.   even though bill was a good president we have seen enough of him too.   obama's choice , in my opinion, is bang on.  this moose stew Alaska chick shows just how out of touch mccain and the republicans are.   the more i see of mccain on tv the older he looks...like he is going to keel over any time.

no one will take my guns, tehy can disappear, and be found quickly. so im not too concerned YET, now frankie, why is palin a bad veep choice? quote facts not opinions please, id like to know from a liberal side of this fine argu/discussion

either way no matter who wins, this election will be a historic event. on two fronts. not many senators were ever elected pres. now weve got two in the mix. AND if Obama wins, well have a black pres. ( quite historic), or if Mccain wins well have a woman Veep. again quite historic :thumb:

we don't need to ban guns. gun bans do not work!! don't believe me, look at washington, d.c.  criminals are the ones who misuse guns. do you think they're gonna give a shaZam! if the gun they have is banned or not when they knock off the local 7-11? "oh, wait dude, we can't use the ar-15, it's banned." "right, i forgot, lets take the .45 s&w instead." come on, give me a break. what we need are stricter penalties. especially for gun crimes. many countries have very harsh penalties, but also low crime rates. steal something, loose a hand kinda penalties. but no, we won't do that here in america because in america, the criminals have rights!  :2guns: :2guns: f%$king idiots. i can take ANY gun, no matter the size or capacity.....load it....lay it on my coffee table.... and i promise, it won't harm a soul until someone picks it up and pulls the trigger.  :thumb:

Quote from: jserio on September 01, 2008, 07:59:31 PM
we don't need to ban guns. gun bans do not work!! don't believe me, look at washington, d.c.  criminals are the ones who misuse guns. do you think they're gonna give a shaZam! if the gun they have is banned or not when they knock off the local 7-11? "oh, wait dude, we can't use the ar-15, it's banned." "right, i forgot, lets take the .45 s&w instead." come on, give me a break. what we need are stricter penalties. especially for gun crimes. many countries have very harsh penalties, but also low crime rates. steal something, loose a hand kinda penalties. but no, we won't do that here in america because in america, the criminals have rights!  :2guns: :2guns: f%$king idiots. i can take ANY gun, no matter the size or capacity.....load it....lay it on my coffee table.... and i promise, it won't harm a soul until someone picks it up and pulls the trigger.  :thumb:

Often the reason for not having stricter punishments is the cost/benefit etc idea.

Many people think you do something wrong your a criminal the criminal system is just a system which takes bad people punishes them and then lets them go or they die in the longterm. However the criminal justice system is just a buisness, paid for by your taxes. Nearly every country in the world has prison overcrowding. Theres not enough space to hold the number of people they want to punish therefore they do a cost/benefit analyasis. Say if we extend the length of time armed robbery suspects get locked up by just 1 year, throughout the whole prison system that could equate to thousands of spaces lost for other criminals. So they say well adding a year isn't going to accomplish that much for these people so we won't we will add a year to this.

Etc.... Its a buisness not a limitless hole. Much as it would be nicer to have harsher punishments for a lot of things, at 100% throughput something has to give for something to get harsher.

So armed citizens shooting said armed robbers would be a pretty cost effective solution.

now the alaska chicks 17year old daughter is 5 months preggo.  to make matters worse she says he daughter is going to marry the father.  so two kids are going to get married, for no logical reason,  just to avoid a political "scandal"   republicans/conservatives are such f%$king hypocrites.  you have mccain who walks around like he is wearing a jacket two sizes too small with his trophy wife speaking like the is a robot.  he decides to get a no body eye candy trophy running mate so he can have more hotties around him.   wait maybe he is the daughters baddy daddy and the mother made him make her the running mate or she was going to tell all?  hrm....primary colors?  any chance mccain had of winning must have gone out the window with his terrible choice as running mate.   can you imagine her as president?  oh my is my hair ok, my moose stew done and did my hubby get his new ski-doo?  gawd what a farce.

i guess they are saying her daughter already has a child

http://dailygleaner.canadaeast.com/canadaworld/article/403046

Quote from: frankieG on August 31, 2008, 12:13:06 PM
<snipped>  this moose stew Alaska chick <snip>

If she was 10 years younger and I was single ... man  I'll do her ...  :thumb:
Cool.
Buddha.
Yes yes the buddha is a pervert.

LIAR u would do her now and chuck in the daughter for a 3 some

I hate how the newspapers go mental and jump on stories like this. Half those newsreaders probably have daughters who got stupidly pregnant really young. f%$king hypocrits. One day the people should turn round and make news about the people who currently generate the shitty news and see how they feel.

Yes the daughter is pregnant however her situation is now made a hundred times worse, her mother doesn't believe in abortion so that would have been difficult anyway but now everybody knows about it the mother is clearly forcing the daughter to get some sort of shaZam! together to make it look slightly legitimate like it was planned even if ill informed for being too young. Rather than sleeping around. So she is forced to marry the man who got her pregnant and told to make it work or you'll f%$k up your mothers career.

If i was the daughter id of said f%$k it if im going to be forced into basically creating a life just so mum doesn't lose out on the career of a lifetime then i might as well go make it somewhere else without her.

the conservatives/republicans are against sex education and against birth control.  so this is what you get.   i hate the republican party and all the god damn bull shaZam! of it.  for the most part they are a bunch of religious nuts.

Yea the daughter is unmarried and pregnant and they are applauding her for keeping the baby ... just like duck Cheney's daughter was a lesbian and he was in the party of no ghey rights ... WTF ... much more of the "do as I say, not as I do politics" ... its a common theme with religious zealots. Like the catholic preists preaching celibacy while molesting choir boys.

Pitiful, however this IMHO reflects poorly on the republican establishment, not McCain, however why did he pick her ... anyone else and he had a clean way to the White house. Now if he was younger, like 52 instead of 72 ... this choice will have been glazed over ... Now its likely that when he sees the actual deficit (53 trillion instead of 9 trillion) he's gonna drop dead and she has 3 years and 11 months of presidency ... ergo, we will be electing her as president, more than likely 50-60% of his time will be her time.

He could have picked any of a 100 ... Leibermann would have made an excellent choice ...

Democrats made an excellent VP choice. On the nose.
Cool.
Buddha.

The Palin pick reeks of desperation. 

McCain's reasoning:  Obama is ahead in the polls.  Barack has been effective as branding McCain as Bush III, yet McCain's claims that Obama is too inexperienced and lacks substance haven't swayed polls much.  Palin is an outsider, and so she was chosen to insulate McCain against Obama's branding attempts.  McCain is willing to sacrifice his attacks against Obama's inexperience in order to weaken Obama's attacks.

The problem:  Palin is completely undefined and most think she was an unexpected choice.  If Obama can define her as too inexperienced, people will view Palin as a reckless pick, and then McCain is vulnerable to claims that he is reckless and impulsive just like G.W.

When you've even got conservative Peggy Noonan confessing (in what she thought was private) that Palin was a terrible pick, it isn't looking good.

mccain is 72 years old and has had 4 bouts with cancer.   how on earth could this woman with 5 children, one with down syndrome and a grandchild she will have to be responsible for oh and a son off to Iraq is supposed to take over the presidency?  i really hope Obama becomes president and brings back respect to the office of president.  gets our guys out of Iraq and concentrate on Afghanistan where we belong.   don't get me wrong i think she is a good politician, mother and American just not ready to be president by any stretch of the imagination.

And yea, Oh yea, women looooove the overacheiving basketball player, beauty queen super duper mom of 5 one of whom has Down's syndrome, and is about to become a grandma and she's just 40 and looks a very hot 30, who has been on the PTA and then mayor and then a state governor and is now going to be Vice president of the whole country and will be president as soon as McBain croaks ... they just looooove that.

OK fine if I was single, and she wasn't such a school marm ... I'd do her. And no, I aint going anywhere near the 17yr old preggo. I have some class, if its over 10 years younger than me, I'd stay away ... I'm not some dirty old man ... yet.

BTW ...

Hey, I just figured it out ...
She's gonna help McBain win a "big state" ... in fact the biggest state ... almost 2.5 times the size of TX ... yea the biggest.
Oh ... electoral college, you mean its not related to the land area ... that's not right ... can we change it ... no ... Oh crap. Where is my metamucil.

Cool.
Buddha.

i love it when all a few people can do is pick on a person daughter because she is pregnant. but then again, where were they when kennedy killed that girl many years ago?, ( drunken driving car sunk in lake etc), hell if all aperson can do is pick on someones child, then that is bullshit. the girl refuses to have an abortion, and wants to marry the father. well i say fine. it, ( and the child has no relevance to teh political scene AT ALL). palin has managed alaska well, and properly, and has more executive experience tehn obama does, she as governor runs the alaska national guard, so she has some mil. experience as well. or at least knows a lil something about it :thumb:

Quote from: yamahonkawazuki on September 04, 2008, 08:06:21 PM
i love it when all a few people can do is pick on a person daughter because she is pregnant. but then again, where were they when kennedy killed that girl many years ago?, ( drunken driving car sunk in lake etc), hell if all aperson can do is pick on someones child, then that is bullshit. the girl refuses to have an abortion, and wants to marry the father. well i say fine. it, ( and the child has no relevance to teh political scene AT ALL). palin has managed alaska well, and properly, and has more executive experience tehn obama does, she as governor runs the alaska national guard, so she has some mil. experience as well. or at least knows a lil something about it :thumb:

What's funny is that the media and the Dem campaign wasn't touching the story until Palin "broke" it.  There's all kinds of talk about how she was getting beaten up over it, but I haven't seen it.  Anybody who wants to pick on her over that hasn't had teenaged children!

The only thing that story is good for is to point out what a sham it was to spend a billion taxpayer dollars on abstinence education.  Statistics show NO IMPROVEMENT and maybe an uptick in teen pregnancy and an earlier age of first sexual experience.  Pretty sorry return on $$$, but it satisfied Bush's base.

remember though the abstinence spending went on in the clinton years as well  :thumb:

i read today that the "baby daddy" is 18.  well that, under Alaskan law, makes the 18 year old father a rapist.

Quote from: frankieG on September 07, 2008, 09:43:28 AM
i read today that the "baby daddy" is 18.  well that, under Alaskan law, makes the 18 year old father a rapist.

not entirely, how far into his 18th is he, this could have happened while he was also a minor  :thumb:

any  thoughts on obamas cocaine use, and he edit: his supporters or campaign workers? criticised palins daughter for being pregannt?  http://www.newsmax.com/farber/obama_cocaine/2007/11/26/52122.html http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/BothSidesAllSides/story?id=2773754&page=1

Got a link to Obama's criticism of Palin's daughter being pregnant?  I don't think so, because Michelle Obama said children of candidates should be off limits.  I agree.

Quote from: trumpetguy on September 07, 2008, 08:07:36 PM
Got a link to Obama's criticism of Palin's daughter being pregnant?  I don't think so, because Michelle Obama said children of candidates should be off limits.  I agree.

i digress, and apologise. she did say as such. , but did he?, say as well they were off limits. but his supporters. or ad people and a few onthese forums as well, ( and many others dont agree. if he truly feels that the girl is " off limits" id give him mad props if hed come out and publicly say so. translation, no back room support. just complete out in the open " leave the girl alone rhetoric"

palin's daughter being pregnant is about as politally important as bill's blowjob. who gives a f%$k? seriously.  it doesn't affect palin or mccain's ability/qualifications for the white house. all it shows is that palin is a parent and like the rest of american parents has the same worries/fears/problems in raising their children. (teen pregnancy, drug use, learning disabilities, children going to war etc) these are all very real fears/problems in america for parents. why would a presidential candidate be any different? just because she's running as vice-president doesn't mean her parental duties stop or that she's spot on perfect. nobody is. so give it a rest allready. find something meanigful to debate about for this election.

And Bill Clinton was impeached over that blow job ... and fat chicks haven't been serviced as well ever since ... It was never the same ...
It just goes to show they say ... we're for family values and abstinence ... but that's not what we follow, its just for you. You abstain ... we're busy f*(king like rabbits ... BTW, I've got a bunch of them in my backyard, and have never seen 2 of then F*(k ... maybe they all are ghey ... And you also cant be ghey, but our (Cheney) daughter is ghey and its totally off limits for you to comment about it.
Cool.
Buddha.

clinton wasn't impeached over the BJ, He was impeached for lying under oath.

Quote from: b_long_1 on September 08, 2008, 10:24:54 PM
clinton wasn't impeached over the BJ, He was impeached for lying under oath.

yup, or was it perjury? anyhoo directly not over the BJ  :nono:

and our president was found not guilty..as a matter of fact no president has EVER been successfully impeached

it was related to the bj. the tried to impeach him for lying about it. morons.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxwCUZ_8Aq0&NR=1

Here's a link about what Obama really believes.  I couldn't find the speech that they are talking about, but this is commenting on it, and how he isn't really a Christian bases on the beliefs that he expressed.

Just remember, just because someone says that they are a 'Christian', doesn't mean that they are.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIrrGqckSQg&NR=1

Found the speech.  Read the passages at the end.  They are excerpts from his new memoirs.  They tell that he believes in Evolution...NOT Creation.

Here is a little something that you may not have know about Palin.


Don't dismiss the fact that Sarah Palin is Commander of the Alaska National Guard-- consider this.

Alaska is the first line of defense in our missile interceptor defense system. The 49th Missile Defense Battalion of the Alaska National Guard is the unit that protects the entire nation from ballistic missile attacks.  It's on permanent active duty, unlike other Guard units.

As governor of Alaska , Palin is briefed on highly classified military issues, homeland security, and counterterrorism. Her exposure to classified material may rival even Biden's and certainly by far exceeds Obama's.

She's also the commander in chief of the Alaska State Defense Force (ASDF), a federally recognized militia incorporated into Homeland Security's counterterrorism plans.

Palin is privy to military and intelligence secrets that are vital to the entire country's defense. Given Alaska 's proximity to Russia , she may have security clearances we don't even know about.

She can be entrusted with our national security, because she already is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKmbmI7HAdA

Proof that Obama is a (sorry for the name calling) Flip-Flopping Liar.

He's so quick to change his views, when it can hurt his campaign.  How can anyone trust him to run this country?  He may change his views when his personal gain is threatened again.  If he has the chance to become the leader of a One World Government, I have no personal doubt that he would drop America in the blink of an eye.  This is what he is campaigning for in the rest of the world, so don't say that I'm crazy.

Here is a shocking video, with Obama speaking from the Audio Book of Dreams from My Father.

You'll notice as you watch, that a lot of the book was edited out/left out of the Audio Book.  This was on purpose.  One line that stood out to me that was left out of the audio

"In fact, whites are so heartless and devious that we can no longer expect anything from them."

No one can say that this man is not racist.  This is proof...in his own words.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI77cU3jsFs&NR=1

Hey Qt, here's a link for you:

www.noone_cares_about_your_lies.com (http://www.noone_cares_about_your_lies.com)

Why don't you start a new thread entitled "BS I spout about Obama" and spare this one your GOP smear talking points?

Quote from: quiktaco on September 10, 2008, 09:16:31 AM
Just remember, just because someone says that they are a 'Christian', doesn't mean that they are.

I'd have to agree.  You're a perfect example.

i'm confused TG....if the links QT is posting are citing excerpts directly from Obama's book how is he "spouting lies" as you put it?  :dunno_white:

Quote from: quiktaco on September 10, 2008, 09:32:25 AM
Don't dismiss the fact that Sarah Palin is Commander of the Alaska National Guard-- consider this.

Palin has never issued a single command to the Alaska National guard.

She's lying about the Bridge to Nowhere every day.  Even after she's been called on it.

Exactly Jserio, TrumpetGuy has been in this thread attacking everyone that talks bad about Obama.  Not once has he rebutted anything with any proof.

I've mostly grown to ignore his attacks, but the information he posts back, I do check out.

Quote from: jserio on September 10, 2008, 01:20:18 PM
i'm confused TG....if the links QT is posting are citing excerpts directly from Obama's book how is he "spouting lies" as you put it?  :dunno_white:

The quotes are taken out of context.  The context is that Obama admits he grew up harboring racist views as a black American and cites different friends telling him such things.  He dismisses those views entirely.  To say that he really feels that way is a lie, pure and simple.

Quote from: quiktaco on September 10, 2008, 01:26:48 PM
Exactly Jserio, TrumpetGuy has been in this thread attacking everyone that talks bad about Obama.  Not once has he rebutted anything with any proof.

Whatever.  How much proof do you need?

Here's another -- you say that Obama believes in evolution, not creation.  They are not mutually exclusive.  I teach with Christian biologists.  They believe in evolution and creation.  If you don't believe in evolution, don't take any new antibiotics; you simply won't need them because it's impossible that bacteria have evolved into drug-resistant strains.

You need to see the world in OTHER than black and white, dude.  You worry me.

Yes he grew up with these racist views, and just a few weeks back, saw his faults and left his racist church.  He's no longer a racist.  Scratch my previous posts, I apologize.

Also, TrumpetGuy, you link www.noone_cares_about_your_lies.com  doesn't work.  If you have a link with actual facts pointing the other way, I'd be happy for you to share them with us.  Maybe the things I have found have been taken out of context, but why did he scratch things from the Audio version when he knew he was campaigning for president?  The things he took out of the Audio version are the worst things, things he wouldn't want people to hear about.

do you have reference to this dismissal?  and what about the church obama has attended for 20+ years. he claims he doesn't have the same views as his pastor. if that's the case, why attend there for 20+ years?  :dunno_white: and how does sitting there for 20+ years listening to this pastor he does not agree with not affect his own thoughts/beliefs etc?

I don't believe in Evolution.  And your example is not considered Evolution.  Evolution is the changing of one species into another.  Not adapting.  I was never a monkey.  Maybe you were, but I know I wasn't.  Neither a fish, or primordial goo.

There are some that believe in both...God created everything, then let it 'Evolve' over millions of years.  But these are not my views.  They obviously aren't your views either, so you shouldn't be fighting on that side.

Jserio, you've got it right.  I'd like to know these things as well.  You don't sit through 20+ years of something that you disagree with when it's voluntary to be there in the first place.  You go to a church that supports your views.  You don't choose your Uncle that may say things that you don't agree with.  You don't choose your 'Typical White' Grandmother either.  YOU DO CHOOSE YOUR CHURCH!!!

Quote from: quiktaco on September 10, 2008, 01:37:00 PM
I don't believe in Evolution.  And your example is not considered Evolution.  Evolution is the changing of one species into another.  Not adapting.  I was never a monkey.  Maybe you were, but I know I wasn't.  Neither a fish, or primordial goo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution)

Thank you...you're kinda going off topic, however.

I know I've seen lots of dogs, even wolves, and a bunch of other things.  But I've never seen an animal that was part one thing and part another.  There's chiwawa's and there's Great Danes, but they're both dogs.  Their traits change, and you can breed  in genetic information, but they are still dogs...Just like your antibiotic example...the 'biotics' are still whatever they are.

Also, did you know that Darwin didn't even believe in evolution...check it out.


Anyways, let's get back on topic.

Oh, and TrumpetGuy, on what basis are you saying that I'm not a Christian?  I gave proof behind my statements as I always try to do.  You did not. 

This is a debate, not an attack fest.  Give proof where you can.  If my proof or your proof can be rebutted, then we'll all learn something.  That's why I started this thread.  To enlighten people.  Whether it's that Obama is a good person, or McCain is a bad person, or vice versa, or whatever.  I don't hate Obama for the sole purpose of hating Obama.  It would be great if he were going to come in and be a reformer for this country.  However, he isn't a reformer, he hasn't reformed anything, and he's actually always fought against the reformation, when he could have actually done something about it.  The person that is portrayed in the Liberal media (pretty much all, but Fox that I know of), is not the true person that he really is.

I have brought forth my evidence to these findings, and you have done nothing but attack.  It is only showing that Obama's supporters are only supporting because they have "hope for change", but they don't even know what the change is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2ijZP4pnpg

This is part 2, but watch all of the sections to this interview.  This is an interview of a man, David Freddoso, that wrote a book called "The Case Against Barack Obama."

This isn't a book full of speculation and theories about who he is.  This is a book with facts and evidence about who he is as a politician, who he is in public, and who he is in private.

Quote from: quiktaco on September 10, 2008, 02:05:55 PM
Oh, and TrumpetGuy, on what basis are you saying that I'm not a Christian?  I gave proof behind my statements as I always try to do.  You did not. 

This is a debate, not an attack fest.  Give proof where you can.  If my proof or your proof can be rebutted, then we'll all learn something.  That's why I started this thread.  To enlighten people.  Whether it's that Obama is a good person, or McCain is a bad person, or vice versa, or whatever.  I don't hate Obama for the sole purpose of hating Obama.  It would be great if he were going to come in and be a reformer for this country.  However, he isn't a reformer, he hasn't reformed anything, and he's actually always fought against the reformation, when he could have actually done something about it.  The person that is portrayed in the Liberal media (pretty much all, but Fox that I know of), is not the true person that he really is.

I have brought forth my evidence to these findings, and you have done nothing but attack.  It is only showing that Obama's supporters are only supporting because they have "hope for change", but they don't even know what the change is.

but some here hate mccain for being mccain. i see few people. quote sources from neutral sources. err links that is. TG have a link from a neutral source,? that palin didnt oppose the bridge to nowhere. which btw, wasnt that a liberal pork barrel BS  earmark?, anyhoo back on topic. got a link to that again from a neutral source. you made th4e accusation, can you back it up? :thumb:

I recently got a promotion and I don't have time to do all your research.  I'm telling you it isn't true, the burden of proof should be on the ones making outrageous claims.

The Bridge to Nowhere story is in every media outlet somewhere right now -- some of the milquetoast reporters have even been BRAZEN anough to call it a lie.  (IMAGINE the news media being a watchdog -- it could happen -- oh right, they're corporate)  Anchorage Daily News did a story this week.  It was an earmark by the (now indicted) Republican Senator Ted Stevens, who endorsed Palin for Governor.  Alaska gets 10X the average earmark per capita.  10X!!!!!!!!  And Palin bragged about her ability to provide them when she was mayor.  There is video if that on youtube as well.  Now she wants to claim maverick and reform as her mantras.   She's good at reading Rove's scripts, and that's about it.

QT, your statement that Obama is not a Christian has as much basis as mine about your faith (that was my point which I did not make very well).  You know absolutely duck about what he believes.  You make judgments based on the fact that he does not follow the same extreme branch of Christianity that you do.  In Romans, Jesus said that of all the sins, self-righteousness was the worst of them.  Maybe you'll have time today to read the definition of self-righteousness (and that scripture as well).

Further, whether Obama is Christian or not is not a test for public office, a fact guaranteed by our Constitution.  I'd rather have Obama in office than someone who loudly and publicly claims Christianity, but lies us into a war, killing 4500 of our best Americans.  Like it or not, McCain/Palin represents another term of Bush and his bad decisions (mavericks, hmm?).  Bush and McCain are appearing together at a fundraiser in Oklahoma City tomorrow.

BTW, if you have trouble finding the Constitution, it's at the bottom of a shredder somewhere in the Oval Office.  :o :mad:

And last time I checked, Jesus was a community organizer and Pontius Pilate was a Governor.  (OK I borrowed that but its good). :laugh:

I would like to point out that both Obama and Biden supported the bridge to nowhere by voting for it's funding in the senate, twice I might add, the second time resulted in the funds not being transferred to Katrina relief.

So Palin changed her mind and decided it wasn't such a great project after all. How many times have people revisited a subject and realized after logical analysis that it isn't such a good idea after all.

McCain and Palin will not be an extension of the Bush presidency, I was lukewarm about my parties choice of presidential nominee until he made what I consider an outstanding decision asking Palin to come aboard.

As to Obama's racial beliefs didn't Obama's new pastor from the very church he claimed to have left go the DNC?

Jesus was a spirtual leader not a comunity organizer, the living embodiment of God's presence on earth, I find it insulting you would equate Obama with Jesus.

Don't get me wrong I am not a religious person but comparing Obama to Jesus is disgusting.

Quote from: trumpetguy on September 11, 2008, 05:44:29 AM
I recently got a promotion and I don't have time to do all your research.  I'm telling you it isn't true, the burden of proof should be on the ones making outrageous claims.

Then you should not post things that you can't back up.  Wait until you find some bit of proof whether it's biased or not, then post in conjunction

Quote
QT, your statement that Obama is not a Christian has as much basis as mine about your faith (that was my point which I did not make very well).  You know absolutely duck about what he believes.  You make judgments based on the fact that he does not follow the same extreme branch of Christianity that you do.  In Romans, Jesus said that of all the sins, self-righteousness was the worst of them.  Maybe you'll have time today to read the definition of self-righteousness (and that scripture as well).

Your statement has absolutely no value compared to mine.  You don't know one thing about my faith other than what has been said, by me, on this board.  The world knows a lot about Obama's faith with his Trinity Church.  Whom by the way thinks that the bible is just a way to relate with their lives today, and how to become un-oppressed as a Black People.  They even think God and Jesus are Black.  God is not anything because he doesn't have a human body, the Holy Spirit doesn't have anything either, and Jesus was a JEW!!!  He was the only one of the TRINITY that had skin!

Anyways, you have no proof, and no basis to attack my religion.  The 'Christian' Church as a whole does not believe in the doctrines that his church believes in.  So yes, I can call him a non Christian, because he does not believe the same things that 'Christianity' believes in.

That would be like saying that you are a carpenter, just because you show up to your job every day.  But guess what, when you work in a retail shop selling staples, you aren't a carpenter.

I would appriciate, since you don't believe in the Bible, to not quote from it, in even more attempt to attack me.  I think you are refering to 'Pride as the sin', not self rightousness.  And yes, Pride is a sin, however, spreading the WORD OF GOD, is something that is praised by him.  I am not being Prideful in the least.  I am defending my beliefs, when someone (you) attack them.  This shows the other people that are reading this, that even though 'the devil' is trying to shake my faith, that I am standing strong with the Lord.  If this even touches one person's heart, it's worth it.

Quote
Further, whether Obama is Christian or not is not a test for public office, a fact guaranteed by our Constitution.  I'd rather have Obama in office than someone who loudly and publicly claims Christianity, but lies us into a war, killing 4500 of our best Americans.  Like it or not, McCain/Palin represents another term of Bush and his bad decisions (mavericks, hmm?).  Bush and McCain are appearing together at a fundraiser in Oklahoma City tomorrow.

Yes, it does make a difference, because it tells us what he believes as a person, and what he believes as a person is what he will bring to the table as a president.  If there was an extremist muslim running for office, that would be a big part of the race, because that will affect what he will do in office.  By you omitting these facts, it sounds like you are omitting even considering any decision in the matter.  You once accused me of being on the payroll for McCain, but guess who sounds like they are on the payroll for Obama.

Quote
BTW, if you have trouble finding the Constitution, it's at the bottom of a shredder somewhere in the Oval Office.  :o :mad:

Why, did you and your Communist friends put it there?!?

Quote
And last time I checked, Jesus was a community organizer and Pontius Pilate was a Governor.  (OK I borrowed that but its good). :laugh:

Yes, and he also was THE SON OF GOD, and perfect in every way.  I knew the people that thought that Obama was the Messiah were out there, but I didn't think you were one.  But that does explain a lot.


One other thing.  Do you even watch the videos that I have posted, or are you just rebutting what I say without seeing the evidence that I bring to the table?

Anyone else going through this thread, looking at the poster's location, and then guessing whether that poster's reply will be pro-McCain or pro-Obama?  Its good stuff.

For the record, religion doesn't really tell you where a candidate will fall on an issue.  Christian is too big of an umbrella to draw many conclusions.  Every president we've ever had has been Christian, yet Reagan and Carter couldn't be more different.  A better metric of what you're getting in a candidate is the individual's track record. 

Folks, we're in full campaign spin season.  Every former senator will be slammed for a total lack of executive experience.  Every former governor will be excoriated for a total lack of foreign affairs experience.  I beg you to cut through the spin, and ask yourself whos policy proposals you think are best for the country as a whole.  Please vote on policy, not on who's better looking, not on who helps your specific tax bracket, not on who is most similar to you.

Quote from: Juan1 on September 11, 2008, 09:17:33 AM
Anyone else going through this thread, looking at the poster's location, and then guessing whether that poster's reply will be pro-McCain or pro-Obama?  Its good stuff.

For the record, religion doesn't really tell you where a candidate will fall on an issue.  Christian is too big of an umbrella to draw many conclusions.  Every president we've ever had has been Christian, yet Reagan and Carter couldn't be more different.  A better metric of what you're getting in a candidate is the individual's track record. 

Folks, we're in full campaign spin season.  Every former senator will be slammed for a total lack of executive experience.  Every former governor will be excoriated for a total lack of foreign affairs experience.  I beg you to cut through the spin, and ask yourself whos policy proposals you think are best for the country as a whole.  Please vote on policy, not on who's better looking, not on who helps your specific tax bracket, not on who is most similar to you.

I have to agree and disagree on some parts.  Religion, like I said affects what the candidate will think.  If he's got Muslim thoughts in his mind (I'm not saying that he does, so don't say I did), then it is very relevant, because that can be a threat to the well being of the country.  Religion matters.  It's the foundation for the person, and where they stand on issues.

Yes, Christians themselves have many different views, which in some parts is expected, because the Bible is written specifically enough, but broad enough, so that there is a lot of room for differences.  However, there are many things that the Bible does not stray on, and those are the basis of a non-denominational Christianity.  Everything else is not picked apart in detail, cause who knows.  That's why I'm a non denominational Christian.  I don't believe in picking apart certain things that can be this way or that.  I take the Book as the Word of God, and everything that is concrete is what I believe, and everything that was left general, was left general for a reason.

Yes, I do agree with looking at the policies, and past outward appearances.  However, I think everyone will always look to whom is most like them, because that is human nature.



I have a couple questions for Obama Supporters.  Mostly TrumpetGuy, since he's the most outspoken here.
      • Why are you for Obama?  What issues, what policies, how can you count on him to make the right decisions?

Why am I for Obama?  I think he is nuanced and intelligent.  Furthermore, his pet projects (helping the poor, improving education, health care, fighting nuclear proliferation) mirror mine.

What policies do I agree with?  1.  Increasing taxes on the very wealthy to help cover our insane budget deficit.  2.  Merit based teacher pay, even though I've yet to hear how this will avoid penalizing teachers in poor areas where parents aren't supportive.  3.  Moving towards socialized medicine.  Our medical system is a global joke, and even if his proposal doesn't go as far as I'd like, its a step in the right direction.  4.  A diplomacy first approach to foreign issues.

How can I count on him to make the right decisions?  Are you kidding?  Take a look at his law school success (top of his class) and constitutional law teaching background if you wonder if he's smart enough.  Law school testing is critical thinking under pressure testing.  He's also executed a very effective campaign against a presumed presidential nominee.  Finally, the man is a workaholic.  Smarts, hard work, and a track record of being effective is enough for me, assuming I like his policies.

Thanks Juan1.  I'm glad you contribute to this thread, because you bring substance instead of attack.

I'm going to reply, but this isn't attacking, but just my views, and are all in my opinion

  • His pet projects, should be privatised, because I don't want to be paying for others to succeed.  If the poor are poor and stay poor, it was their choice.  If you work hard, you can get your kids into a better school, and you can pay for better health coverage.  If you're a lazy bum, then you get crappy school, live in slums, and get bad health care.
  Now nuclear proliferation is not really something that stands by those others, but a good point non the less.  I think we should stop the countries out there that will use nuclear power for harm, and keep ours for 'just in case' scenarios.  My beliefs say that the world was once cleansed by water (the great flood), and will again be cleansed by fire.  I don't know for sure, but I'm thinking that 'fire' is going to be nuclear warfare.  This sounds like a reason to stop them, but the world needs a good cleaning behind the ears, and in the butt crack. (my beliefs say that the world will be completely cleansed, everyone will not survive, and not a stone will stand atop another.)

  • Increasing taxes on the wealthy has shown detrimental effects in the past, because when the rich get taxed, the amount they pay their employees goes down, and they reduce the amount of people they employ.  When they get tax cuts, they hire more people and pay them more.  Cutting pet projects, and a bunch of other programs and letting the private sector pay for those things would, in my opinion be a better solution to reduce our deficit.

  • I do think teachers should be awarded on  merit.  I think if they worked in a private school, this could be accomplished, but in a public school I highly doubt it.
  (btw - I went to public school if anyone is wondering, and my mom currently and almost always has worked at a public school.  But right now, I'm working as hard as I can to be able to send my daughter to a private school when it comes time.)

  • I want to move away from socialized medicine.  Drugs will be outrageously priced, because the government will be paying for it, and the service will be crap because there won't be any strive for greatness amongst the doctors.  When people pay money for something, and there's competition amongst doctors, the service is better, and doctors try to know more, and perform better.  And when we pay out of our pockets for the drugs we need, we'll pay attention to how much we're paying and the drug companies can't get away with as high of prices.  Look how well Medicare is working right now.  There is so much fraud and bad service.  It's a disaster.  This is how the entire medical system would be.  Those that work hard will be able to get adequate coverage.  Those that are lazy and don't work for it, don't deserve it.  They get the bare minimum, because that's how much they contributed to the world.

  • You know that diplomacy is attempted first.  That's why we aren't attacking people every day.  When it doesn't work (like with terrorists), then that is when attacking is a good thing.  We didn't go attacking Russia after the Georgia attack did we?  We did go attack that bastards that attacked us, after 9/11.

  • (his law school success shows that, him and his mom working hard can get him into good schools, and private schools, and succeed greatly...Just saying) Yes, he does have great success with his schooling.  I do believe that he is an extremely smart, well educated, and capable leader, however the path that he wants to bring us down is not the road that I want to take.
  I agree with his smarts and hard work, however his track record has much to be desired.  He hasn't achieved much of anything in his positions in office.  I've only seen by his track record, that he has been against reform in Chicago (even though he says he fights for it).  He's not as involved as he should be missing 301 (23%) of 1282 votes  since Jan 6, 2005. 
  Statistics: Barack Obama has sponsored 136 bills since Jan 4, 2005, of which 122 haven't made it out of committee and 2 were successfully enacted. Obama has co-sponsored 659 bills during the same time period.  Of which, too many were highly unimportant things like, a concurrent resolution expressing the sense of Congress that a commemorative postage stamp should be issued honoring Rosa Louise McCauley Parks.
  The thing that he said he will do first and foremost when he gets into office, is sign the bill to allow partial birth abortions.  He has fought for this, and has tried to get it passed for a long time, when everyone else is against partial birth abortions.  He didn't say that he is going to get us out of the war first and foremost, or that he was going to do something about the environment.  No, he said that he is going to enact a bill that will give the right to a mother to kill her child, right before the baby comes into the world.  No one can say that this isn't a child yet.  This is murder and no one can deny that.

Merit based teacher pay doesn't work in public education because it is seen as an unfair practice by teachers unions, remember I work in a public school district. We have a state mandated pay scale that says we must pay a teacher x amount of money for x years of service and x degree level and additional amounts if they are certified for special ed or ell. Now we pride ourselves on paying above and beyond that mandatory pay scale in an effort to attract a greater poool of teachers to select who we would like to hire. We consistently have more applicants than positions, which allows our district to pick the best we can from the available teachers poool. Our support staff is also better paid than the average across the state.

FYI Unions are wholeheartedly supported by the Liberal cause and generally the Conservatives attempt to do away with them, again those are generalizations so any liberal tooting his horn for merit based pay is shooting himself in the foot when he supports an organized labor group which has been very successful in quashing those attempts.

QuoteFYI Unions are wholeheartedly supported by the Liberal cause and generally the Conservatives attempt to do away with them, again those are generalizations so any liberal tooting his horn for merit based pay is shooting himself in the foot when he supports an organized labor group which has been very successful in quashing those attempts.

Good point bettingpython.  It seems that liberals fight for something so hard, but the also fight for another thing that is putting a stop to the other thing.  Not just in this instance with teachers, but in everything.  Another example is self reliance on oil.  We could be self reliant if we started drilling offshore and in Alaska, but they are fighting against it.  They don't even know what they are really fighting against, but it sounds bad, so they fight.

Quote from: quiktaco on September 11, 2008, 11:02:29 AMAnother example is self reliance on oil.  We could be self reliant if we started drilling offshore and in Alaska, but they are fighting against it.  They don't even know what they are really fighting against, but it sounds bad, so they fight.

Another example of you believing in fantasy.  How much oil is known to be there?  How long if we started drilling tomorrow until it reaches markets?  What do we do when it runs out?  Self-reliance?  Hardly.  Pandering to big oil -- precisely.

Answers -- 2.5 years at our current rate of use is known to be there, it wouldn't be online for at least ten years, and we don't know.

But putting a stop to it is causing us to not have it sooner, which would help America out until the other forms of energy could be developed further.  And offshore is a ton of oil.

Also, please site where you found that there is only 2 years worth of oil there.

You are trying to put a stop to something that can help.  Why not use what we already own instead of paying dangerous countries for it, and borrowing the money from China to pay for it.  If we used what we owned, then prices could drop, production would be up, we'd be out of recession, and it would hold us over until we develop other means.  What's wrong with that?

Quote from: quiktaco on September 11, 2008, 11:11:15 AM
But putting a stop to it is causing us to not have it sooner, which would help America out until the other forms of energy could be developed further.  And offshore is a ton of oil.

Also, please site where you found that there is only 2 years worth of oil there.

You are trying to put a stop to something that can help.  Why not use what we already own instead of paying dangerous countries for it, and borrowing the money from China to pay for it.  If we used what we owned, then prices could drop, production would be up, we'd be out of recession, and it would hold us over until we develop other means.  What's wrong with that?

You'd have to nationalize the oil companies to do what you say.  Otherwise, they'll sell (as they do now) to whoever wants to pay.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Refuge_drilling_controversy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Refuge_drilling_controversy)

http://www.gravmag.com/oil.html (http://www.gravmag.com/oil.html)

Actually, those statistics point to 1.5 years worth TOTAL.   had previously read 2.5 years.  And we're still reliant on oil at the end of that cycle, with all the non-recoverable damage to a fragile ecosystem already done.

Contrast that with actually investing in research into efficiency of solar recovery, wind power, and geothermal.  Despite lip service and advertising that would make you think he supports it, McCain has voted against or missed the vote for renewable energy bills eight times.  Obama has voted for the research eight times.  Research that would actually make us less reliant on oil and less likely to be held hostage by oil companies.

I'm proud to be a member of the reality-based community. :thumb:

You don't nationalize it, you just put restrictions on it, so they couldn't sell to other countries, unless we have sufficient supply.  The competition of it between companies is what makes prices lower, if we nationalized it, we couldn't afford it.

Doing whatever we can, from every avenue we have available to us is what should be done.  We shouldn't not do something, because it won't be in everlasting supply.  It will help us now.  And that is even the reason that Alaska became a state.  Because it told the US that it would pay it's way in the reserves that it has.  ANWR is a very desolate area where there's not a single tree for something like 800 miles.  This area is not going to affect on this oh so delicate ecosystem, that seems to have done just fine for the Millions of Billions of years that you Evolutionists believe in.

30 years ago, environmentalists suggested to put ash on the Polar Ice Caps to make them melt faster, because the world temperature was getting too cold.
It's also proven that more CO2 in the air causes less sun to penetrate, which actually causes a reduction in temperature.

I'm proud to be a member of the reality-based community, trumping illogical liberals since 1776. :thumb:

Not every liberal thinks the exact same thing.  Same with the conservatives.  The parties are somewhat dynamic.  

Where are you getting this energy self-reliance by offshore drilling info?  That wiki page mirrors what I have read.  

I've read that getting new oil would take 5 years.  The most optimistic estimates, provide by an oil industry group, predicts that 1 million barrels per day can be produced using offshore drilling.  A federal agency, the Energy Information Administration (EIA), in 2007 said the number would be 200,000 barrels per day.  That's 1-5% of America's daily consumption depending on which estimate you believe.  If the optimistic energy group estimate is correct, offshore drilling would lower prices by 3% globally, 5 years down the line.

Quote from: Juan1 on September 11, 2008, 12:21:39 PM
Not every liberal thinks the exact same thing.  Same with the conservatives.  The parties are somewhat dynamic. 

Where are you getting this energy self-reliance by offshore drilling info?  That wiki page mirrors what I have read. 

I've read that getting oil would take 5 years.  The most optimistic estimates, provide by an oil industry group, estimates of 1 million barrels per day can be produced using offshore drilling.  A federal agency, the Energy Information Administration (EIA), in 2007 said the number would be 200,000 barrels per day.  That's between 1-5% of America's daily consumption.  If the optimistic energy group estimate is correct, offshore drilling would lower prices by 3% globally, 5 years down the line.

I'm not saying that offshore drilling is going to be the thing that makes us self reliant.  Everyone knows that the Earth is going to dry up of oil eventually.  I'm saying that it would help the US right now, so that we can have lower prices, so that it's easier on the economy while we find the other sources.

I want to change topic, and stir things up a bit...

IMMIGRATION

and.......GO!!!!!

easy...shot em as they cross.  :2guns:

Now hold on...that's not gunna work.  We need to be diplomatic about it.  We need to find out if they are crossing legally first...if not, then shoot em.  :2guns:

Quote from: quiktaco on September 11, 2008, 10:43:55 AM
Thanks Juan1.  I'm glad you contribute to this thread, because you bring substance instead of attack.

I'm going to reply, but this isn't attacking, but just my views, and are all in my opinion

 1.  His pet projects, should be privatised, because I don't want to be paying for others to succeed.  If the poor are poor and stay poor, it was their choice. 


 2.  Increasing taxes on the wealthy has shown detrimental effects in the past, because when the rich get taxed, the amount they pay their employees goes down, and they reduce the amount of people they employ.  When they get tax cuts, they hire more people and pay them more. 

 3.   I want to move away from socialized medicine.  Drugs will be outrageously priced, because the government will be paying for it, and the service will be crap because there won't be any strive for greatness amongst the doctors. 

4.  You know that diplomacy is attempted first.  That's why we aren't attacking people every day.  When it doesn't work (like with terrorists), then that is when attacking is a good thing.  We didn't go attacking Russia after the Georgia attack did we?  We did go attack that bastards that attacked us, after 9/11.

5.  The thing that he said he will do first and foremost when he gets into office, is sign the bill to allow partial birth abortions. 

1.  The question isn't whether someone can become wealthy if they are born poor and absolutely work their tail off all of their life.  The question is whether a poor person who works harder will be better off than someone born rich that works less hard.  This is the real question: how much of a meritocracy do we have.  Are the poor stuck in a cycle that keeps them poor?  Compared to Europe, we don't have much social mobility.  That indicates to me that we don't have as much of a meritocracy as our partners across the pond.

2.  Supply side economics is a subject of controversy in economic circles, and most economists don't believe it to work, so be careful of what you accept as settled fact.  Check this document:  http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/reports/treasurydynamicanalysisreporjjuly252006.pdf
The treasury department concluded that in the best case scenario, Bush's tax cuts only increase GDP by .7% in the long run.  That's not much.  The bigger effect is that the rich got richer, the poor got poorer and the middle class is stuck in limbo.  Yes, you can slightly spur economic growth by taxing the rich less, but the non-rich suffer negative consequences.

3.  We pay more for drugs and medical service per capita than any 1st world country on earth.  We also have one of the highest mortality rates of any 1st world country on earth.  All of the other 1st world countries have socialized medicine.  If you want to look at the country that has the most free market of the socialized medicine countries, look for the country that pays the second most per person for medical care.  That's Switzerland by the way.

4.  Diplomacy wasn't really used in Iraq.  Once all of our troops were tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan and we were powerless, diplomacy was used.  Then we used weakened diplomocy, not backed with any military might.

5.  Please give me the partial birth abortion quote.  You may be right, but it seems unlikely that a presidential candidate would make a divisive declaration regarding his first policy.

Quote from: quiktaco on September 11, 2008, 12:24:55 PM
I'm not saying that offshore drilling is going to be the thing that makes us self reliant.  Everyone knows that the Earth is going to dry up of oil eventually.  I'm saying that it would help the US right now, so that we can have lower prices, so that it's easier on the economy while we find the other sources.

What about the 5 year lag before new rigs are established and ready to bring oil to market?  It could help slightly 5 years down the line, but it isn't going to help now.

Quote from: quiktaco on September 11, 2008, 12:38:48 PM
Now hold on...that's not gunna work.  We need to be diplomatic about it.  We need to find out if they are crossing legally first...if not, then shoot em.  :2guns:

if they're crossing late at night through the river, my guess is that it's not legal.  :thumb:

Quote from: Juan1 on September 11, 2008, 01:08:23 PM
1.  The question isn't whether someone can become wealthy if they are born poor and absolutely work their tail off all of their life.  The question is whether a poor person who works harder will be better off than someone born rich that works less hard.  This is the real question: how much of a meritocracy do we have.  Are the poor stuck in a cycle that keeps them poor?  Compared to Europe, we don't have much social mobility.  That indicates to me that we don't have as much of a meritocracy as our partners across the pond.

2.  Supply side economics is a subject of controversy in economic circles, and most economists don't believe it to work, so be careful of what you accept as settled fact.  Check this document:  http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/reports/treasurydynamicanalysisreporjjuly252006.pdf
The treasury department concluded that in the best case scenario, Bush's tax cuts only increase GDP by .7% in the long run.  That's not much.  The bigger effect is that the rich got richer, the poor got poorer and the middle class is stuck in limbo.  Yes, you can slightly spur economic growth by taxing the rich less, but the non-rich suffer negative consequences.

3.  We pay more for drugs and medical service per capita than any 1st world country on earth.  We also have one of the highest mortality rates of any 1st world country on earth.  All of the other 1st world countries have socialized medicine.  If you want to look at the country that has the most free market of the socialized medicine countries, look for the country that pays the second most per person for medical care.  That's Switzerland by the way.

4.  Diplomacy wasn't really used in Iraq.  Once all of our troops were tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan and we were powerless, diplomacy was used.  Then we used weakened diplomocy, not backed with any military might.

5.  Please give me the partial birth abortion quote.  You may be right, but it seems unlikely that a presidential candidate would make a divisive declaration regarding his first policy.

1.  If someone was born poor, then those are the cards they were delt.  I wasn't born well off.  My parents barely made enough to get into a small crappy house.  Not really a great neighborhood either.  Drug dealers across the street.  Robberies were common place.  If someone is born into being rich, then their family did good for them, and they deserve it.  If someones dad left them, and the mom smoked crack, then they didn't really try too hard to help out their future generations.

2. Like you said, it is controversial, so we won't discuss this, because it can go both ways.

3.  I see no problem on my end.  I worked hard, and work hard.  Got an education and a good job, and I get pretty good health insurance.  If other people feel like dropping out of high school and working for minimum wage, then that was their prerogative.  They deserve worse health care.

4.  That's what I said.  They attacked us, so we attacked back.  No diplomacy needed.  They're lucky we didn't nuke them.  Once over there, many of the terrorist organizations dissolved so that we couldn't fight anyone.  Then when we leave, they'll pop right back up.

5.  I'll try to find this.  I've got a bunch of meetings this afternoon so it might take me a while.

Quote from: Juan1 on September 11, 2008, 01:12:28 PM
What about the 5 year lag before new rigs are established and ready to bring oil to market?  It could help slightly 5 years down the line, but it isn't going to help now.

You are correct.  It will help, however.  And 5 years till use is better than never.  We need petroleum for lots of other products more than just power, so it will get used.  However, Alaska has not been allowed to tap into this for a long time.  If they were allowed to tap it when they were going to a long time ago, then they'd already be able to help.

Quote from: jserio on September 11, 2008, 01:13:16 PM

Quote from: quiktaco on September 11, 2008, 12:38:48 PM
Now hold on...that's not gunna work.  We need to be diplomatic about it.  We need to find out if they are crossing legally first...if not, then shoot em.  :2guns:

if they're crossing late at night through the river, my guess is that it's not legal.  :thumb:

You make a good point there.  Hehe.

It sounds like no one else wanted to join in on the Immigration topic.

My views.  Come here legally, and you are welcome to stay.  Come here illegally, forced to leave.  Build a wall...something in the sorts of the Great Wall, but with electricity, and pit bulls.  I think that would do.

I know it was said earlier that the Constitution protects and gives rights to immigrants.  I'm all good and fine with that, but it only gives rights to the ones that came legally, not ones that broke the law in doing so.  Those people have no rights.  No not even a drivers license (that was the most ridiculous thing...someone that can't even prove residency could get a driver's license.  That's horrible, and you know they don't have insurance.)

Here it is, where Obama said that the first thing he'd do is to sign the Freedom of Choice Act.

He gave this speech on July 17, 2007, in front of a Planned Parenthood Action Fund audience.

From transcript of his speech (you can find it at    http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.misc/browse_thread/thread/e6204f3fdad05006   )

Barack Obama: "Well, the first thing I'd do as president is, is sign
the Freedom of Choice Act. [Applause.] That's the first thing that I'd
do. Um, but the, okay, but, but your question about the federal courts
is absolutely on target. I taught Constitutional Law for...."

Sorry it took so long to find.  Was in meetings and had to hunt it down.

Quote from: jserio on September 11, 2008, 01:13:16 PM

Quote from: quiktaco on September 11, 2008, 12:38:48 PM
Now hold on...that's not gunna work.  We need to be diplomatic about it.  We need to find out if they are crossing legally first...if not, then shoot em.  :2guns:

if they're crossing late at night through the river, my guess is that it's not legal.  :thumb:

Kill em all let God sort them out.

How about we throw all the money up in the air and what god want's he keeps :thumb:

Quote from: quiktaco on September 11, 2008, 02:12:07 PM
4.  That's what I said.  They attacked us, so we attacked back.  No diplomacy needed.  They're lucky we didn't nuke them.  Once over there, many of the terrorist organizations dissolved so that we couldn't fight anyone.  Then when we leave, they'll pop right back up.

Do you have a logical cell in your brain?

1.  Iraq never attacked us.  Never.  Even the liar-in-chief Bush admitted as much (after he lied us there in the first place).

2.  If you admit that when we leave they pop back up, what is the point of our being there?

"They're lucky we didn't nuke them, indeed."  What a maroon.

AP Story on McCain Campaign Fibs this week:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2008/09/analysis_mccains_claims_skirt.php (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2008/09/analysis_mccains_claims_skirt.php)

Even though this is hosted on a liberal blog, the story is straight from AP.  Not pretty if you're a McCain supporter.

actually TG we were NOT in iraq until 03 ish, which IIRC was after 9/11/01, but anyhow. im done with this thread,




and im done with this board, until after jan 09. yall take care, and try not to kill it, mmmkay   :cheers: gracias, danke, thank you, ive enjoyed it here  :thumb: :icon_confused:

Quote from: yamahonkawazuki on September 11, 2008, 09:44:26 PM
actually TG we were NOT in iraq until 03 ish, which IIRC was after 9/11/01, but anyhow. im done with this thread,




and im done with this board, until after jan 09. yall take care, and try not to kill it, mmmkay   :cheers: gracias, danke, thank you, ive enjoyed it here  :thumb: :icon_confused:

I don't understand what you're saying.  Of course we went into Iraq in 2003 but we were never attacked by Iraq.  That's my point.

Quote from: yamahonkawazuki on September 11, 2008, 09:44:26 PMand im done with this board, until after jan 09. yall take care, and try not to kill it, mmmkay   :cheers: gracias, danke, thank you, ive enjoyed it here  :thumb: :icon_confused:

Yama don't go, I'm sorry. Was it because I made fun of HD. I promise I will keep my "Liberal" views to myself.

ya even if you don't have a gs you are certainly welcome here . who else is going to post completely irrelevant info that no one in their right mind would bother looking up?

Quote from: trumpetguy on September 11, 2008, 09:23:26 PM
Do you have a logical cell in your brain?

1.  Iraq never attacked us.  Never.  Even the liar-in-chief Bush admitted as much (after he lied us there in the first place).

2.  If you admit that when we leave they pop back up, what is the point of our being there?

"They're lucky we didn't nuke them, indeed."  What a maroon.

I know Iraq never attacked us.  However, terrorist fled to Iraq after we invaded Afghanistan.  Those terrorists along with Hussein (a terrorist in his own country), is good enough reason to follow them.  When in the middle of a War on Terror.

However, you probably idealize Hugo Chavez and Che Guevara, and see them as heroes, not mass murdering terrorists, also.  So you probably think that Hussein was a great man as well, huh?

Jesus H Christ are you deluded...Iraq, if anything, before the invasion was keeping the terrorist's down by killing them and denying the supply lines .  how did they flee to iraq? they would have to cross iran.  iraq was all about daddys war, getting oil and putting the neo conservative middle eastern policy into play.  which worked real well did it not?  not another vietnam bush said back then.  he is right...it is worse and costing us more.

What is Jesus's middle name?  What's this H?

Yep, no terrorists in Iraq...oh wait!  There were!


THE FORMER IRAQI REGIME OF Saddam Hussein trained thousands of radical Islamic terrorists from the region at camps in Iraq over the four years immediately preceding the U.S. invasion, according to documents and photographs recovered by the U.S. military in postwar Iraq. The existence and character of these documents has been confirmed to THE WEEKLY STANDARD by eleven U.S. government officials.

The secret training took place primarily at three camps--in Samarra, Ramadi, and Salman Pak--and was directed by elite Iraqi military units. Interviews by U.S. government interrogators with Iraqi regime officials and military leaders corroborate the documentary evidence. Many of the fighters were drawn from terrorist groups in northern Africa with close ties to al Qaeda, chief among them Algeria's GSPC and the Sudanese Islamic Army. Some 2,000 terrorists were trained at these Iraqi camps each year from 1999 to 2002, putting the total number at or above 8,000. Intelligence officials believe that some of these terrorists returned to Iraq and are responsible for attacks against Americans and Iraqis. According to three officials with knowledge of the intelligence on Iraqi training camps, White House and National Security Council officials were briefed on these findings in May 2005; senior Defense Department officials subsequently received the same briefing.

The photographs and documents on Iraqi training camps come from a collection of some 2 million "exploitable items" captured in postwar Iraq and Afghanistan. They include handwritten notes, typed documents, audiotapes, videotapes, compact discs, floppy discs, and computer hard drives. Taken together, this collection could give U.S.
intelligence officials and policymakers an inside look at the activities of the former Iraqi regime in the months and years before the Iraq war.

The discovery of the information on jihadist training camps in Iraq would seem to have two major consequences: It exposes the flawed assumptions of the experts and U.S. intelligence officials who told us for years that a secularist like Saddam Hussein would never work with Islamic radicals, any more than such jihadists would work with an infidel like the Iraqi dictator. It also reminds us that valuable information remains buried in the mountain of documents recovered in Afghanistan and Iraq over the past four years.

Nearly three years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, only 50,000 of these 2 million "exploitable items" have been thoroughly examined. That's 2.5 percent. Despite the hard work of the individuals assigned to the "DOCEX" project, the process is not moving quickly enough, says Michael Tanji, a former Defense Intelligence Agency official who helped lead the document exploitation effort for 18 months. "At this rate," he says, "if we continue to approach DOCEX in a linear fashion, our great-grandchildren will still be sorting through this stuff."

Most of the 50,000 translated documents relate directly to weapons of mass destruction programs and scientists, since David Kay and his Iraq Survey Group--who were among the first to analyze the finds--considered those items top priority. "At first, if it wasn't WMD, it wasn't translated. It wasn't exploited," says a former military intelligence officer who worked on the documents in Iraq.

This article continues onto a second page at http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/550kmbzd.asp if you'd like to keep reading.

According to the President of the United States George W. Bush and former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Tony Blair, the reasons for the invasion were "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people."

These are ALL of the reasons.
1. We ended Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism by ending Saddam Hussein.  Check
2. We freed the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein.  Check
3.  We stopped the development of WMD.  (proven that they were in development by the last article I posted).  Check

Yes, WMD weren't found, but once they finished developing them, they would have been.  I don't get why there's all of this, 'it's daddy's war', and 'it's all for the oil', and 'it's the neocon conspiracy'.  This war has been a success.  The troops have done an amazing job.  Just because it's in an area where we get our oil from doesn't mean it's for oil.  And wouldn't we have been fighting Russia, Saudi Arabia, or Iran if it were for oil?  And so what if his father was fighting against the same threat?  Just because he fought against something, doesn't mean that it can never be fought against again.

Quiktaco,

I'm done debating truth and fiction with you.  I can't find any source to confirm that story other than other rightwing echo sites.  I did find plenty of evidence that discredits the author.  Notice that no sources are named and that there is no documentary evidence -- only "people who have seen the evidence said,..."  If this had been a whistle-blowing article, GOP hate radio jocks would be shouting "treason" at the release of information in classified material.  This is propaganda, pure and simple.  It is cleverly written in such a way that everything can be denied if and when proven false.

If there had been movement of terrorists to Iraq from Afghanistan, our satellites would have seen it and we would have attacked Iraq in 2002 or 2001.  We can count hairs on a gnat's ass from space.  And it might have even made the news.

Your "reasons" for attacking Iran are bogus.  Bush did give several reasons, one after another, as each of his previous reasons was proven to be a lie.  Those are not the first reasons he gave when he lied us there.  AND, most importantly, none of the reasons was constitutional -- they did not involve defending OUR country or honoring a treaty.  But the constitution matters little to Bush, who was more interested in padding the pockets of his rich homies.  Mission Accomplished there (check).

Iraq never attacked us.  We invaded a sovereign country based on an unconstitutional doctrine, killing somewhere between 150,000 and 1,000,000 civilians, 4500 of our finest, maiming 20,000 to 30,000 US troops and spending almost a TRILLION US taxpayer dollars of borrowed money.  For what?  I don't care if Saddam was evil -- we have INSTALLED and supported much more evil dictators than he.  There has been nothing done in Iraq that was worth even one American soldier's death.

One last question.  Why aren't you there if you support this "War on Terror?"  Or is your contribution, like Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld during Vietnam, better served sipping cappuccino and calling people Marxists and Communists?  If you support the big war, get your ass over there.  Talk is cheap.  My stepson has put his life on the line in this war.  He has a wife and a son.  I can tell you that when the news says soldiers died, every one of them is somebody's son, husband, or brother.  And there's not a damned thing worth them dying for over there.

I will not respond to any more of your posts, lies or not.  It is clear that you are not capable of separating fact from fiction and that you unquestioningly accept things posted on rightwing sites.  The brainwashing has been very effective.  I ask that you think, that's all, before accepting the garbage and lies that are out there.

Speaking of evil dictators.....anyone hear that Mugabe has apparently agreed to share power???  I don't trust it, he's gonna have the other guy killed and shaZam! on his grave.........

Quote from: spc on September 15, 2008, 10:26:15 PM
Speaking of evil dictators.....anyone hear that Mugabe has apparently agreed to share power???  I don't trust it, he's gonna have the other guy killed and shaZam! on his grave.........

hmm...who is Mugabe???    :dunno_white:

Google is your friend.

oh...zimbabwe. haven't seen anything on the news about it. must not be a big deal yet??? or maybe i'm tuning in at the wrong time.  :dunno_white:

Not a big deal yet.......until he has the guy killed and everything goes back to exactly the way it was and eventually we decide to 'bring democracy' to them too. 

Quote from: trumpetguy on September 15, 2008, 09:11:23 PM
Quiktaco,

I'm done debating truth and fiction with you.  I can't find any source to confirm that story other than other rightwing echo sites.  I did find plenty of evidence that discredits the author.  Notice that no sources are named and that there is no documentary evidence -- only "people who have seen the evidence said,..."  If this had been a whistle-blowing article, GOP hate radio jocks would be shouting "treason" at the release of information in classified material.  This is propaganda, pure and simple.  It is cleverly written in such a way that everything can be denied if and when proven false.

I know, it's really tough to debate truth and fiction.  The same feelings go from me to you.  You think you're right, I think I'm right.  Doesn't matter, I give sources that support me, and you give neocon conspiracy theories to support you.  I don't see anywhere that the site I posted was a rightwing site.  Why do you say that?

Also, if you don't want to debate with me, then why did you come into the thread that I started, and continue to debate with me?

Quote
If there had been movement of terrorists to Iraq from Afghanistan, our satellites would have seen it and we would have attacked Iraq in 2002 or 2001.  We can count hairs on a gnat's ass from space.  And it might have even made the news.

The article stated that the terrorists had been in Iraq for years preceding the war...I think it said since 1999.  When these terrorists were moving, they break apart...they don't stay in a formation and march to Iraq with tanks and whatnot.  And if you saw that we could see the hairs on a gnat's ass, then why weren't we following Osama to see exactly where he went when he fled?  I'm sure we could see the hairs, but it doesn't work like it does in a bond movie.

Quote
Your "reasons" for attacking Iran are bogus.  Bush did give several reasons, one after another, as each of his previous reasons was proven to be a lie.  Those are not the first reasons he gave when he lied us there.  AND, most importantly, none of the reasons was constitutional -- they did not involve defending OUR country or honoring a treaty.  But the constitution matters little to Bush, who was more interested in padding the pockets of his rich homies.  Mission Accomplished there (check).

These are the official reasons (I believe you were meaning Iraq) that they gave before we went to war.  If you are adding things and subtracting things, then you are not looking at the facts.  You're looking at Liberal propaganda.

Quote
Iraq never attacked us.  We invaded a sovereign country based on an unconstitutional doctrine, killing somewhere between 150,000 and 1,000,000 civilians, 4500 of our finest, maiming 20,000 to 30,000 US troops and spending almost a TRILLION US taxpayer dollars of borrowed money.  For what?  I don't care if Saddam was evil -- we have INSTALLED and supported much more evil dictators than he.  There has been nothing done in Iraq that was worth even one American soldier's death.

I never said that they attacked us, I said that they did not.  However, this is no sovereign country.  You are trying to discredit the author of the article I posted, so you won't believe it, however, they had terrorists there, they were training them, and they fled there after Afghanistan.

You care about spending almost a Trillion dollars on defence, but you will be happy to spend about that same amount on pet projects of Obama's, like the World Poverty Act?

Of course a soldiers death is not worth anything, however, these soldiers enlisted for a reason, well knowing what could happen.  It was their choice to join; many of which joined after we had already gone to war. 

Quote
One last question.  Why aren't you there if you support this "War on Terror?"  Or is your contribution, like Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld during Vietnam, better served sipping cappuccino and calling people Marxists and Communists?  If you support the big war, get your ass over there.  Talk is cheap.  My stepson has put his life on the line in this war.  He has a wife and a son.  I can tell you that when the news says soldiers died, every one of them is somebody's son, husband, or brother.  And there's not a damned thing worth them dying for over there.

Because I didn't want to, plain and simple.  I went to college, and got married and started a family.  I wasn't drawn to join, just like millions of others.  And no, I don't like coffee either.  I have friends that have been there and back, over and over.  Newly married ones, one new mother that has 3 kids under the age of 4.  Don't even try to twist things to make me sound bad.

Quote
I will not respond to any more of your posts, lies or not.  It is clear that you are not capable of separating fact from fiction and that you unquestioningly accept things posted on rightwing sites.  The brainwashing has been very effective.  I ask that you think, that's all, before accepting the garbage and lies that are out there.

I feel the same way.  It is clear that you are not capable of separating fact from fiction and that you unquestioningly accept things posted on leftwing sites.  The brainwashing has been very effective.  I ask that you think, that's all, before accepting the garbage and lies that are out there.

the weekly standard is a neo conservative magazine that does not report real news and is not independant.  its stories are right up there with the national enquirer.  btw how much time have you spent in iraq? i have been there 3 times in 3 different decades 80's 90's and 00's(whatever).  saddam killed militants and extremests on sight and without trial.  even those related to militants or "possibles" were killed.   

Like I've said many times before, I want things that may not be fact pointed out.  Not attacking, but giving reason for.  Maybe this article is incorrect, but Saddam himself is a terrorist, along with his own militants.  He's killed countless people.

I've never been there, never been outside of the country besides down in Mexico. What does that matter?

Anyways, off of the war subject, since this is supposed to be about the presidential race.



What does everyone think about people saying that they trust Palin's experience more than Obama's experience?  It's something like 60% to 40%, don't remember the exact numbers.

palin is a nut she only gets away with it because she is good looking.   but the more i lean the more my opinion that americans are very stupid and i think they are going to make mccain the next president with the nut bag the next VP.  i hope i am wrong but i am beginning to think i am not.

On what grounds are you saying that she's a nut.  I want resources that can be checked out, and some facts about her.  Please share.  If this is just personal comments, then please say that in your post. 

We need to be clear on what is speculation, opinion and fact.  I try to say whenever my comments are my own comments, or I post the source of where I got something from.  Then the subject can be debated further.

in my opinion anyone that thinks the war in iraq has "gods" approval is nuts .  just as nutty as the Islamic terrorists we are supposed to be fighting

That quote that you are referring to was taken out of context.  Research it off of liberal sites and you'll see the whole quote.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9H-btXPfhGs
This is more of the quote that I think you are referring to.  She's not saying directly that it IS A TASK FROM GOD, she's saying that we need to pray that it is in Gods plan.

For those of you who do not believe in God, this may still be misunderstood, and I don't know how to explain it better, but it is out of context the way that you are reporting it.

This explains her quote a bit better...from an interview of her, talking about this remark

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPwgJ2L2qvI

"Let us not pray that God is on our side, in a war or any other time, but let us pray that we are on God's side" - Abraham Lincoln

This is what her previous quote was meaning.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acQluy7nymw&NR=1

Just came across this guy.  Check out some of his videos.  I think he hits the nail right on the head.

four posts in a row....who are you trying to convince? :)  the neo con republicans are nuts....just like the neo liberals are nuts.  the only diff is that the neo cons spend trillions of our money and get tens of thousands of people killed.  if this bible thumping god is great crap works why does she have a kid doing the premarital sex thing and then a "bastard(their terms not mine) child out of wedlock.   wedlock hahaha is that like pad lock :)  i think she is a nut bag....but many americans are stupid and will buy the blink blink soccer mom thing.  hopefully they won't but i do not have a lot of faith in the american people.

If your opinion of America and Americans is so low, why don't you renounce your U.S. citizenship and stay in Canada?

sorry if i sound that way...i am a proud American and fought well as an officer in our armed forces, i have the medals and wounds as proof.    so what have u done lately?  i also have been elected and in office so i know first hand what the public can and is like.   i guess living out of the country and out of the continent gives me a perspective that the average American may not have.   hope that helps answer your questions.    oh pkhoff, what have you done for your country lately?  been in the armed forces?  run for office? volunteered? anything like that.  i don't mean to be in your face or anything i am just trying to know more about you that's all :)  i try to be nice when possible

frankie

"We're gonna make it a chocalate city......"

Ray Nagin

Never underestimate the power of the welfare have nots at election time, socialism is the wave of the future, I want to pay more taxes so we can have universal health care coverage for all the poor indigents who don't work..... A health care system administered by politicians we can't trust... on either side.

Bigger and more Government that will solve all of our problems, the federal government wil fix everything wrong with our lives, we won't abandon pooor hurricane victims like the Bush administration did in 2005, we will selflessly pay any amount to fix those houses back up and move them back in next time... Instead of tearing down the blighted abandoned neighbor hoods like they are doing right now.

Socialism is just a step away then we can all be happy productive members of the collective working to better everyone elses life selflessly abandoning our personal goals and dreams so we can all be equally miserable. Government knows best how to spend my money why would I need it.

Barrack the vote I say then we can all be financially equal no more fantastically wealthy self made billionaires like Bill Gates we won't need to aspire to better our individul lives we can instead revel in the glory of being equal to the lowest common denominator in society.

I have a solution for all.  WEED!  Just think about it for a second.  (and no, I'm not a pot head)

Until the 1930's, weed was used in many many different applications.  The first American flags were made from hemp, the original Levi Jeans were made from hemp.  All canvas (cannabis - get it) was made from hemp.  Almost all rope was made from hemp.  Paper is made quicker and cheaper with hemp, and 1 acre of weed makes 4 times more paper than 1 acre of trees, plus, that acre will grow again for harvesting the next year.  It would help convert the CO2 from exhaust, back into oxygen.  It also makes bio fuel a lot more efficiently than any other crop, including corn and sugar.  Plus it grows faster, so more fuel could be made.

Did you know that weed has no ill toxic effects?  Experts estimate that you'd have to smoke 15,000 pounds of weed within 15 minutes to die from it.  So, no one has ever died from directly smoking.  As opposed to alcohal which  100,000's of people die each year from drinking.  Being governed how alcohol is for use (like minimum of 21 to use, can't smoke and drive, no smoking in public, etc, etc).  Now, if the government taxed marijuana cigarette purchases like they do tobacco, then the national debt would diminish.

Now, do you know why a crop that did so much, and that even our founding father's smoked, was made illegal in the 1930's?  Because there was a new invention to harvest the crop more efficiently, that was covered in a Popular Mechanics issue.  The paper companies were afraid that they'd go out of business, because weed is so much better for making paper, so they pressured the government to make it illegal or they'd pull their money and support from the politicians.

Just some food for thought...

LOLing at the weed, you sound like a liberatarian :thumb:

Quote from: frankieG on September 17, 2008, 07:37:52 AM
oh pkhoff, what have you done for your country lately?  been in the armed forces?  run for office? volunteered? anything like that.

frankie

Hey Frankie, you support ghey marriage right?  When was the last time you were in a ghey relationship?

You don't have to be involved in something to support it.  Lay of pkhoff, you are just trying to attack him, because you don't have any other defense.  You were doing the same thing to me a few posts back, and it's really shows that you've got nothing on your side.

And I'm sorry, but I work for myself.  If I had extra time and money, then I would volunteer, but all I've got the time for right now, is to donate to goodwill every once in a while. 

QuoteLOLing at the weed, you sound like a liberatarian Thumbsup

I said earlier in the thread that I probably am a Libertarian.  Registered a Republican, but Side more with Libertarians.  Once they have the chance of winning an election, I'll probably vote that way.

Anyways, it's all true about weed.  That's one thing that Bush has done that's been bad...upping the war on drugs.  That's needless spending, especially for small time things like weed, that shouldn't even be considered a drug.  I could see things like Heroin, and dangerous things that are overdosed on on a regular basis, but even then, if people want to do that do themselves, that's there prerogative.

Don't get me started on the war on drugs. Legalize it tax it regulate it and sell it. Treatment for dependancy issues would cost less than inmate housing, interdiction and sting operations that we are spending now, it would also generate revenue and remove the criminal element from manufacture, transport and distribution. It would clear thousands of cases off of an already overloaded courts system at ther state and federal level. Not to mention decreasing the price of drugs.

Go figure, yeah I'm libretarian, I have some hard line conservative views but drugs ain't one of them.

Quote from: bettingpython on September 17, 2008, 09:54:53 AM
Don't get me started on the war on drugs. Legalize it tax it regulate it and sell it. Treatment for dependancy issues would cost less than inmate housing, interdiction and sting operations that we are spending now, it would also generate revenue and remove the criminal element from manufacture, transport and distribution. It would clear thousands of cases off of an already overloaded courts system at ther state and federal level. Not to mention decreasing the price of drugs.

Go figure, yeah I'm libretarian, I have some hard line conservative views but drugs ain't one of them.

Exactly.  Not to mention, gangs would decrease because drugs are what drives them to what they are.  Which then means that violent crimes decrease, and crimes in general decrease.

well tobacco and alcohol are legal.  i am not sure about making coke, meth and heroin...i guess i just have not considered it enough to form an opinion.    many people have opinions on things they have not experienced.  but unless you have experienced it for yourself you are only guessing at best.  leave the important stuff to those of us who are in the know. 

sorry if it seemed like i was attacking anyone...that was not my intent.

Yes I know what I am talking about when it comes to drugs, I didn't like pot, but as you have pointed out there's other drugs and I liked going fast. That's as much as I'm going to say about my past history.

Frankie, thank you for your service to our country. I am not a veteran, but every one of you that has served in the uniform of our country deserves our respect and thanks.

I do volunteer a small amount when I am able, help prepare and serve Thanksgiving dinners at the senior citizen center in my town, kids softball and baseball stuff.

I love my country and it bothers me to hear it bashed. I know we are not perfect, but who is? The majority of the people I know are good folks, some are misguided, in my opinion, but most are not intentionally bad people.

Back on subject a little bit...

Liberals complain that the cost of the war is one of the biggest reasons to pull out because of the great impact on our economy.  However, The cost of the war (fought to secure our freedom), is around 12 billion a month.  Now, the cost of Welfare in our country (which has only cause the lower class to get stuck in the lower class, and caused a perpetuating lower class over generations, instead of working hard and making a living to support themselves), costs around 24.5 billion a month.  Medicare (which is abused with vasts amount of fraud, and given to people that shouldn't even receive it) costs around 32.88 billion a month, and Medicaid (refer to above) costs around 23.03 billion per month.

Now if these programs were cut, or at least strictly run, so that only people that deserved (yeah right) it would receive it, then our national budget would be a lot better.

Freedom has a price.  Remember the revolutionary war, the civil war, world war 1, and 2, etc, etc?  These are necessary things to be where we are at in this world today.  12 billion a month to fight a war for our freedom and security seems like a small price to pay...especially compared to all the economic waste that this country has. (oh, which by the way, was helped along by Obama in Chicago, when he voted against any reform from the corruption there) 

A while back in this thread, someone had said to me, why I call myself Christian, but I don't believe in helping people.

It's not that I don't want to, or don't believe in helping people.  It's that I don't feel it right to help those who do not help themselves.

In 2 Thessalonians Chapter 3 verse 10, it says  "...if anyone was unwilling to work, neither should that one eat."

Now, a big concern that the Liberals bring up is, 'that it's inhumane to let people starve'.  Ok, I'll give you that (however, I still think they should work for their bread), but it's not that welfare is helping these people eat.  One of the biggest medical problems amongst Welfare recipients is Obesity.  They are over eating.  Most of them also have a roof over their head (many of which even own their own home), have a car or two, have television (many with cable), laundry and dryer, computers, and many other amenities.

If welfare were treated as a means to get people up off the ground and put a roof over their head and food in their mouths so that they can then go out and find a job, then that would be fine, but to give them an abundance of things, some of which I don't even have, is an atrocity.

This is why.

please tell me you did not put the war in iraq on the same page as ww1 or 2?  iraq was completely avoidable with no legal justification.   enough on that.

i agree that you should work for your bread.  is it humane to let people starve?  well is it humane to tell people that birth control is immoral then let them have children that they can't feed let alone themselves?  i never have nor will i ever give a dime to those organizations until a sustainable birth control plan is in place.  and i don't mean abortion.   many people on welfare can not get out to work for various reasons.  anything from the inability to affordable day care to medical problems or drug addiction.  then there are those who are just too f%$king lazy.  i have seen them.  men mostly.  who live with their baby mama or another woman on welfare in the projects.  they collect welfare along with the women and are happy sitting on their ass's collecting their check and food stamps.  they work under the table or steal or deal in drugs.  you can find them on myspace or facebook hamming it up for the camera ...drunk or stoned.   i have experienced this because i have distant cousins who live just how i described.  i will use their first names since the last names are not mine.  angie is 25 and has 4 kids with 4 different men.  she lives in welfare housing.  she has a computer, tv with cable, digital camera.  they do on day trips, picnics, have parties and all kinds of fun.   she used to work under the table at a bar as a waitress and doing boobie shots.  this is where guys get their dink off her fun bags.  ewww cuz she is scanky.   she posted on facebook about the 4 baby daddies not paying support or coming to see their children.  that is quite a high horse for a 25 year old on welfare with 4 kids all with different fathers.  but she knows no better.   she did not make it past grade 8 like her father.  now angies brother is jeremy, he lives two units down from her in the welfare projects.  he is living with a fat cow that is on welfare and has 3 kids.  no one knows who the father(s) are.  but they are not jeremies.   he is 27 and seems to be having a great time being on welfare and living in welfare housing.  taking digital pics of parties and having pics of himself with his tongue sticking out and the devil horn sign up on his fingers.   he went to grade 7 i believe.  he is a bum.   their parents are bums.  their father dwight is an alcoholic who did not make it out of grammar school.  their mother is a nice lady but has serious mental illness issues and has been on welfare for decades.  her name is linda and she is the only one of this bunch that truly needs welfare.  her mental illness is such that she can not work and if off her meds she would be dead before long.   the father of this merry crew lives a few states away in a large city.  his grade 6 edumikation allowed him to work as a cook and now a building super.  as far as i know he has never been on welfare.

OK back on track.   

republicans don't want or have a free market society they have a corporate welfare society.   they do not want to give the taxpayer money or breaks.  they want everyone to take care of themselves with minimal government intervention.   they will not give the average Joe any money but they will give billions to bail out large corporations that were so greedy that they made bad business decisions and now are in trouble.

we don't see republicans helping out the American taxpayer who is losing his home because the rates are all funky.   they don't offer incentives to keep gas prices low.  the gas prices are up because, in part, of the war in Iraq which was unnecessary and supposed to allow the flow of oil to continue uninterrupted.   

republicans in their fantasy world offer less taxes,  smaller government, stability, a chicken in every pot, family values......yada yada yads

republicans are responsible for a deficit impossible to repay, larger government with bail out for big business,  world instability,  no chicken in the pot but you can use Chinese imported deboned chicken "parts"  with sauce made from tainted milk products,  family values that include lesbian daughters,  premarital sex, out of wedlock births,  log cabin republicans and more war fear followed by more fear and more wars.

Democrats, while not perfect,  bring reason and honesty to government.  not all the time but really what does Monica lewinsky compare to the war in Iraq, a commander in chief the does coke(hey i can say that)  goes AWOL, is just plain stupid.  other republican leaders that tape and lie to the FBI, justice department and congress.   a BJ in the white house is nothing compared to republican presidents.   

this administration which john McCain supports and would be term 3 tortures people.   goes to war and a lie.  will bail out big business to the tune of billions of dollars.  will let middle and lower class Americans drown in debt and high prices. 

for goodness sake vote democrat and let this come to an end.

I agree on the welfare issues.  There are some people out there that actually need it.  However, I don't think not being able to find daycare for their kids is a good enough reason.  My wife can only work part time because of that, and for the 1 day a week that she works on the weekdays, her mom watches our daughter.  It's tough, so where's my free money?  We make it work because we have to.  They don't make it work because they can get away with it, and get free handouts.  I think there should be a major reform to welfare, and I'd guess that it would get cut to about 10-15% of what it is now, for people that deserve it.  And also cut the amount that these people get.  You can have adequate food and housing for less than 500 a month.  And that's even being generous.  Share an apartment with people and rent goes way down, and food (for the amount that is needed) for 1 person, can easily be less than 50 dollars a month.

I agree with you on the corporate bail outs....that's something that everyone who was involved should go to prison for.  However, the constitution says that the government can spend money for the general welfare of the nation, but I don't see how these bailouts will help. They'll just be lowering the value of the dollar.

The government shouldn't really be 'helping' anyone.  They should be there as a governing head, and regulate our defenses.  Other than that, it should be the states responsibilities for everything else.

Republicans have really only led us into 2 wars in middle east.  Most of the other wars were under democrats, check it out.

Under Bush, the government received 20% more revenue (5% if you take into account inflation), than Clinton did.  The only reason why it seemed worse, was because of 9/11.  If Clinton did so much better for the government with his policies, then why did the government receive less?

And I don't get why people keep saying that it's going to be more of the same with McCain.  He is our fathers' ideal democrat.  Back 30-40 some years ago he would have been a great ticket on the democrat side.  And if Obama, the super liberal wasn't running, then McCain's liberal views wouldn't be overshadowed by the extreme liberal views of Obama.

The only thing that would come to an end if you vote democrat, is your paycheck, and your freedom.  But if you don't really care about those...VOTE DEMOCRAT, IT'S EASIER THAN WORKING.

So why are the 2 major parties keeping the libertarian and others out of the debates ... WTF ... the 2 party system has to be tossed out. However libertarians to implement anything of their ideas, need a 10-30 year time frame. We have 4 years of going in one direction, then 4 years od the opposite, then 4 more years in a third direction, and then back the otrher way ... WTF ...
Cool.
Buddha.

Just to add something.  Both McCain and Palin fought against republicans to get things reformed.  They succeeded, and it was for the better.  These two are a lot more middle of the road than the democrats try to make them out to be.

Quote from: The Buddha on September 19, 2008, 09:39:46 AM
So why are the 2 major parties keeping the libertarian and others out of the debates ... WTF ... the 2 party system has to be tossed out. However libertarians to implement anything of their ideas, need a 10-30 year time frame. We have 4 years of going in one direction, then 4 years od the opposite, then 4 more years in a third direction, and then back the otrher way ... WTF ...
Cool.
Buddha.

Yeah, exactly.  It would be nice to have the libertarians involved more, and maybe a lot more of the right stuff would get done.

man your ignorance is outstanding.   we are talking about today and today is Iraq, which was and is completely unjustified.  to say democrats will take your money  is nonsense. the republicans have spent us into oblivion.  as for freedom, what the hell does that mean?  American freedom is a myth.  you go to jail here for nothing of sorts.  we have more people in jail per capital than any other nation. we execute the mentally ill and teens.   as for 9/11 and money you have to look at the republic connection to Saudi Arabia.  the Saudis are NOT an ally.  bin laden is a Saudi, all but 2 of the 9/11 boys were Saudis.  the money for terrorism comes from Saudi Arabia more than every where else.   bush , his cronies and family have supported the Saudis for decades and thus have indirectly supported bin laden.  why do you think he is still out there?  at least Saddam and his sons had the balls to stand and fight. well maybe not so much Saddam. 

as for the welfare system.  children are everything and republicans(which is admirable) are all for family.  i am not talking about free anything that is something u dropped in here.  but if you don't have your children taken care of and safe while you are at work then no respecting adult will seek or go to work.   corporate bail outs and going to jail is another nonsensical post.  i did not say anything about criminal behaviour.  i  was talking about and wrote that the republican government is giving billions to bail out companies who made bad loans.  the companies made billions at the time so why can't they pay for it now?  the answer is corporate greed. paying executives and republican politicians.    so how can republicans or their supporters call democrats "tax and spend" when the republicans spend billions in shady deal corporations,  illegal wars and friends like mercenaries like black-water.  you say under bush the government got 25% more revenue.  where did that come from?  taxes of course.  the economy, under Clinton was very good.  OK so blame 9/11 for bush and the economy.  that goes back to the bush ties to 9/11 and the Saudis.   george bush is a AWOL soldier, a liar, a wimp, he is nuts.  he says he speaks to god. for f%$k sakes there is no god.  the christian extremists like bush are no better than the Muslim extremists.  i really have a hard time with people that believe this crap.  if there were a god, he would not take sides or even allow wars.  every army prays that they will win...so if there is a god how is this done?   it is all about money and power.  during the first gulf war i fought as a relatively new commander.  i was wounded and lost 2 of my guys.  but we did this because it was the right thing to do.  when george Sr stopped us at the gates of baghdad we thought he was wrong.  but in hindsight he was bang on right.  in 1988 i was a young 25 year old lieutenant serving with the UN for the cease fire between Iran an Iraq.  i saw what Saddam was capable of and wanted to get my mitts on this bag o shite.  in late 2001 my guys and i were some of the first boots on the ground in Afghanistan.  i lost 2 and got my 3rd purple heart. my last time overseas was Iraq  as a seasoned Lt commander in 2003 i went for my final time and 4Th PH.   disillusioned on my return home i put in my papers to retire.   3 tours in Iraq and another 4(Lebanon, Israel , Egypt and Cyprus)  was more than enough for me and my family to go through.  i could not have a normal relationship or marriage due to my service.  but i would not have changed it for anything.  like my political activities i do what i do to make life better for others and to make my mark on this earth.  although some times i have my doubts in all honesty i have more than left my mark for better or worse.   i get a bit annoyed with armchair soldiers/politicians.  but i must say i have learned something from some of them.  things i guess i would not have thought of.   do i think i am better than some?  TBH damn right i do.   99.99 percent of people could not hold a candle to what i have accomplished in my life.  however that does not keep my doubts at bay.  but i try. 

back on track.  the republicans are amoral, Hippocratic, neo christian nuts.   we should be judged on how we treat our poor and disadvantaged.  anyone can be a bully.  it is the true hero that helps those less fortunate than oneself and takes care of those unable to take care of themselves.

OK post your rebuttals but i truly doubt you can match this.

Quoteyou say under bush the government got 25% more revenue.  where did that come from?  taxes of course

I didn't say 25%, I don't want people to attack me because of this.  Yes, taxes of course.  The big businesses were taxed less, so that caused more jobs and more income, so more was taken in by taxes, but from more people.

Quotehe says he speaks to god. for f%$k sakes there is no god.

Excuse me, but that is your religion...atheism.  You can not press that into the government if Christianity can't be.  And I talk to God all the time...it's called prayer.

Quoteif there were a god, he would not take sides or even allow wars.

God gave us all free will.  He allows wars because he chooses to let people do what they will do.

Quotethe republicans are amoral, Hippocratic, neo christian nuts.   we should be judged on how we treat our poor and disadvantaged.  anyone can be a bully.  it is the true hero that helps those less fortunate than oneself and takes care of those unable to take care of themselves.

I think both sides can be called amoral and Hippocratic.  And yes, the right has more Christains, but don't call them nuts, because that is just attacking.  I believe that you are a nut for being atheist, but I'm not trying to attack you.
Treating the poor and disadvantaged is one thing, but throwing money out to people that could easily work is another.  If they help themselves first, then it would be fine to help them a bit more.  When they don't contribute to society, then why should society contribute to them?


I'm starting to think that you are a 9/11 conspiracy theorist that thinks Bush orchestrated the attacks.  You have to remember that this war on terror was completely supported by many democrats, including the Clintons.  If you don't acknowledge that terrorist activities happened in Iraq (which you should since you've been there), then you are the one that is ignorant.  And how is saying that the democrats will take your money is nonsense.  That's their platform.  We take your money and redistribute it to the poor.  Social Redistribution.  Communism.

I do agree that American Freedom is a myth.  We are governed by way too much which has been implemented by liberals. 

the 9/11 conspiracy in my opinion is idiotic...boy i am sorry if i gave that impression.  i do not believe for a second that any American would allow 9/11 or even support such a terrible event.   as for democrats supporting the war what is because of the republican lie and the fear felt by all American after 9/11.  we now know that bush, Cheney and other republicans lied.  why they did this is still a mystery to me.  maybe it was revenge, maybe it was for oil, maybe it was for their Saudi friends.  i just don't know for sure.  but there was no link to 9/11 and Iraq.  Saddam killed terrorists and not trained them.  our government supported Saddam in his was with Iran and we sent arms and money to him. the region and the world are much more unstable because of the illegal war in Iraq.  we are in another Vietnam that keeps us from doing anything else.  it has sucked our economy dry.  we are lost thousands of our best young people.  for what? nothing....nothing at all.

taxing big business less in order to gain employment is a conservative myth.  it only gives executives more bonus money for their stocks doing well.  i am not sure if i am a atheist...i may very well be...i guess i am just confused on the topic.  as silly as that may sound.   oh the "free will" thing..that is the trump card to explain all that is bad in the world.  i don't buy it at all. if he has his hands in everything then there is no reason he can't change things.  you can't have it both ways. it is either he has total control or no control.  no ifs ands or buts.  if he is perfect then he has total control.  if free will is real then he does not have total control and thus is not perfect and thus is not the god y'all portray. 

i thought being a christian is helping the poor.  what did Jesus do?  he healed, he fed and he taught.  so should our government not do the same?  how can you in all honesty sit and let our money be spent on arms and not the poor.  and it is not only the poor.  many middle class people can not afford health care and medication.  look at Canada.  a much smaller country by population.  the tax rate is about the same.  but there are some major differences.  Canada does not go nuts on military spending.  Canada has a balanced budget and is paying down it debt since the early 90's.  Canada has free health care, sure there are wait times but everyone gets the care they need.  Canadians are loved and not hated through out the world.  they live longer, have less people in jail,  are happier, with a crime rate that just puts America to shame.  they are our closed neighbor and trading partner.  they have the second largest reserves of oil in the world and a vast majority of its fresh water.  they are a peaceful nation that just shakes its head in disbelief on how we behave.  i know this by being a dual citizen and seeing and hearing the difference.

This is a long one...sorry, but please read it.

Quoteoh the "free will" thing..that is the trump card to explain all that is bad in the world.  i don't buy it at all. if he has his hands in everything then there is no reason he can't change things.  you can't have it both ways. it is either he has total control or no control.  no ifs ands or buts.  if he is perfect then he has total control.  if free will is real then he does not have total control and thus is not perfect and thus is not the god y'all portray.

This is where you are misunderstanding things.  I believe that God created this Earth as a place for the human race.  We lived in the Garden of Eden.  From there, man sinned by eating an apple off of a tree that God said not to eat from.  He only said not to eat from it because he wanted loyalty and trust in him.  However, with the free will that God gave man, Adam and Eve were tempted by Satan (God's former right hand Angel, in the form of a serpant) to eat from the 'Tree of Knowledge'.  This was the first sin by man.  First sin was Satan wanting to be a god, so God banished him to be the keeper of those who have sinned.  They were banished from the Garden of Eden, and had to pay for their sins.  Woman was punished for getting Adam to eat the apple by having painful childbirth (ever wonder why the human head is so large at birth).
This free will that God gave to us, is to let us follow him, or to go our own way, and follow sin.  He can intervene in anything that he wants, and does to some degree.  However, for the most part, he lets things happen, because if he does intervene in certain ways, then free will has been taken away.
Next you will probably ask why he lets good people starve or suffer.  It is sin, first of all that caused this, however, for those people that are put in those situations, they are being tested, and will be rewarded in Heaven, if they keep their faith, or find faith in God at those times.
The portrayal that you have of God is incorrect, because he is perfect, but allows us to choose our own paths.  This life on Earth is short and is not eternal, like it will be in Heaven.  It is only a test for humans, to either choose him, or choose sin.
Now you're probably going to say that everyone sins.  Yes everyone does, but Jesus was sacrificed so that our sin is washed away from the eyes of God.  Therefore, we are viewed as perfect in the eyes of God, if we believe in our hearts that Jesus died for our sins.

Quotei thought being a christian is helping the poor.  what did Jesus do?  he healed, he fed and he taught.  so should our government not do the same?

Refer to one of my recent posts.  The Bible says to not feed those who do not work for it.  You aren't supposed to be lazy and expect to receive things.  Jesus did feed, but to those who deserved it.  He taught the Word of God.  And he Healed those who deserved it.

In Matthew 9, we discover that Jesus Christ has authority over sin. What is the greatest need of man? This text tells us it is not food, clothing or shelter. The greatest need of man is not for peace between nations. It is not economic prosperity, nor for the healing of various diseases. This scripture teaches us that the greatest need of man is not physical but spiritual. Man needs forgiveness of sins.

Here's a story of Jesus healing a deserving man.  "There was a paralytic, a paraplegic, a impotent man - a man of total inability. This man was being carried, borne by four other people. Jesus had not been in Capernaum for awhile, but now he was home. News of his presence spread abroad, and it reached, especially, the ears of five people, of whom one was a paralytic. This man couldn't move. He had to be carried from place to place. But he and his friends had heard the stories of how this Jesus of Nazareth had healed many people - this Jesus who had power and authority, this Jesus who could calm the storm and the sea, this Jesus who could cast out thousands of demons from a man and make him instantly whole.

And these five, therefore, concluded that Jesus was able to heal this paraplegic, this paralytic, this impotent man. They all believed in Jesus. So the friends of the paralytic carried him to Capernaum. It was hard work. They probably had a long journey, carrying the paralytic, but these four loved their impotent friend."

Jesus healed this man, and he was able to get up on his own, and walk home.  He healed this man for him, and his friends, because they worked hard to reach him, and had faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

You ask if our government should not do the same?  Why do you think the government is there?  It's not there to take care of the poor...it's turned into that, but it's not.  It's there to insure the freedom of it's citizens.  Donations and Volunteers can help the poor.  It shouldn't be a mandatory thing that's stolen out of our paychecks.

If I want a better life than what I have, I expect to work for it.  If poor people want a better life, then they should work for it as well.  They shouldn't be allowed to not contribute to society, and just do drugs and have sex, making more poor kids that will eventually be on welfare as well.  It's perpetuating the lower class.

I think it's Montana, or something that passed laws to make welfare more strict.  You know what happened?  Less people on welfare, and more people working, making money, and paying their own ways.  These people were able to make more, and contribute to society, and they are overall happier, and more well off.  And being poor won't perpetuate to their kids.  It's wonderful how that works, isn't it?

Frankie, I hope that in your confusion of atheism, and whatnot, you won't just disregard Christianity.  I know there are a lot of 'freaks' out there that may drive you away, and a lot of things may sounds far out there, but once you do believe, it all makes a lot of since, and everything has explanations to them.  I'm not saying that you'll become brainwashed and you'll then accept things, I'm saying that there are actual explanations.  The bible has never been proven to be false in any way.  It's extremely historically accurate.  I invite you to read the Bible and decide for yourself.

Some aspects of Canada make a lot of since, but it takes a lot in taxes to pay for it all.  If I'm paying for something, then I want to pay for what I want.  If I want a nicer place for my wife to give birth, then that's what I pay for.  We stayed in a nice private room in a really nice Hospital overlooking a small bay, and the Pacific Ocean.  I don't think you could get something like that if you had nationwide healthcare.  You get what you get, and get mediocre service.  Part of being free, is to have the freedom to choose what I do with my money.  (and no, this doesn't apply to abortion, being able to choose what the woman does with her body, cause it's not her body that she's doing something to, it's a different person's body that she's killing – but that's a different line of the debate).

I just think that we need to stop all needless programs, and have the amount of programs that we did around, say the early 1900's.  Then we cut taxes to everyone (not just the poor and not just the rich), and a surplus of revenue will poor into the government, to be able to pay down the debt, and the dollar will increase value.

I am new to this thread, but I have tried to read a good portion of it to get an idea of the content.  I believe this thread, while not the most helpful of the GStwin threads, is by far one of the more interesting.

I consider myself very left-winged and have always voted democrat.  As of yet, I have not seen anything in the news or media to change this trend.  While, I definately do not have time to watch all of the videos linked here, I watched some and they showed alarming things about Obama.  The fact is that if anyone wanted to, they could compile a host of negative videos about anyone that has been in the public spotlight.  It's like a reverse highlight reel.

I am personally not religous, but I try to understand and respect the religions of other people as I want people to respect my beliefs.  If I thought that a cantidate's religion or lack of would affect his/her decision making in a negative way, that is not conducive to the freedoms that I enjoy, then I would be foolish to support him/her.  However, if the cantidate handles the job professionally and seperates the church and state, then why would I care what he/she believes.  I will never find anyone with the same beliefs as myself. 

I kind of thought this year would be a democratic victory for sure.  No matter who is at blame, the US is a mess at this moment.  It just so happens, Bush and the republican party seem to be easy to point the finget at.  The president does not have absolute power though and the democrats have the house majority.  So really they are both to blame. (I am not sure the democrats have a cantidate that can win)  The fact is, just after the 911 attacks, Americans were pissed and when Bush gave his Americans are gonna get even speech, not only did I as a devout democrat get chills, he had his highest approval rating ever.  We all agreed when our emotions were involved, but once the adriline rush passed and we started seeing the consequences of our emotional decisions, now all of a sudden, it is a bad call.  It was a bad call from the begining and it is all of our faults.  There is a reason that America is such a target for terrorists.  We try to hard to change every other country in the world, sometimes in ways they do not want to be changed.  In my opinion, America has lost its title of worlds most powerful country.  How can we have this title when we are so dependant on others.  What other country borrows money to help yet another country out of a crisis.  We tell our middle and lower class not to exceed their income and live within their means, but the country as a whole is living beyond its means in a big way.  And to borrow money from other countries just to keep from doing the unpopular thing and paying for things ourselves through taxes is just insane.  I have no problem at all with paying more taxes to fix our sub-standard education system or to help with a couple of the worlds issues.  I do however, have a problem with borrowing from other countries to look like bad asses and try to fix all the world's issues.  I also have an issue with my grandchildren speaking Chinese because they own our country.  A country is basically a business and in a business that sells stock, which is all a us bond is, 51% rules!!

I think Obama has the best plans.  I do not care about his religion, his gender, whether he salutes the flag or burns flags to stay warm.  I don't care about his opion of his grandma, who his preacher is or about any other irrelevant things that can be dug up about him.  And if I truely do not care about McCain's dirt.  If he had the best plans, I would support him.  The truth is politicians are human and today with mass media, every word is turned inside out and analyzed.  Michelle said she is finally proud to be an american.  When I heard this, I took it to mean nothing negative, but after it was analyzed and played over and over, you would have thought that she was an enemy.  I understood exactally what she meant and I will understand when McCain's words get twisted by a media obsessed with the big story.  Don't let a piece of our history become a carefully planned out made for tv movie.  Don't let you tube make your decisions by carefully putting together a 20 minute that says the same 4 or 5 sentenses 100 different ways.  I am rambling and I have always been told that you ramble because you are out of things to say and are not ready to shut up so, bye for now.

btw, frankieG is awesome  :thumb:     Cogito, Ergo Dues Non Est

i agree this tread has been very interesting.  i love hearing different opinions.  just because i think something to  be true or right does not make it so. 

That is the exact I joined my college's model UN debate team.  Once in a while you debate topics that or take a side in a topic that follows your own beliefs, but more often than not, you must take a position that is different than your own.  This semester we have two major sets of debates.  One of the sets, I am representing the Republic of Iraq and the other, I represent a small African called Burkina Faso.  The two countries are quite different. Even though they are both  predominantly muslim countries, they have way different problems which changes what they find it important enough to worry about.  My point is, I have my own opinions and even though I personally find it easier to research and debate a point of view that differs from my own, doing so opens my eyes to the reason others believe what they do.  This dosen't mean it changes my opinion, in fact most of the time it solidifies what I believe, but I do understand a bit better.  I have always seen the bible as more of Aesop's fables; stories that did not necessarily happen, but good rules to live by.  None can argue that "thou shall not ....."  are, in most cases' good rules to live by, but was there literally 2 of every animal on the arc or even an arc at all, probably not. 

I read a book recently that put alot of my confusions into perspective.  It is titled "God is not great. How religion poisons everything" by Christopher Hitchens.  I see it as a must read for anyone as unsure as myself. 

Later,
Wayne

hey cal76. I'm glad you joind the thread. You sound informed and that you'll contribute well.  I'm looking forward to some debate with you.  I've never done it like you though. I've always viewed myself pretty far right, so we'll have a lot of different views. No matter what happens in this thread, I don't want people to treat eachother differently on this site. We have a great community here.

For sure.  GStwin is by far one of my favorite sites.  I had no choice but to take my bike to a over rated mechanic before I found this site.  And now, thanks to the east coast valve kit and a great video, I checked my valves today and even changes two of the shims.  This type of project and many others much simplier would have been an impossibility not long ago. 

My wife is super impressed with the pay it forward way that the valve kit goes from person to person.  And she was equally impressed that the kit had cash in it and everyone added to it as opposed to taking it.

I love to debate, regardless of the topic or position.  It is how I feel I am able to learn about my true feelings, by arguing against them. :)

Later,
Wayne

your to the right??? naw i did not know that lol  :icon_razz: :icon_razz:

gstwins is the best board on the internet.  very little flaming and a lot of joking and having fun.

i agree.  I actually like it here.  This thread specifically is one that i typically would not post on, because I do not delve into the political realm of things..too complicated for my brain.  I do enjoy reading good wholesome debatable info.  Thanks for the input everyone.  Its been keeping me awake on this looooooooonnnnnggggg night.  :thumb:

The poll on CNN as of 10:00 am today says:

Obama 50%    McCain 42%    Undecieded/Shatner/Ross Perot 8%

CNN=Communist News Network

ROFLMAO, seems the only network which is not liberal biased? is fox. but then again. im at thge point where its all BS  :mad:, objective journalismis dead.
CNN Clinton newsnetwork,
ABC All barack channel   isnt their motto,"All barack, all the time?"
CBS clinton broadcasting service
but meh im over it. i get better news fromwiki  :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: [/sarcasm]

but hey at least frankie cant be president. so there is some hope  :flipoff: :flipoff: :flipoff: ( jk btw frankie we all love ya, even us normal err non liberals  :nono: :flipoff: :flipoff: :laugh:

Quote from: Revere2 on September 23, 2008, 06:39:34 PM
CNN=Communist News Network

Love it...never heard that one before.

Yeah...this thread's been dead for a couple days.  I think everyone is over it.  There's no good choices like always, and the one really bad choice has brainwashed the left like usual.  He's even gotten to some of the right, with his good looks and advertising...I mean news coverage...I mean non biased news coverage-covering both left and right-sides of Obama's face.

Quote from: quiktaco on September 24, 2008, 08:44:47 AM

Quote from: Revere2 on September 23, 2008, 06:39:34 PM
CNN=Communist News Network

Love it...never heard that one before.

There's no good choices like always, and the one really bad choice has brainwashed the left like usual.  He's even gotten to some of the right, with his good looks and advertising...I mean news coverage...I mean non biased news coverage-covering both left and right-sides of Obama's face.

If you honestly believe that those opposed to your candidate are consistently brainwashed, perhaps the problem isn't the brains of the opposition.

Perhaps I need to re-evaluate CNN, which I think of as being dumb, but fair.  Then again, a compromise is perfect when neither side is happy, and I've thought CNN has been too right leaning many a time (see war coverage up until 2006 and the current economic coverage for specific examples).

When someone says "there are no good choices" for president, it usually means that they don't like their party's candidate.  Which Republican would you rather see running for President?   I thought McCain should have won the primary in '00.  Perhaps you disagree?  Did you prefer Dole in '96?  Did you like Guiliani this year? 

My ideal candidate would be Ron Paul with a few tweaks.  I don't like his policies on removing our presence in other countries.  That alone would make me not vote for him.  A few other issues concerning smaller things, I also disagree with, however, he tries to be a moderate Libertarian, and I see why he comes with this platform.  These issues however, do still get ruled by the state, so I guess that's a good thing.

So in general, Ron 'tweaked' Paul.

BTW - CNN has some good and some bad, so yes, it's probably a fair channel to watch, as long as you don't only watch the shows that are primarily your views, and not the others.

Yes, I don't see any good choices.  My choices consist of either the Rep or Dem's because those are primarily the only ones who have any shot.  There are better ones outside of those parties, but I vote so that my vote will count in the present, not in future elections.

Maybe this will help -- I know I'm much better informed after reading this:

I'm a little confused. Let me see if I have this straight.....

* If you grow up in Hawaii , raised by your grandparents, you're 'exotic, different.'
* Grow up in Alaska eating mooseburgers,  you're a quintessential American story.

* If your name is Barack you're a radical, unpatriotic Muslim.
* Name your kids Willow, Trig and Track, you're a maverick.

* Graduate from Harvard law School and you are unstable.
* Attend 5 different small colleges before graduating, you're well grounded.

* If you spend 3 years as a brilliant community organizer, become the first black President of the Harvard Law Review, create a voter registration drive that registers 150,000 new voters, spend 12 years as a Constitutional Law professor, spend 8 years as a State Senator representing a district with over 750,000 people, become chairman of the state Senate's Health and Human Services committee, spend 4 years in the United States Senate representing a state of 13 million people while sponsoring 131 bills and serving on the Foreign Affairs, Environment and Public Works and Veteran's Affairs committees, you don't have any real leadership experience.
* If your total resume is: local weather girl, 4 years on the city council and 6 years as the mayor of a town with less than 7,000 people, 20 months as the governor of a state with only 650,000 people, then you're qualified to become the country's second highest ranking executive and next in line behind a man in his eighth decade.

* If you have been married to the same woman for 19 years while raising 2 beautiful daughters, all within Protestant churches, you're not a real Christian.
* If you cheated on your first wife with a rich heiress, and then left your disfigured wife and married the heiress the next month, you're a true Christian.

* If you teach responsible, age appropriate sex education, including the proper use of birth control, you are eroding the fiber of society.
* If, while governor, you staunchly advocate abstinence only, with no other option in sex education in your state's school system while your unwed teen daughter ends up pregnant, you're very responsible.

* If your wife is a Harvard graduate lawyer who gave up a position in a prestigious law firm to work for the betterment of her inner city community, then gave that up to raise a family, your family's values don't represent America's.
* If your husband is nicknamed 'First Dude',  with at least one DWI conviction and no college education, who didn't register to vote until age 25 and once was a member of a group that advocated the secession of Alaska from the USA, your family is extremely admirable.

Yep you got it straight. McCain/Palin 08 :thumb:

Once again everyone feels compelled to contrast the VP candidate to the Presidential candidate on the other side.

Sounds like soemone feels threatend to me.

I can not and never will agree with taking this country even furtther down the road to socialism which is exactly what the community organizers ideals exemplify.

Personally I would prefer Ron Paul, but voting for him would be throwing away this country and handing it to the libs to do with as they please.

My vote isn't so much for a candidate I approve of as it is a vote against one I disapprove of.

Now we all know who I am voting for. Dis anyone have any doubts? Nuff SAID!

By Jove, I think he's got it!!! :)

Quote* If you grow up in Hawaii , raised by your grandparents, you're 'exotic, different.'
* Grow up in Alaska eating mooseburgers,  you're a quintessential American story.

He lived in Kenya for a while as well, but that's not why people think he's different.  It's because of his radically liberal, borderline socialist views.

Quote* If your name is Barack you're a radical, unpatriotic Muslim.
* Name your kids Willow, Trig and Track, you're a maverick.

That whole Muslim thing is over played.  It was once questioned because he attended Muslim schools, his Dad was Muslim, and his brother is Muslim, whom also says that his brother, Barack, is Muslim.

Quote* Graduate from Harvard law School and you are unstable.
* Attend 5 different small colleges before graduating, you're well grounded.

Who said he's unstable.  I've always said that he's a very smart, well educated man, that can rally many people.

Quote* If you spend 3 years as a brilliant community organizer, become the first black President of the Harvard Law Review, create a voter registration drive that registers 150,000 new voters, spend 12 years as a Constitutional Law professor, spend 8 years as a State Senator representing a district with over 750,000 people, become chairman of the state Senate's Health and Human Services committee, spend 4 years in the United States Senate representing a state of 13 million people while sponsoring 131 bills and serving on the Foreign Affairs, Environment and Public Works and Veteran's Affairs committees, you don't have any real leadership experience.
* If your total resume is: local weather girl, 4 years on the city council and 6 years as the mayor of a town with less than 7,000 people, 20 months as the governor of a state with only 650,000 people, then you're qualified to become the country's second highest ranking executive and next in line behind a man in his eighth decade.

During his time as a Senator, he didn't achieve anything.  Those 131 bills you speak of include getting a postage stamp made.  Small stuff, nothing important.  And everything he's served on is more concerned with the welfare of the rest of the world, than his own USA.  During his time in Chicago, he fought against the reform of the corruption.

Quote* If you have been married to the same woman for 19 years while raising 2 beautiful daughters, all within Protestant churches, you're not a real Christian.
* If you cheated on your first wife with a rich heiress, and then left your disfigured wife and married the heiress the next month, you're a true Christian.

HE'S NOT A PROTESTANT CHRISTIAN! Just cause you call yourself something doesn't mean that you are.  That church is a Racist, Afro-Only, Marxist professing, Black God, Black Jesus worshiping congregation.  IT'S NOT CHRISTIAN!!!!!

Quote* If you teach responsible, age appropriate sex education, including the proper use of birth control, you are eroding the fiber of society.
* If, while governor, you staunchly advocate abstinence only, with no other option in sex education in your state's school system while your unwed teen daughter ends up pregnant, you're very responsible.

Who's to say what's age appropriate first of all.  I don't want my kids to learn about sex in school.  I will teach them, and they will learn what is right and wrong in line with our beliefs.

Quote* If your wife is a Harvard graduate lawyer who gave up a position in a prestigious law firm to work for the betterment of her inner city community, then gave that up to raise a family, your family's values don't represent America's.
* If your husband is nicknamed 'First Dude',  with at least one DWI conviction and no college education, who didn't register to vote until age 25 and once was a member of a group that advocated the secession of Alaska from the USA, your family is extremely admirable.

She wasn't working for the betterment of her inner city.  She made $273, 618 working there.  A place that would purposely charge more for prescriptions to those who had no insurance.

Sarah Palin is a "real" woman!!! A true pistol packin' momma!!! WUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!!!!!!
It's so refreshing to see a "real woman" these days out in the public eye instead of these liberal hollywood types with hairdos that look like the rats have been sucking on it all night screaming feminism now feminism forever, burn your bras, anti-american, blah blah blah.
It truly is refresing to gaze upon Sarah.

You guys are too easy -- thanks for reinforcing my post!!!! :thumb:

Why do you see my post as reinforcing yours?  That makes no since.

If that Marxist leaning Socialist Barack Hussein Obama is qualified, then she is DAMN sure qualified.

both tickets suck, as usual its voting for who sucks less.

It seems that no one is talking about Obama's ties with Odinga, the radical Communist who was running for the Kenyan presidency this last year.  Odinga is Obama's biological cousin (which Obama does not denounce).  (Obama Sr. is Odinga's Uncle).  Either way, Obama is a supporter of Odinga.

When Odinga lost the election in Kenya, he claimed that the voting was rigged, and that started riots in the streets, resulting in over 600 dead, and many Christian Churches burned to the ground.

Odinga sounds like he is cut from the same cloth as Obama.  Same platform.  This is what I am afraid of.  Obama is openly supporting this man, and if these are his views (which they are), then he will do the same in this country. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8QcpdUtxNQ

BTW, Technically, if your father is Muslim, then you are automatically Muslim.  It doesn't mean that he has not left the Muslim faith, or ever agreed with it.  However, if this is so, then he would be marked for death by the Muslim community, because he commited the worst offence...leaving Islam.  And under Sharia Law (which Odinga supports), Obama would be put to death.

I can't qrgue the thoughts and policies of the Libritarian Party.  After all, it has a huge following, being the fifth largest political party just behind the Constitutional party and Ralph Nader's Green party.

Key tenets of the Libertarian Party platform include the following[5]:                         Strait from wiki
                                                                                                                             v
--Adoption of laissez-faire principles which would reduce the state's role in the economy. This would include, among other things, markedly reduced taxation, privatization of Social Security and welfare (for individuals, as well as elimination of "corporate welfare"), markedly reduced regulation of business, rollbacks of labor regulations, and reduction of government interference in foreign trade.
--Protection of property rights.
--Minimal government bureaucracy. The Libertarian Party states that the government's responsibilities should be limited to the protection of individual rights from the initiation of force and fraud.
--Strong civil liberties positions, including privacy protection, freedom of speech, freedom of association, and sexual freedom.
--Opposition to civil rights laws that regulate the private sector, such as affirmative action and non-discrimination laws.
--No government interference in reproductive rights, including access to abortion. (Right-libertarians and Libertarians for Life usually do not support abortion, but they believe that the federal government has no say in regulating the procedure).
--Support for the unrestricted right to the means of self-defense (such as gun rights, the right to carry mace or pepper spray, etc).
--Abolition of laws against "victimless crimes" (such as prostitution, driving without a seatbelt, use of controlled substances, fraternization, etc.).
--Opposition to regulations on how businesses should run themselves (e.g., smoking)
--A foreign policy of free trade and non-interventionism.
--Support for a fiscally responsible government including a hard currency (commodity-based money supply as opposed to fiat currency).
--Abolition of all forms of taxpayer-funded assistance (welfare, food stamps, public housing, Health care, etc.)

Definately a great party for a Loud mouth, rich, land owning, gun toting, crack smoking, prostitute with no worries outside of the US and no cares on how the lower class gets food and shelter.  The lower class being people with only a 4 year degree and less because our economy is so bad only doctors and lawyers can stay ahead. 
I guess imagrants would be happy because with less border protection, it will cost less to come to the US, but I hope they are not expecting Social Security because it will be non-existant.  Of course the Republicans are doing their part to rid the US of Social Security by using it as their little piggy bank and borrowing from it whenever the mood strikes. 

I took a few minutes to read about Ron Paul and even he dosen't fall into their category.  He is a Texas congressman, a physician, and a best selling author.  He is also one of the more middle of the road republican cantidates ever.  Ron Paul with tweaks is someone else.  I can say that about anyone.  I support George Bush with tweaks.  I agree with you 100% with tweaks.  Obviously no one agrees with anyone completely, but they are who they are.  And Paul is very unsure.  He opposes Roe vs Wade. but supports that it is a states decision.  Kind of like saying;  I won't have abortion because the people of Texas don't like it, however, it may be ok other places.  Even though a libritarian stance would be to prioritize individual liberty and seek to minimize or even abolish the state.  And just when I thought Paul could not get stranger, I read that he is in favor of withdrawling from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the United Nations.  Which are only two of the more important organizations in recent history.  You see Obama as dangerous, this guy is far far more dangerous!! 

McCain is running on the "I was a POW" platform.  He, of course changes his mind like every other politician and person, but McCain strait lies when it suits him or his purpose.  "...the streets here are safe.  We walk around with no body armour.." McCain said when speaking of how safe it is in Iraq.  Of course, another video shows them in full gear and the whole area was checked before they came into public.  Actually they would basically do similar things for protection in the US; bullet proof vest and a sweeping of the perimeter.  Why did he feel it was necessary to portray it as so safe.  He is admittedly not educated in economics and we desperately need to get our economy under control.  The one thing that we do not need is another maverick that will attack first and make excuses later and further bankrupt our already fragile economy. 

Obama is well educated and understands what is happening today.  He is well spoken, I am not for Bush, but it bothers me when he says something so stupid because he represents all of us and McCain is less educated than was Bush.  I can only hope that Obama wins this election, he will balance our national budget, he will responsibly end our direct involvement in Iraq and restore the world's view of America.

Supporters of Obama/Biden...
• Liberals
• Communists
• Marxists
• Terrorists
• Atheists
• Gays
• Black Power
• Poor
• Lazy
• Farrakhan (Black Muslim leader)
• Bill Ayers (Homeland Terrorist)
• Hollywood
• Uninformed Media Followers
• Che Guevara followers
• Islamics
• Did I forget anyone?


Supporters of McCain/Palin...
• Everyone else

The fact that you see NATO and the UN, as good, is why you like Obama, and that explains a lot.

QuickTaco.............may I commend you on an EXELLENT post!!!!

Quote from: quiktaco on September 24, 2008, 05:29:07 PM
Supporters of Obama/Biden...

• Did I forget anyone?

Some guy with 4 purple hearts and a GS - how many do you have? None? Thought so.

McCain/Palin - because there's nothing quite like meeting the children of the women you raped and asking "Who's your Daddy?"

McCain/Palin - just one chicken-bone away from having our nuclear launch codes in the hands of someone who wants to bring on the Rapture.

Hallelujah !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "We've" been waiting a long time my brethren!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We will rise like the Phoenix from the ashes and start anew...........to a "true" New World Order". Learn how to fish and hunt and have plenty of staples and of course..............ammo stacked high to the ceiling. You might have to develop a "cold heart". That is a plus in situations like that.............coupled with love and mercy as well.

I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.
Mohandas Gandhi

Anyone else notice that Obama apparently intends to debate himself this Friday??

And dear god let us not forget about Biden claiming "FDR got on the TV to calm American fears when the stock market crashed in '29"   Seriously,  WTGDF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yeah, saw that.  McCain must not feel ready and doesn't plan to appear at the debate he agreed to do.

If Bush could debate Kerry when we were at war, surely McCain can debate Obama as scheduled, especially since the debate will happen at a time when the Senate will not be in session (Friday night).

His REAL motivation may lie in his counter-proposal -- he wants to move this debate to the date originally scheduled for the VP debate, moving it to some later date.  Can't imagine why.....  I think he's leaning toward Nov. 5 for the VP debate.  :laugh:

FDR did make his famous "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself" statement during his first inaugural address in 1932, in the depths of the depression.  Not 1929, but certainly in the aftermath of 1929.

And I think he does actually know where Spain is... :cheers:

I'm not really sure which would be worse at a VP debate, Biden is apparently going for a world record in sticking his foot in his mouth.

Quote from: trumpetguy on September 24, 2008, 10:11:27 PM
Yeah, saw that.  McCain must not feel ready and doesn't plan to appear at the debate he agreed to do.

If Bush could debate Kerry when we were at war, surely McCain can debate Obama as scheduled, especially since the debate will happen at a time when the Senate will not be in session (Friday night).

His REAL motivation may lie in his counter-proposal -- he wants to move this debate to the date originally scheduled for the VP debate, moving it to some later date.  Can't imagine why.....  I think he's leaning toward Nov. 5 for the VP debate.  :laugh:

ACTUALLY TG no. Mccain, is UNLIKE obama, a senator. and there being a more pressing matter than a debate,  ( such as hammering out that 700b bailout package. hell Obamas never been a senator. most of the time hes been in senate, hes been running for president. dont believe me?, look at his voting record.i knoew you TG would hammer Mcain liek every otehr liberal, out there. a debate can wait. obama, doesnt want to do HIS JOB. which ATM is senator. which this 700b pkg is part of, and sposed to be going through

Oh and another thing. im beginning to doubt Obamas christianity. , which is not really relevant. but that recent interview, when he mentioned his muslim faith

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMUgNg7aD8M or did he not have another teleprompter breakdown?

I don't want to talk about 700Billion being used in one of the most over reaching expansions of the fed's powers in a long time, F'in POS lenders, thanks you dicks. This was wrong of Bush so absolutely very wrong. This bailout is equal to  $2K per year from every taxpayer in the US to prop up failed private industry. If I open a taco stand and can't speak spanish so the mexicans all go to Jose's cart down the street should the federal government bail me out when I can't afford to pay for my equipment?

The answer is no, I don't care about it's effects on this economy, this was stupid, fire up the presses print another 700 billion. Trash the value of the dollar and increase inflation because we are trying to fix a private industry that wasn't working?

McCain needs to get his ass to the debates, douchebag.

BTW half of the peopel resposible for fannie and freddie are OBAMAS economic advisors. and the housing issues were put in place BY CLINTON.

OBAMA made more from them thenanyone else, IN A SHORTER TIME. so quit with teh f%$king name calling . this bail out or somehting needs to happen, or we ARE in deep shaZam!. teh debate can wait a day or two. hell if theliberals could walk out on a senate session, without a drill vote, a debate can wait. the economy can not. i dont want a 700b tab either. something needs to be done though. like say, if you are dumb enough to buy a house you cannot afford. well heres an idea. 1, convert teh adj rates to fixed, say 6-7%, and extend terms for an additional 10 years. if you still cannot afford the house, then you neednt be in it to begin wiht. and need to find housing elsewhere.

There are some people that need to be punished for this. Harshly. I want all their assets seized, locked down, and frozen for the next 40 years and their positions taken away so that we never have to worry about them again in the financial sector. Leave them stripped naked, standing in the streets with brown paper bag and money for a cab to the unemployment office. No home to go back to.
Physical punishment is in order as well. Of course this will not do any good whatsoever unless their replacements witness it all.
The "replacements" need to be told that the same damn thing will happen to them swiftly. And.........we need to "follow up", watch the replacments and "keep our word". I realize that this posting is just a fantasy. The citizenry just doesn't have the balls to do these types of things anymore. Bring back the Vigilantes.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,425586,00.html  8) yes fox. lol but you wont find this on teh 99%  liberal networks, aka everyone else

Quote from: bettingpython on September 25, 2008, 03:56:36 AM


McCain needs to get his ass to the debates, douchebag.

see there was no need for that.  :dunno_white:

Look McCain is already on record and has tried before to pass legislation that would have regulated housing lending practices, he saw this coming but he couldn't get support to nip this issue in the bud, this is just grandsatnding, and he got shot down, now he can say I told you so. And friday's debate is on foreign policy not on financial policy. Thus he needs to be at the debate. I don't like McCain, he is the lesser of 2 evils, once again thats what electing a leader comes down to. At least he took a substantiative stance on this issue saw it coming down the pike tried to fix it and got shot down.

How many senators had a large chunk of their personal money tied up in Lehman brothers? Don't know the answer well I do. 56 of them, 56 out of 100 senators would have taken a substantial financial hit to their persoanl wealth levels, now you know why they got bailed out.

I'm still voting for the guy because he tried to reform lending the proper way in the past, but if you don't know where your money is invested maybe you should take a really big interest in it and get out now while you can. We are looking at a market crash and it's gonna be a doozy even with a federal bailout of investment houses.

Welcome to the USSR of America.

Get your guns ready because theres gonna be lawlessness and a revolution. The time is coming where your going to have to fight to protect what is yours folks, either that or we can all be sheeple and let government control our lives. McCain should keep his nose out of this one.   

http://www.newslinkstoday.com/mccain-proposed-regulatory-reform-for-lending-in-2005-predicted-fannie-mae-and-fanie-mac-failures-but-congress-refused-to-act/

http://usconservatives.about.com/od/johnmccainontheissues/a/McCainLenders.htm

Now your going to ask yourself how would home lending reform have fixed this?

OK lemme explain a small piece of the mortgage lending market.

You want to buy a home your credits not so good, you don't have great fiancials so you get what is called B or C paper notes on your loan, these are higher interest high risk loans. The intent of these loans is for people to better themselves by having stability and get them refinanced in an A paper conventional or FHA loan 2 to 5 years down the road.

Instead of keeping and servicing these B and C paper loans, because it exposes them to risk if you don't make your payments and repossesion is a hassle mortgae lenders take 20 or more of them put them together in a bundle and sell them to an investment house, your loan is now no longer a loan it is an investment package. Your servicer becomes an investment house entity that bought the package based upon potential profit returns of the large interest rate. If just 2 people in the package default on their lons then the entire package of 20 becomes a lability and the firm loses money.

I took a B paper loan to buy my house, refi'd this year to a fixed rate FHA A paper loan and by paying off my loan early they had to break it out from the original package and now are not getting the interest they would have so the package profit has substantially decreased and now 1 person not paying their loan on time could cause the whole bundle to fail.

Making these loans and selling them is profitable to the mortgage oriignator, their business is making maoney and thus their exec's get big perfromance based bonuses.

These loans were being made to people based upon their current fianncial status only not based upon past performance and future potential many peoplle in the rush to buy a home were given loans that they could not afford 5 years down the line.

I do not have time to respond at this moment, but I did want to say that my opinion on the UN and NATO has nothing to do with why I support Obama.  It is why I think Ron Paul and the Libritarians are idiots. 

Also, I dont believe the Senate wants McCain's help and he does seem to be advoiding the debate. 

Bush last night:  If you don't give me a bunch of money that no one has to fix my mistakes, then we are all doomed!!!

Bush should have said last night:  I F@$#& up and I really need you to fully bankrupt the country by bailing me out!!  BTW, you may want to quit voting for religious or military reasons and start voting with a bit of common sense.  Else, you will be F@%#$% even more!!

Thanks Revere2

Quote from: trumpetguy on September 24, 2008, 08:52:11 PM
I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.
Mohandas Gandhi

Hhmmm Jedi, sinned has everyone.  Find Christ must we.

Christians are, like you've always said, hypocrites, liars, adulterers, drug users, murderers, and anything else that you can through their way.  The only difference is, they have found Christ, repented their sins, and He has forgiven them of their sins.  That doesn't mean that these people won't ever sin again.  It just means that Christ will forgive them of their sins again.  To be Christian, means to live in God's image.  This is impossible, but it's what we strive for.

Quote from: quiktaco on September 24, 2008, 04:33:45 PM
It seems that no one is talking about Obama's ties with Odinga, the radical Communist who was running for the Kenyan presidency this last year.  Odinga is Obama's biological cousin (which Obama does not denounce).  (Obama Sr. is Odinga's Uncle).  Either way, Obama is a supporter of Odinga.

When Odinga lost the election in Kenya, he claimed that the voting was rigged, and that started riots in the streets, resulting in over 600 dead, and many Christian Churches burned to the ground.

Odinga sounds like he is cut from the same cloth as Obama.  Same platform.  This is what I am afraid of.  Obama is openly supporting this man, and if these are his views (which they are), then he will do the same in this country. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8QcpdUtxNQ

BTW, Technically, if your father is Muslim, then you are automatically Muslim.  It doesn't mean that he has not left the Muslim faith, or ever agreed with it.  However, if this is so, then he would be marked for death by the Muslim community, because he committed the worst offense...leaving Islam.  And under Sharia Law (which Odinga supports), Obama would be put to death.

Is everyone avoiding this topic?  This seems huge to me.  He is a supporter of a Communist Extremist, who also happens to be his cousin.  A supporter of Sharia Law, Muslim Sympathizers, Riot initiator.  OBAMA SUPPORTS HIM!!!

Quote from: Cal76 on September 25, 2008, 07:42:10 AM
I do not have time to respond at this moment, but I did want to say that my opinion on the UN and NATO has nothing to do with why I support Obama.  It is why I think Ron Paul and the Libritarians are idiots.

Read the whole article.  It's a good read.
Article from... http://www.science.co.il/Arab-Israeli-conflict/Articles/Prager-2004-04-20.asp (I pulled out some key points)

Israel has killed Abdel Aziz Rantisi, the Hamas terror leader, and almost every nation in the world – and the nations' theoretical embodiment, the United Nations – have condemned Israel for doing so.

World leaders and the world organization have said almost nothing about Communist China's ongoing destruction of one of the world's oldest civilizations, Tibet. World leaders have said almost nothing about the Arab enslavement and genocide of non-Arab blacks in Sudan. But they convene world conferences to label Israel, one of the most humane and decent democracies on earth, a pariah.

I have contempt for the United Nations. It is one of the great obstacles to goodness and decency on this planet. Its moral record – outside of a few specialized agencies such as the World Health Organization – is almost entirely supportive of evil and condemnatory of good. It is dominated by the most morally backward governments in the world – those from the Arab and Muslim worlds, the communists during their heyday and African despots.

These are the reasons why the US hasn't been a part of these evil organizations.

Quote from: quiktaco on September 24, 2008, 05:29:07 PM
Supporters of Obama/Biden...
• gheys

not all of us.

Quote from: CanukGS500 on September 25, 2008, 09:25:21 AM

Quote from: quiktaco on September 24, 2008, 05:29:07 PM
Supporters of Obama/Biden...
• gheys

not all of us.

I'm glad to here that.

well there was a pretty good article in "The Republic" i think it was durign the time hillary was still in contention for the democratic nomination.

Basically, the article said that the democratic party is the "part of the persecuted" and by putting up a black person (sorry, but he's BLACK, not this "African American" bullshit.  unless he was BORN IN AFRICA, came here and got naturalized, he's fuckin black, period, end of story, but i digress...) against a woman splits the party because they cant decide which group has been persecuted more, and neither side can say "you dont know what its like to be persecuted".

The sentiment seems to run throughout those who affiliate with the democratic party.  Instead of being a member of the party because they believe on the whole in their ideology, they have given themselves a case of "tunnel vision" and vote for them simply because they want to end the persecution of blacks/jews/gays/immigrants/insert-your-favorite-persecuted-group-here.

Do I think Obama has a better shot at giving gays secular equality versus McCain?  Probably.  But at the same time, Obama's voting record on partial birth abortions scares the sh*t out of me.  To Cliff's Notes™ his position, he feels that if a doctor botches a partial birth abortion and the baby survives and is crying and able to breathe and survive on its own, its okay to still kill it.

Regardless of where you stand on the abortion issue, I think any sane person would agree that once a baby is born if it is able to survive on its own its a person and has the same human rights as everyone else.

Hence, even though I dont think McCain is a good choice for president, someone who condones murder like Obama is no choice at all, and I wont compromise my principles to get what I want (secular ghey equality) at the expense of another human life.

Some lines you just don't cross nomatter how much you want something.

Quote from: CanukGS500 on September 25, 2008, 09:38:54 AM
well there was a pretty good article in "The Republic" i think it was durign the time hillary was still in contention for the democratic nomination.

Basically, the article said that the democratic party is the "part of the persecuted" and by putting up a black person (sorry, but he's BLACK, not this "African American" bullshit.  unless he was BORN IN AFRICA, came here and got naturalized, he's f%$kin black, period, end of story, but i digress...) against a woman splits the party because they cant decide which group has been persecuted more, and neither side can say "you dont know what its like to be persecuted".

The sentiment seems to run throughout those who affiliate with the democratic party.  Instead of being a member of the party because they believe on the whole in their ideology, they have given themselves a case of "tunnel vision" and vote for them simply because they want to end the persecution of blacks/jews/gheys/immigrants/insert-your-favorite-persecuted-group-here.

Do I think Obama has a better shot at giving gheys secular equality versus McCain?  Probably.  But at the same time, Obama's voting record on partial birth abortions scares the sh*t out of me.  To Cliff's Notes™ his position, he feels that if a doctor botches a partial birth abortion and the baby survives and is crying and able to breathe and survive on its own, its okay to still kill it.

Regardless of where you stand on the abortion issue, I think any sane person would agree that once a baby is born if it is able to survive on its own its a person and has the same human rights as everyone else.

Hence, even though I dont think McCain is a good choice for president, someone who condones murder like Obama is no choice at all, and I wont compromise my principles to get what I want (secular ghey equality) at the expense of another human life.

Some lines you just don't cross nomatter how much you want something.

Very good post

A little view on Obama's Economic past in Illinois...

...Striking result of our tour through Obama's Springfield days. Conventional wisdom has it that John McCain holds a political advantage over Obama on war and foreign policy issues, while Obama is favored to handle the economy. Yet Obama's economic experience is largely limited to social welfare spending. Indeed, precisely because of his penchant for spending, Obama's fingerprints are all over Illinois's burgeoning fiscal crisis.

The Illinois state budget has been in an ever-widening crisis since 2001. In an April 2007 report, a committee of top Chicago business leaders warned that the state was "headed toward fiscal implosion." Illinois's unfunded pension debt is the highest in the nation, while Illinois is sixth in the nation in per capita tax-supported debt. Yet the Illinois General Assembly-now controlled by Obama's Democratic allies-churns out at will exactly the sort of spending programs Obama pushed for, with only partial success, under the Republicans. The result is a fast-growing gap between revenues and expenditures (unimpeded by the statutory requirement of a balanced budget), rising fears of fiscal meltdown, finger-pointing, and political gridlock.

A watershed moment in Illinois's fiscal decline came in 2002, when crashing receipts and Democratic reluctance to enact spending cuts forced Republican governor George Ryan to call a special legislative session. While Ryan railed at legislators for refusing to rein in an out-of-control budget, the Chicago Tribune spoke ominously of an "all-consuming state budget crisis." Unwilling to cut back on social welfare spending, Obama's chief partner and political mentor, senate Democratic leader Emil Jones, came up with the idea of borrowing against the proceeds of a windfall tobacco lawsuit settlement due to the state.

This idea sent the editorial pages of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and the Chicago Tribune into a tizzy. Editorialists hammered cut-averse legislators for "chickening out," for making use of "tricked-up numbers," for a "cowardly abdication of responsibility," and for sacrificing the state's bond rating to "short-term political gains." As critics repeatedly pointed out, borrowing against a onetime tobacco settlement-instead of balancing the budget with regular revenues-would be a recipe for long-term fiscal disaster.

What was Obama doing while all this was going on? He was promoting the tobacco securitization plan in his Hyde Park Herald column, railing against the governor in the Defender for balancing the budget "on the back of the poor," and voting to override cuts in treasured programs like bilingual education. Actually, far from "balancing the budget on the backs of the poor," the governor had trimmed evenly across all the state's most expensive programs. In the end, Ryan did force a number of cuts, yet the resistance of Obama and his allies took a toll. When, just a year later, Democrats added control of the governorship and state senate to their existing control of the house, they revealed that the state deficit had reached $5 billion-far larger than most had feared. Since then it's been a swift downhill tumble toward fiscal implosion for Illinois. - Stanley Kurtz

Obama will force businesses to go out of the Country causing major job losses.  Taxes on so many things, including oil.  That means it's going to cost more to heat your home, or cook your food, or drive to work.  Look at his past, to see what he will do in the future.


In The Illinois State Senate, Barack Obama Had A Record Of Voting For Higher Taxes

In The State Senate, Barack Obama Supported "Hundreds Of Tax Increases." ABC's Terry Moran: "

• bama was considered a reliable liberal Democratic vote in Illinois. For instance, voting for most gun control measures, opposing efforts to ban so-called partial birth abortions and supporting hundreds of tax increases." (ABC's "Nightline," 2/25/08)
  In 2004, Barack Obama Voted For A $304 Million Tax Increase On Businesses In Creating The Tax Shelter Voluntary Compliance Act. (H.B. 848, Illinois Senate Floor Third Reading, Passed 30-28-1, 5/20/04, Obama Voted Yea; Dave McKinney, "Blagojevich Threatens Up To 5,000 State Layoffs," Chicago Sun-Times, 5/21/04)
  
  The Legislation "Triggered A Huge Outcry From Business Groups," Which Contended It Would "Drive Companies Out Of State" And Cost Jobs. "The governor's bid to raise taxes and fees by close to $400 million and reel in another $300 million-plus in corporate tax breaks has triggered a huge outcry from business groups, which contend the moves will drive companies out of state and cause Illinois to lose jobs." (Dave McKinney and Leslie Griffy, "Blagojevich Threatens Up To 5,000 State Layoffs," Chicago Sun-Times, 5/21/04)
  In 2003, Barack Obama Voted For A Bill "That Raised A Huge Number Of Fees And Taxes" On Businesses And Licenses. "Obama voted for a bill during the 2003 Illinois General Assembly legislative session that raised a huge number of fees and taxes for businesses and licenses to cover day-to-day expenses of state government." (Terrence L. Barnich, Op-Ed, "4 Partisan Questions For Obama," Chicago Tribune, 7/29/04)
  
  The Legislation Negatively Impacted Illinois' Trucking Industry, Costing The State 25,000 Licensed Trucks In 2005. "Almost 17,000 fewer commercial trucks and 2,700 fewer trucking companies have been registered in Illinois for 2005, fueling the trucking industry's claim that Gov. Rod Blagojevich is driving businesses out of the state with his new fees and business taxes." (Brian Wallheimer, "Governor's New Fees Are Driving Trucking Firms Out Of Illinois, Industry Says," St. Louis Post- Dispatch, 5/5/04)
  In 2003, Barack Obama Voted To Tax Natural Gas Purchased Outside Of Illinois. (S.B. 1733, Bill Status, www.ilga.gov, Accessed 2/11/08; S.B. 1733: Concurrence In House Amendment #4, Passed 31-27-00, 5/31/03, Obama Voted Yea)
  
  The Natural Gas Tax Made Natural Gas More Expensive For Industrial Buyers Such As Manufacturers. "The natural gas tax. A new policy under Blagojevich's budget will make natural gas more expensive to industrial buyers. Currently, Illinois offers an exemption on the sales tax paid for natural gas, but the new budget ends that exemption, a move that could become a major expense for steel mills and other factories that use large quantities of natural gas." (Kevin McDermott, "Area Dodged Legislative Hit On Schools, Roads," St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 6/8/03)
  Barack Obama Voted For The Natural Gas Tax, Which Threatened Jobs, At The Same Time That Illinois Was Leading The Nation In Jobs Lost. "Just as harmful to the state's economy are the large taxes on natural gas brought from out-of-state suppliers and the rolling stock sales tax. Both of these taxes will negatively affect important businesses as well as the employees who are dependent on these Illinois companies. I have received phone calls and letters from all sectors of the business community who reported that the projected loss of revenues due to these increased taxes and fees may well cause them to close their facilities in Illinois and move to a more business-friendly surrounding state while still serving Illinois customers. Illinois leads the nation in jobs lost. We cannot afford to drive more businesses from our state." (State Rep. Carolyn Krause, Op-Ed, "Increase Tax Incentives, Not Taxes For Businesses," Chicago Tribune, 6/13/03)
  In 1999, Barack Obama Voted In Favor Of S.B. 1028 To Create The Illinois First Infrastructure Program, Which Raised 146 Taxes And Fees. (S.B. 1028: Senate Floor Third Reading, Passed, 58-0-0, 3/23/99, Obama Voted Yea; S.B. 1028: Senate Conference Committee Report, Passed, 42-17-0, 5/21/99, Obama Voted Yea; Editorial, "Jack Ryan Woefully Unprepared For Attack On Obama," The State Journal-Register, 4/18/04) [/i]- http://www.whitehouse.com/FullStory.aspx?NewsID=1058

Looks like the gaps are closing... per www.whitehouse.com - 12 independent polls averaged

McCain vs Obama:   McCain: 46.3  Obama: 46.3  Other: 7.8

I like a close race, it keeps things interesting and keeps groups like us debating and gaining valuable knowledge. 

I read the entire article by Dennis Prager and it had good and bad points.  It is obviously biased and since the United Nations was formed in 1945 after WW2, I really don't see how they could have changed the Holocaust or WW2.  Prager is a Judeo-Christian whom is obviously anti-muslim (ie. Qur'an oath controversy of the 110th United States Congress, where Prager basically claimed that an oath on the bible was more reliable than an oath on the Qur'an.)  I am sure the UN is not effective in solving all issues, but at least they try to go about problem solving in a diplomatic way that as many countries as possible can agree with.  Prager's views of the United Nation are like those of a conspiracy theorist, it just doesn't make since to say that "The communist genocides meant nothing to humanity. The Holocaust meant nothing."   It sounds like the same "the Goverment was responsible for 911" or any other of the zelot type ways of thinking.  You know, Davin Koresh and Charles Manson probably made decent points about some issues, but I do not believe I will use their teachings to prove a point.  The article, to me, was not much more than unsubstanciated musings of a Judeo-Christian moron.

I really hope the country rebounds from the economic crisis, no matter who is the next president (at this moment, it is definately anybody's game)  The economic crisis is the major issue in this election and, for me, Obama is the obvious choice.  I think if he was a white, community organizer, Senator from Illinois, this would be a blow out.  I really think the fact that he is black, is the main reasopn the election is close.  It may not be because people are racist, but it is an issue for some. 

QuoteI really hope the country rebounds from the economic crisis, no matter who is the next president (at this moment, it is definately anybody's game)  The economic crisis is the major issue in this election and, for me, Obama is the obvious choice.  I think if he was a white, community organizer, Senator from Illinois, this would be a blow out.  I really think the fact that he is black, is the main reasopn the election is close.  It may not be because people are racist, but it is an issue for some.

The economy will probably be the largest issue when people actually cast their votes.  However, I can not see how you think Obama is the obvious choice for that.  His speeches say one thing, and it sounds all good and grand, but his actions in his past say a whole different story.  The only thing that will happen with the economy, under Obama, is tax cuts for the lower middle class, but tax hikes on everything else.  These tax hikes will make businesses leave the country, and drastically downsize.  This will lead to loss of jobs, and less income for this lower middle class.  Not to mention the cost of everything else will increase.  Major taxes on oil will make everything that relies on oil have their prices go up.  Even groceries need oil to transport their food to the stores.

Everyone needs to look past "tax cuts for the middle class, and helping the poor", and see what it will really do to the economy.  It's not just, "yeah! tax cuts for us!"  When people will be loosing their jobs, and more people on welfare and unemployment, and the pride of milk is 7 dollars a gallon, and gas meets or exceeds that.  The poor will get poorer, and the middle class will get poorer.  And guess who gets richer.  The Rich.  That's exactly what you think you're fighting against.  But you have it completely backward.

OK that's it guys, I would like to withdraw my nomination for the president. Yea, it has been fun, but I realised that the GS500 has no room in today's democracy ... demo-crazy ...

Now beat it, I am going to get on my Kat Fe, GSXR shock, kat rear wheel, GR motor and GSXR 36mm carbs equipped GS500 and go for a ride ... sheesh ... so unfair.

Cool.
Buddha.
Buddha for president - not any more ...

I am in Engineering and not Economics so, it is definately possible that I do not understand everything there is to know about politics.
I know for a fact that the economy was great when Clinton was president and I know for a fact it sucks now.  I do not know for a fact what McCain or Obama will do.  In fact, neither will probably do anything close to what they say they are going to do.  I am confused about one thing.  If Obama will tax businesses that rich people own, how exactally will they get richer??  I am for a responsible amount of taxing in all classes.  I am not for cutting all taxes and borrowing from China to off set the expense.  


I would definately vote Buddha for president!!  He seems to me to be a realist and has a firm grasp on the world as it is seen from Buddha's eyes. 

They will keep their income at a constant level (or raise), and lower everyone else's with pay cuts and layoffs.

Bush's economy has actually grossed more income with his tax cuts.  20% more than Clinton did (5% if you take inflation into account).  The reason the economy seems so bad is because of 9/11 and the wars.  If the wars weren't going on, then everyone would see that Bush's economy is actually better.  However, there is a price for freedom.  Sometimes we have to go to war to ensure our freedom.

The economy began declining during the Clinton years. Reagan inherited a horrible economy with record inflation from Carter's administration. Economic growth began during the Reagan administration continued through Bush 1 and was inherited by Clinton. I am old enought to remeber sky high interest rates during carters adminstration and the early part of reagans. Inflation and interest as well as unemployment declined during the 80's and early 90's leveled out during the 90's and artificially appeared to be great during the dot com boom.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_36/art04_36/0436_46news.gif

This is a good comparison between the two economies.  I'm not saying that Clinton's was bad.  It was a very good economy.  However, take a look at the 'real disposable income' and 'ten year treasure interest rate' - these two would be some of the most telling of the economy.  Bush's economy was post 9/11 when economic confidence was really low, however it still thrived.  Don't discount Bush's economic policies.  Underneath his incompetent exterior, he is a very smart man.

Quote from: quiktaco on September 25, 2008, 01:56:07 PM
<snip> The reason the economy seems so bad is because of 9/11 .<snip>

Ooooohhhhh this is the Bushies favorite lie ... he just lets that one slip in ... "our economy slipped into recession following the september 11th attacks" ... very nice ...
I wont blame bush for the 01 recession, yes it started dring clinton's time, but I am surprised he is squirming when he had to cover it a few years ago.
However The "ownership society" BS is the cause of this recession, though I'd blame Alan Greenspan more than bush ... Greenspan was a short term thinker who was hoping some of his holdings will become more valuable, and more than likely bush was too stupid to second guess him and was looking toward the war and the wealth effect of people to sweep him back to power.
Economic cycles while bad news for the president if he's seeking a re-election are not really under the president's contol ... or even anything he can affect ...
The issue really is the mass exodus of jobs, and the influx of oil and our dependence to it.
The first issue I'd call it a tie between democrats and republicans ... Unions are bad for job creation - creation, not maintenance - remember we cannot compete with china here unless we cut down overhead, republicans are with the business leaders who want to avoid unions ...
The oil issue - oddly its a close one I'd give to democrats. Why close. Cos the oil companies have bought both sides and almost equally so ... So why still democrat ... they are a bit more aligned with tree huggers ... some tree huggers have infiltrated the party pretty good. OTOH, ron paul was republican ... so maybe libertarians infiltrated that one ...

On the issues, I am against abortion but slightly pro gun, very pro ghey rights. I was more pro McCain before the Palin choice ... he was atleast a maverick before, he now is a pandering fool. I then think O bama's pick Biden is nearly on the nose ... I think Obama has the ability and inclination to hire people who are much smarter than him ... so while he was too slick before, atleast he has the smarts to know where his slickness wont take him.
Mccain of 2000 would have been great, The new McCain is a publicity stunt.
I doubt either of these 2 will fix the economy, but Obama may slightly slow our decline to being addicted to foreign oil. Of course the soaring oil prices will rapidly slow our decline ...
BTW - I think we will be addicted to motor oil loooooong after we have broken the gasoline addiction.
Cool.
Buddha.

i have never understood anyone that is into motorsports, yet supports the party that wants to take our rights to use them away.
liberals are on a mission to ensure that we are babaysat by big government :icon_rolleyes:

I think $10 a gal gasoline will promptly reverse that ... and republicans are the best ones to arrange for that ... so you've got a good point.
Cool.
Buddha.

Like I said, Buddha 08'  A no nonsense, no party comment.  With alot of facts and very little opinion.  I am working on debating with more fact and less opinion.  The funny thing is;  if I am debating a topic that I do not believe in, I do much better.  However, someone has to take an opposition to righty in this thread and it just so happens that I am in agreeance with most everything I have written.  

Soon, I have to write a resolution from Burkina Faso's point of view on "Report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories".  The Burkies, being the third poorest nation in the world, probably don't much care about Palestine or Israel so, it may be tricky.

Back to the topic:  I agree with Buddha that McCain was a bit more appealing before Palin.  She is just too much.  She says things that are humorous but have no truth behind it.  She is not trustworthy and is very vindictive.  Heres an example of her vindictive nature.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sqWkaGv89E

Yeah, she is definately a little more on the right of McCain, but that's what makes me like her more.

The thing that bugs me about this video that you linked is...."Horrible Palin - bad - Troopergate - bad - evil - look down upon her - bad" news  reports.  This is an issue that is still even being investigated, that may not even have any merit.

Now on the other hand, Obama news.  I mean CBS, NBC, ABC, etc, etc, never have anything bad to say about Obama.  He has so many scandalous things that are so overly relevant to being president, and no one is paying any attention.  But when the Republicans do something that may or may not have happened, then it's the end of the world.

Lets see...

Obama
• Aligns and Supports Communists/Socialists/Marxists
    • Wright
    • Ayers
    • Frank something
    • Louis Farrakhan
    • Tony Rezko
    • Auchi
    • Coon
    • Malcolm X
    • Odinga
    • Che Guevara
    • and many more
• Voted against reform of the corruption in Chicago
    • Potentially made money off of the corruption there
• Wife worked as a head at a corrupt Hospital
    • charged patients without insurance more than the ones with, to get more money out of their Medicare coverage.
• Has no accomplishments of any worth in his years in any office position
• Votes FOR After Birth Murder.  I mean partial-birth abortion.

Palin (which isn't even the presidential nominee who you're comparing here)
• May have been involved, but denies, and no proof yet, of possibly getting someone fired.


LOOK HOW CORRUPT AND HORRIBLE AND EVIL YOUR CANDIDATE IS!!!

Here's a good Barack Scandal for all of you.  He should actually be jailed for this.  He broke a law that was created in the 1700's that's there to protect the US.  Why aren't people talking about this?  Why is it all about Troopergate?  Or Babygate?  Or Hairdogate?

Talking to Iraq on a visit there, he is negotiating with Iraq to keep the troops in the country so that he can take the credit when he's president.

This link also talks about troopergate too.  Gives a little more info on the TRUTH about that scandal....THE GUY TAZERED A 10 YEAR OLD!!!

Also talks about the Sex Ed in school.  Not age appropriate information.  STD's in Kindergarten?!?!  That's Insanity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGRoZTWUcPA

Quote from: quiktaco on September 25, 2008, 04:58:10 PM
Yeah, she is definately a little more on the right of McCain, but that's what makes me like her more.

The thing that bugs me about this video that you linked is...."Horrible Palin - bad - Troopergate - bad - evil - look down upon her - bad" news  reports.  This is an issue that is still even being investigated, that may not even have any merit.

Now on the other hand, Obama news.  I mean CBS, NBC, ABC, etc, etc, never have anything bad to say about Obama.  He has so many scandalous things that are so overly relevant to being president, and no one is paying any attention.  But when the Republicans do something that may or may not have happened, then it's the end of the world.

Lets see...

Obama
• Aligns and Supports Communists/Socialists/Marxists
    • Wright
    • Ayers
    • Frank something
    • Louis Farrakhan
    • Tony Rezko
    • Auchi
    • Coon
    • Malcolm X
    • Odinga
    • Che Guevara
    • and many more
• Voted against reform of the corruption in Chicago
    • Potentially made money off of the corruption there
• Wife worked as a head at a corrupt Hospital
    • charged patients without insurance more than the ones with, to get more money out of their Medicare coverage.
• Has no accomplishments of any worth in his years in any office position
• Votes FOR After Birth Murder.  I mean partial-birth abortion.

Palin (which isn't even the presidential nominee who you're comparing here)
• May have been involved, but denies, and no proof yet, of possibly getting someone fired.


LOOK HOW CORRUPT AND HORRIBLE AND EVIL YOUR CANDIDATE IS!!!

This is nice BS ... look who's tripping over themselves to work on the 700 billion dollar wall street rescue to see who the socialist is ...
The republican philosophy is ... privatize the profits, socialize the losses ... The democrats even if they are socialists are socialists all the time ... Its gonna encourage less productivity than true free market, but it will encourage more productivity and less fraud than the republican philosophy.
Its just a perfect ending ... start with enron failure, and end with a wall street hand out.
Hopefully the buckering will kill the bill ... and the clock is gonna run out ... dear god lets hope that.
Of course everyone is counting on a slice of the 700 billion pie ... everyone is expecting a bail out. Home owners who bought 21 condo's while working as a car rental clerk all the way to goldman sachs CEO's ... That's bushies ownership society ...
And no they cannot feign they didn't know this would happen ... several blogs (housingpanic.com and housingbubble.com among the 2 most popular ones) and economists Nouriel Roubini and Peter Schiff hit it with alarming accuracy ... Only a corrupt administration could have missed this.
Cool.
Buddha.

You have been posting unsubstanciated videos since this thread began.  Videos and essays published by extremists and closed minded hipocrites.  I know the "troopergate" <--hilarious name BTW, is ongoing, but at least it is valid.  It is in an actual court not a radio talk show, and it has factual based evidence instead of propoganda and hearsay.

STD's to kindergarden students----When do you suppose we educate our youth.  At 16 when they are pregnant?  or 13 which, is the age some girls are having sex?  Or how about no education at all--I guess that would be the christian way of doing things.  After all, we can't go around educate our youth so that someday they may actually learn to think for themselves.  I do not think there is a time too early to educate our youth.  It doesn't mean that it needs to be explicit and vulgar.  Kindergarten aged children are not going to understand calculus and teaching them it at such a young age is most likely going to confuse them, but that doesn't mean we do teach math at all until college.  You start out slow by teaching them to add and subtract.  It is the same thing with Sex ed at an early age, start slow and we may be able to convince teenagers that Bobby the 24 yr old HS drop out bagboy at the local harris teeter is probably not in love with her and may not be the greatest mate to go into a financial partnership with.  She may just learn that there are other ways to get attention without mini skirts and tube tops.   

Well TBH i wouldnt start sex ed at kindergarten. like you said, prolly too young to understand. or too young to comprehend WTF teacher is talking about. wait a few years. not to 16, a bit earlier than that, but you get my drift. the sub prime thing, begain during clintons tenure, and bush gets blamed for it. lmao, like i said in posts previous, two of the executives, of fannie/freddie, are on obamas economic team/advisors. and yet he criticises executives, or company profits. now on an unrelated note, oil profits. do you realise the govt makes almost twice as much, and has to do nothing to get it?. GOD ill be glad when this election is over. and the partisan bickering slows. hell its been goin on 5+ years now. shaZam! i wanna go to canada or elsewhere. and forget for a bit :laugh: :laugh:

Obama NEVER proposed sex ed in kindergarten.  This is yet another right-wing lie or distortion to distract voters from the real issues.

Obama voted for a bill which said that ANY sex-ed in K-12 would have age-appropriate information about protection from sexual predators.  I think that every one of us would have voted for the bill.

Also, Obama's alleged brother (he has no brother named Malik) never stated Obama was a Muslim.  He actually stated Obama was a Christian.  Which he is.  It's a shame that some right wing posters on this forum don't bother to check facts.  Maybe they have the Google skillz of John McCain.

Okay that's just insulting and Nasty TG, I do a preemptory fact check before I post. That was uncalled for you owe me an apology.

You do not teach them about condoms and STD's, but we could teach them what to do in situations where their odd relative is a bit too friendly.  Teach them things that concerns kids their age.  I always vote for education.  Browsing the various right-wing sites does not count as a complete fact check.  You have to look at both sides and you will locate a decent opinion somewhere in the middle. 

I agree with moving elswhere.  I am trying to talk my wife into letting me take a job in Africa for a couple of years.  I tried getting her to letting me take a job in the UAE, but she had pretty good points on why that was a bad idea (a little issue of women having zero rights), but I am still working on Africa.

Today is a big day for the country.  Basically, the way I understand it, Bush gave a "we need 200 billion" speech which, frenzied the stock market and everyone sold causing the market to drop drastically.  Today within an hour of opening it was down 130 points and Bush gave another speech saying that no one has agreed yet, but it will happen.  Investors are being as patient as possible, but if there is no resolution today, they will have to stew all weekend and by monday morning, a large percent will cave .  At this point, the market will crash and the recession and/or depression will officially begin.  On the other hand, they pass the 700 billion bail out, putting us further in debt and dropping the value of the dollar even further, which will lead to the recession and/or depression anyway.

As I said before, I am not that educated in economics so, am I getting this correct??  How would the bail out be a good thing??  

The way I understand it is this ... and this is the only way it can work ... else tax payer is really really really F*(ked ... and this may be what Paulson does not want to see happen ... but for my $$ this is the way I'd do it.
There are these CDO's, they ahve 3-5% non performing mortgages, another 10-12% that is likely to start crapping out shortly, and another maybe 10% that is a wee bit less likely to perform ... as in I stop paying the mortgage on my house and the 3% count gets bumped up by 1.
However there is no concrete numbers on them ... maybe 3% in 1 bundle, maybe 10% in another ... maybe 0 in a third.
Recently Merrill Lynch unloaded a few million of these for 22 cents on the dollar. That was 8-9 months ago. The problem is that no one was willing to buy them since they had no idea what was performing and what was not. The one thing for sure is that over 60% will not ever default ... maybe even closer to 75 % ... why ... cos the houses that those mortgages represent are worth a lot more than the value of the mortgage and it will never change ... as in you owe 50K on a house you bought 15 years ago for 125K ... If the market was great, that house is worth 300K, bad market ... 250K. Stuff like that. So what we do is, allocate the max 700B, and we brow beat all the damn banks to 10 cents on the dollar ... what was 22c 8 months ago isn't worth 1/2 that now obviously ... which is why you've come to us asking for crap ... and the govt takes the CDO's, unbundles them, goes right to the un performing mortgage, either takes the house if its been abandoned or left by the owner/investor, sells it for the market price, and the owner is on the hook for the rest of the $, or they renegotiate their mortgage and continue the payments with new terms. The performing mortgages will be held or sold over the first few years.
Buy low sell high and let wall street get the shaft. After all they were the ones who made billions last year when they thought they were invincible.
However the Paulson plan is to pay them 80-90 cents on the dollar, so they can keep functioning as they are and we try to make the $$ back with some weird setup where we sell this crap to china ...
No ... hell no. If we buy it, we are in the business of CDO and MBS trading ... we'll do it like the sharks did it last year.
BTW ... the moron's at B of A must be feeling really really foolish now ... they paid 50 billion for merrill Lynch and today wamu gets bought by JPMC for 1.2 billion. Oh F*(k that gotta hurt.
In any case, the bailout plan needs to happen at snails pace ... it has to go through congress the same way any other BS happens, so wall street can shrivel and die and sell us the damn CDO's for like ... 3 cents on the dollar ...
If implemented right ... I would think of it as a bottle of oil to keep the engine that is jammed up from lack of lubrication going again ... if its implemented badly, its the gasoline and the road that this damn machine is eating up as its moving ... The govt is notoriously poor at doing hard nosed negotiation and these finer adjustments in the financial instruments.
Cool.
Buddha.

Nice analysis and understanding of mortgage markets and bundles there Buddah. I disagree that a bailout needs to happen. The free market and banking industry needs to pay for it's mistake, which means we will all pay for it interest rates are going to climb, the ability to borrow money is going to become very difficult.

Quote from: bettingpython on September 26, 2008, 07:21:10 AM
Okay that's just insulting and Nasty TG, I do a preemptory fact check before I post. That was uncalled for you owe me an apology.

You are correct.  I left out the word "some" in my nasty comment!  It has now been corrected.  I agree that you , BP,  do fact-check (and as a result, don't post falsehoods).  You are also critical of the GOP when it's wrong.  As I am of the Dems when they are wrong.

BTW, I am in total agreement that the bailout is wrong.  Capitalism is NOT about giving 3/4 of a trillion dollars to rich people and corporations for doing a poor job.

Possibly the best political cartoon ever...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19798680/?cat=td (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19798680/?cat=td)

BTW the failing financial firms need to throw these MBS and CDO's open to the public, as all their assets ... to br bought by the highest bidder ... for example, that Lehmann brothers video's they had, had a nice chandelier in their lobby, I need to buy that for my garage ... I bid 30 cents shipped. I also plan to buy Ken Lewis's office desk and install a toilet behind it ... so I can keep on posting uninterrupted on this site while on the toilet ... In fact I'll even bid for ken lewis to install the toilet. 35c per hour ... no counter offers ... sold.
Put the damn CDO's and MBS crap on fleabay ... Today it is worth 10 c on the dollar, tommorow it may be 2 cents ... hold it 10 years ... or unbundle and re format it ... BTW you need a few gazillion of these to be able to correctly unbundle them ... so that almost requires government intervention ... and fiddle it right and it could be worth 1.25 on the dollar or more ...
Its like these people all are holding some cards in the poker game complaining that their cards are worthless ... the man walks in, your cards worthless, here is 10c, its better than worthless, hand me your cards ... do it to 4-5-6 of the poker players, and voila ... A,K,Q,J of spades ... and take the whole pot.
Cool.
Buddha.

Quote from: yamahonkawazuki on September 24, 2008, 11:48:33 PM
Oh and another thing. im beginning to doubt Obamas christianity. , which is not really relevant. but that recent interview, when he mentioned his muslim faith

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMUgNg7aD8M or did he not have another teleprompter breakdown?

and TG, if you were incinuating that I DONT fact check. the words came from obama himself. and staph corrected him. perhaps it was a freudian slip perhaps not. only he and god knows whats up.

alright TG let me ask you this, since youre so into obama. what has he done wrong?

specifically?, no need to mention mccain or bush or anything else.
just worng things OBAMA has done

Quote from: trumpetguy on September 26, 2008, 07:02:17 AM
Obama NEVER proposed sex ed in kindergarten.  This is yet another right-wing lie or distortion to distract voters from the real issues.

Obama voted for a bill which said that ANY sex-ed in K-12 would have age-appropriate information about protection from sexual predators.  I think that every one of us would have voted for the bill.

Also, Obama's alleged brother (he has no brother named Malik) never stated Obama was a Muslim.  He actually stated Obama was a Christian.  Which he is.  It's a shame that some right wing posters on this forum don't bother to check facts.  Maybe they have the Google skillz of John McCain.

and left wing posters do the same TG, , this will never change

i read the same exact things on liberal sites, and blogs and news media pretty much every day.

If you look at the context of when Obama said "my Muslim faith" he was speaking about the people who falsely talk about "his Muslim faith."  I don't understand how any thinking person could believe that he was saying he was a Muslim.  Lots of people have played the video out of context to make it look that way.

Obama's faults --

He's not a liberal.  I want someone to say we need single payer universal health care.  That EVERY American is entitled to health care, rich or poor, old or young.  At my university, we have employee health care -- the school pays for the employee.  If you want spouse coverage or child coverage, you pay for that.  Beginning in January, that will cost over $900 a month for children and spouse, for basic coverage, not Cadillac coverage.  We pay our staff like dirt.  The monthly check of a secretary is probably $1300 after taxes, and she could be paying $500-900 of that in health care?  Get real.  And every business in America is dealing with the same issue.  But they're not dealing with that issue in Canada or England or France or Germany.  Yes, their taxes are higher to cover health care, but they spend about 1/2 of what we spend on health care and on average get better care.  What they DON'T do is line the pockets of insurance companies.

He's also been too cozy with corporations for my taste.  Not nearly like the incestuous relationship that Republicans have, but still too cozy.

yeah TG TY i thought you end up posting to this. but again thank you. i knew the obama vid was out of context or taken as such. id be the devils advocate and say, perhaps, hed been accused of being a muslim since day 1, perhaps that had something to do with it. ill give him the benefit of the doubt on that. as far as his "brother", who knows. lol you know as well as i do, when you become "rich and or famous, or both, " for some reason, your family increases. maybe that has happened, OR maybe he does in fact have a brother. who knows  :cheers:

He does indeed have a brother.  But that story (that his brother called him a Muslim) is a hoax.

nowaitaminute, hes NOT a liberal?, ive heard otherwise, i thought he was rated as number 1 liberal in the senate, or is that a conspiracy, right wing whatnot? http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/ what ive found so far, will continue to look for more links/info

http://voteview.ucsd.edu/sen110.htm

Quote from: Cal76 on September 25, 2008, 07:18:53 PM
You have been posting unsubstanciated videos since this thread began.  Videos and essays published by extremists and closed minded hipocrites.  I know the "troopergate" <--hilarious name BTW, is ongoing, but at least it is valid.  It is in an actual court not a radio talk show, and it has factual based evidence instead of propoganda and hearsay.

STD's to kindergarden students----When do you suppose we educate our youth.  At 16 when they are pregnant?  or 13 which, is the age some girls are having sex?  Or how about no education at all--I guess that would be the christian way of doing things.  After all, we can't go around educate our youth so that someday they may actually learn to think for themselves.  I do not think there is a time too early to educate our youth.  It doesn't mean that it needs to be explicit and vulgar.  Kindergarten aged children are not going to understand calculus and teaching them it at such a young age is most likely going to confuse them, but that doesn't mean we do teach math at all until college.  You start out slow by teaching them to add and subtract.  It is the same thing with Sex ed at an early age, start slow and we may be able to convince teenagers that Bobby the 24 yr old HS drop out bagboy at the local harris teeter is probably not in love with her and may not be the greatest mate to go into a financial partnership with.  She may just learn that there are other ways to get attention without mini skirts and tube tops.   

Just because there is one thing that is in the courts now, doesn't mean that Obama hasn't done things or is related to things that have been in the courts, or should be in the courts.

Yes, I would rather the schools not teach sex ed.  That should be up to the parents, for when and what gets taught.  People are just shoving their kids into the schools expecting them to learn the meaning of life, and they are being taught things that have always been the parents job up until recent years.  This is a very good example of one.  Another is Evolution.  IT'S A THEORY!  It's something that can't be proven, so by definition, it's a theory, and holds just as much merit as Creationism, however it's forbidden to teach that in public schools.

QuoteIf you look at the context of when Obama said "my Muslim faith" he was speaking about the people who falsely talk about "his Muslim faith."  I don't understand how any thinking person could believe that he was saying he was a Muslim.  Lots of people have played the video out of context to make it look that way.

I agree with this...this video was taken out of context.  It was just a slip of his tongue.  He was just talking about how other people are accusing him of having a Muslim Faith.  However, he's still no Christian.  And also, may still have ties with the Muslim faith, as which his cousin Odinga has in Kenya.  Also, his Father is Muslim, which automatically makes Obama Muslim by birth.  Now, whether he believes in Islam or not is another story.  But like I said, he's no Christian.


I don't know much about all this Economic Crap going on right now, but the right is not all to blame.  I'd say it's about equal.  What I want from this, is for the companies to go under, and being bought out.  the CEO's and other executives go under, because they made bad choices.  And for everyone that took a home loan that new in the back of their mind that they couldn't afford it, to loose their homes, and be starting at square one, where they should have been, since they shouldn't have gotten into a house in the first place.


-EDIT-  It seems as though Obama states that his father was not Muslim, and was always and Atheist.  Since there is no proof on either side of this, then the 'father was a Muslim' comments will seize.

Quote from: trumpetguy on September 26, 2008, 08:51:05 PMI want someone to say we need single payer universal health care.  That EVERY American is entitled to health care, rich or poor, old or young.

Exactly!  In a country like the US which is one of the wealthiest with the best medical care available in the world, there is absolutely no reason why people should have to jump through so many hoops to have health care.

Quote from: trumpetguy on September 26, 2008, 08:51:05 PM
But they're not dealing with that issue in Canada or England or France or Germany.  Yes, their taxes are higher to cover health care, but they spend about 1/2 of what we spend on health care and on average get better care.  What they DON'T do is line the pockets of insurance companies.

You're half right about Canada.  If you look at the overall taxation of the citizens, its about the same, its just structured differenty.  Income taxes are slightly lower, but consumer tax (GST, HST, etc) is higher.  Plus cigarettes and gas are taxed higher in Canada, so its pretty much a wash as far as net standard of living with the US having a slight advantage.

Where you're right is that there is no insurance company making a boatload of money because the provinces and feds decide how much drugs will be or how much a procedure is and the corporations have to deal with it.  They're starting to try and flex their muscles back, but I think the system is too ingrained in Canadian society.

For example, last week on a program called "White Coat Black Art" on CBC Radio 1, they were talking about how drug companies make backroom deals trying to get some of their expensive drugs on the formulary.  One example is Quebec where a lot of drugs are made.  Drug companies have said in a roundabout way "put drug X on the formulary or we'll move our operations to a province that will add it".  Though unlikely they would carry out the threat, the notion of job losses plays into politics and hence it gets added to Quebec's formulary.  This in turn causes a domino effect causing other provinces to put the same drug on their formulary.

The manipulation by corporate greed in health care isn't as overt in Canada as it is in the United States, but there is an unsettling movement in that direction.

Quote from: quiktaco on September 29, 2008, 09:02:11 AM
But like I said, he's no Christian.

To be a Christian one must simply accept Jesus as the son of God and ask forgiveness. How do YOU know what Obama is or isn't?  To make such a statement is to belittle your own faith.  It is a matter between Obama and God, period.  He doesn't need your approval to be a Christian.

Quote from: trumpetguy on September 29, 2008, 03:31:46 PM

Quote from: quiktaco on September 29, 2008, 09:02:11 AM
But like I said, he's no Christian.

To be a Christian one must simply accept Jesus as the son of God and ask forgiveness. How do YOU know what Obama is or isn't?  To make such a statement is to belittle your own faith.  It is a matter between Obama and God, period.  He doesn't need your approval to be a Christian.

If he's following the teachings of the Church that he attended for over 20 years, then he is no Christian.  That is what I'm basing my comments on.  Yes, I agree that it is between God and him, however, if he attended a Buddhist Temple for 20+ years and followed those teachings, and then called himself Christian, then you'd have to agree that he isn't Christian.  The Trinity church is not a Christian Church.  They may call themselves Christian, but it's not a denomination that is accepted by the 'Christian' Faith.  They do not believe in the same God, and the same Jesus as the rest of the Christian world.  Just like Mormons call themselves Christian.  They are not as well, because they do not believe in the same God, or the same Jesus.

If Obama is truly Christian, by the same means that the rest of the world sees Christianity, then good for him.  However, by his moral standards on issues, he goes against teachings in the Bible.

I am not belittling my own belief.  I am spreading my faith, and hopefully lessening the confusion on what it means to be Christian.  There are many false profits, and false teachings in the world, that try to lead people astray and away from God.  Obama, by saying he is Christian, is spreading an incorrect gospel, and therefor may hurt people in their quest to find God.

I'm sorry TrumpetGuy, but you cannot shake my faith.  God stands with me when I am attacked by people like you.  If I can help to get one person saved over my lifetime, then I'll be happy.  I feel sorry for you, because you have to know that you are trying to damn people.  Trying to turn people from God.  Trying to break people of their faith.  You are on the side of Satin, even if you claim not to be.

er its satan. weird thing is, ask kerry here, a mormon btw. i asked him in a roundabout way, after a religion flame war we had heere a few years back, the gis of the quesiton is/was what book does his church/religion preach/teach from, to which he replied the KJV. as well as somethign called teh book of mormon.

With every post, quiktaco, we learn more about your arrogance and bigotry.

As I said, your approval is not required for someone to BE a Christian.  You don't have to agree that they are Christian.  What you say does not matter one bit in that regard.

I'm not trying to "shake your faith."  I would not presume to try to do that.  It's your business.  Until you want to make laws with it that affect me.   Then it's my business (and then it conflicts with the US Constitution).

And I do like satin.  It makes really nice sheets.

ROFL TG, least youre trying to make humour of this. lol. see no one knows of a persons christianity besides 2 people. 1. that person, and 2. christ  :thumb:

as the good book says, " judge not, lest ye be judged" :thumb:

guys be nice. we can debate without name calling or hurting each other feelings.  i will be posting my prediction for the race shortly....then the debate will be over lol...cuz i know who is going to win and pretty sure by how much :)

remember this is a board of friends and we don't need to be flaming or tossing turds at each other.

Quote from: frankieG on September 30, 2008, 07:24:59 AM

remember this is a board of friends and we don't need to be flaming or tossing turds at each other.

except in TF :)

yes but we are not there...beside i already know who is going to win and by how much...i just have not posted it yet. 

Quote from: yamahonkawazuki on September 29, 2008, 07:39:19 PM
er its satan. weird thing is, ask kerry here, a mormon btw. i asked him in a roundabout way, after a religion flame war we had heere a few years back, the gis of the quesiton is/was what book does his church/religion preach/teach from, to which he replied the KJV. as well as somethign called teh book of mormon.

That's true.  They do teach out of the King James Version of the Bible.  However, the books written by Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism...The Book of Mormon, and The Book of Abraham, are false books.  The Book of Abraham has been proven to be false.  The Book of Mormon has so many inaccuracies, and has been manipulated over 2000+ times over the years.

Joseph Smith was proven to be a false profit when the papyri that he wrote the book of Abraham were found and determined to be nothing more than Egyptian burial drawings.  The book of Mormon was never proven to be false directly, however indirectly it was.  Some men who were testing Joseph Smith made some fake stones, and started to have him translate what they said.  He died before he could translate these false tablets.  However, in a notebook that was being written in by his assistant (secretary like guy), he had started to translate the meaning of them.  The church claims that this translation in the notebook was not by Joseph.  That's how they get around that one.  I don't know how they explain away The Book of Abraham drama.

The fact that Mormons teach from these books along with the Bible, is where they are wrong.  They also believe in the celestial kingdom (a kind of heaven), but there, they are able to become gods, and rule over a world, like God rules over this world.  They also believe that Lucifer and Jesus were celestial brothers.  Lucifer was an angel, and Jesus is God in flesh.

I don't have anything against Mormons.  They are some of the most kind, loving, and wonderful people.  However, they are being led astray by a corrupt church.  They have so many measures to try to keep people with the church that it becomes scary.  Also, if it weren't for the fact that they are a church, they'd be part of the fortune 500 because they bring in so much profit every year.

Something that has been corrupted over the years, is the fact that Joseph Smith and his other founding friends all drank, had many many many wives, and were very poor examples of what the church stands for today.  The LSD Church is following someone that is a fraud.  Plain and simple.

QuoteWith every post, quiktaco, we learn more about your arrogance and bigotry.

As I said, your approval is not required for someone to BE a Christian.  You don't have to agree that they are Christian.  What you say does not matter one bit in that regard.

I'm not trying to "shake your faith."  I would not presume to try to do that.  It's your business.  Until you want to make laws with it that affect me.   Then it's my business (and then it conflicts with the US Constitution).

And I do like satin.  It makes really nice sheets.

What Obama has portrayed himself to believe is what I'm basing my comments on.  I already said this.  If he truly is a real Christian, then that is great.

You have nothing of substance to discount this other than saying it's between him and God, so you attack me.  That's what you've done throughout this thread.  Whenever you have nothing, you just start attacking.

No attacks.  Just facts.

Bigots prejudge others based on external attributes or religion.  Bingo.

Arrogance is believing that only YOU, or those who think like you, have the answers.  Bingo yet again.

Nothing personal.  I'm just not buying the crap you're selling, QT.  That's all.

one of the problem s with elections is that religion tends to find its way into american elections.  this is one of the main reasons why i have remained a canadian candidate and have never ran for office in the US.  religion has no place in public policy or elections.  lets not forget the harm religion has done.  be it Christian, Jew, Muslim or what have you.  it has no place in the world of men.

Quote from: trumpetguy on September 30, 2008, 09:14:47 AM
No attacks.  Just facts.

Bigots prejudge others based on external attributes or religion.  Bingo.

Arrogance is believing that only YOU, or those who think like you, have the answers.  Bingo yet again.

Nothing personal.  I'm just not buying the crap you're selling, QT.  That's all.

I think that we all need to judge this man based on anything and everything we can.  He's going to probably be our next president.  He's there to be judged, and I can judge him on anything and everything I want because he is going to be MY president.  If that makes me a bigot, then fine.  I will always judge the candidates for president like this, and everyone else should too.  Leaving out parts of peoples life is very ignorant.  What if he was imprisoned at one time...a felon?  Would you leave that attribute out, because that was in his past, and those things shouldn't be judged?  His religion that he displayed for over 20+ years, is one of racism, marxism, a black god, and a black jesus (jesus was a jew...there's no getting around that).  These principles that he invested 2 decades learning and practicing should be the root of  his judgment to be president.  I don't want a racist president.  I don't want marxism in this country.  I would prefer to have someone who believes what I believe, but that's not needed if they would be a good president in all other aspects.  These are my thoughts of this man, and I don't want him in the white house.

I never said that 'I' have the answers.  I believe that my faith is correct based on what I've learned throughout my life, and what has been proven throughout the bible throughout history.  This is a debate for opinions and whatnot, so sharing my opinions shouldn't deserve me being called a bigot.  That is uncalled for and you should really watch what you are saying, and how you are treating others on this board.

If you don't want to believe the Word of God, then that's fine.  Not everyone will be saved.

personally i do not believe in a hell.  if there were i would take over and kick the devil out :)

I hope you are joking Frankie.
From what I have read you don't want to be there.

Quote from: frankieG on September 30, 2008, 09:22:11 AM
one of the problem s with elections is that religion tends to find its way into american elections.  this is one of the main reasons why i have remained a canadian candidate and have never ran for office in the US.  religion has no place in public policy or elections.  lets not forget the harm religion has done.  be it Christian, Jew, Muslim or what have you.  it has no place in the world of men.

Religion is the center of most peoples lives, and it tells what moral fiber the person is weaved from.  It's a good indication of how that person would act or deal with certain situations.  A mormon, although not my faith, would probably be a very good person to be in the white house.  They have very good morals.  A muslim extremist would be bad to be in the white house, because they would want to kill all of America.  (no I'm not calling Obama a muslim extremist.).  A Black Liberation Theologist would not be, based on the hatred of white people, and the extreme socialistic views of how a country should be controlled/run.

Religion is something that demonstrates who the person is.  That is why it is so important to look at this, because you'll know the kind of person that is going to be running the country.

If Obama were a muslim extremist (who's religion wants to destroy American's and Israeli's) then would it be out of the discussion as well?  It's very ignorant to leave something with such importance out.

i have no fear of hell.  i have been here, fought my way out and if need be will do it again.  honesty religion is the center of life for those who need to grasp onto the hope that life will be better.  i am not one of those.  having said that i can also say there are no atheist in a firefight.   i do not wish to change the opinion of those who choose to believe in a god, a messiah or what have you.  if they are happy then so be it.  but i am not one of those.  my money is my own and i give it to no church.  how i live my life is my choosing and nothing to do with a higher power or anything else. if something good happens well great it happened. if something bad happens then the same  applies.  guys like me u want on your side on this earth when everything goes to shaZam!.  other than that i have no belief.  it is a terrible thing believing that once you are dead you are dead and that is that.  i wish i could say i believe otherwise but i cannot in good conscience say so.  like all other animals on this planet we breath, eat, breed and die.  and like all other animals once dead we are gone.  i wish that it were not true, in my own mind. but i can not say so.

Quote from: frankieG on September 30, 2008, 09:33:08 AM
personally i do not believe in a hell.  if there were i would take over and kick the devil out :)

'Hell', as a lot of people see it is false.  No one can 'take over', there is no 'fun' having sex with whomever and doing all that is sin on Earth.  It's not a big party with drinking and hot girls and night clubs.

Hell is the worst possible thing in your imagination.  The blackness is so dark, that even blind people will say 'daaammmnnnnn!'   There is no light without the Lord.  No light means no light.  No shadow to kinda make something out, no anything.  Complete blackness.  The only sounds you here are "weeping and gnashing of teeth" (Matthew 8:12; 22:13)  There is no one else around to give company or companionship.  Hell has a "lake of fire" and "burning sulphur" where the reprobate will be "tormented day and night for ever and ever"(eg. Revelation 20:10).  There is complete frustration and emptiness of life without God.

Those damned to hell are without hope.  Hell is the logical consequence of man's soul using its free will to reject the will of God.  It is considered compatible with God's justice and mercy because God will not interfere with the soul's free choice.

Quotei have no fear of hell.  i have been here, fought my way out and if need be will do it again.  honesty religion is the center of life for those who need to grasp onto the hope that life will be better.  i am not one of those.  having said that i can also say there are no atheist in a firefight.   i do not wish to change the opinion of those who choose to believe in a god, a messiah or what have you.  if they are happy then so be it.  but i am not one of those.  my money is my own and i give it to no church.  how i live my life is my choosing and nothing to do with a higher power or anything else. if something good happens well great it happened. if something bad happens then the same  applies.  guys like me u want on your side on this earth when everything goes to shaZam!.  other than that i have no belief.  it is a terrible thing believing that once you are dead you are dead and that is that.  i wish i could say i believe otherwise but i cannot in good conscience say so.  like all other animals on this planet we breath, eat, breed and die.  and like all other animals once dead we are gone.  i wish that it were not true, in my own mind. but i can not say so.

There is a difference between humans and other animals.  We were made in God's image, and given this world during our life.  The animals on this Earth are there for us to eat and use their bodies, and to have additional companionship with, and to use for work.

Religion isn't the center because we need to grasp onto the hope that life will be better.  Religion is the center because we have accepted Christ as our savior, and we know that this life can't be better.  But we do know that the life with God will be perfect.  Life with God in your heart while on this Earth will get you through this life a lot better than a life without, but it's not that which we strive for, it's a better eternity after this life.

I've noticed something during this thread.  Obama supporters do not have God in their hearts.  I don't think a single one does.  That kinda makes since though.  Without the Lord, these people don't really see that Obama is not a good person.  They have been corrupted with what is right and what is wrong.

God wrote on our hearts as instinct, what is right and what is wrong.  During this life, that can be corrupted and one no longer knows the difference.  They only know what is accepted amongst the world.  What others say is right and wrong.

If the corrupted people really look at something, then they'll see through what the world says to what they really know is right and wrong.

All this blaming the Republicans for the financial crisis going on right now.  Guess who's really to blame...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usvG-s_Ssb0

Oh, and what's with this Congressional 'Black' Caucus?  If that's not racism at it's finest, I don't know what is.  If there's no Congressional 'White' Caucus, then there shouldn't be a 'Black' one.

(I'm not racist in the least, I just don't get why there's special treatment when it's supposed to be 'equal'.  God made all men, Black, White, Jew, Mexican, Asian, whatever.  He made all of us in his image, we are no different.  Only our cultures which shaped us.)

You dont need to have Gd in your heart to avoid voting for Obama, you simply need to have morals.

I wrote another post elsewhere that discussed Obama's position on partial birth abortions- if the abortion is botched and the baby is born and is crying and can survive on its own because its 32+ weeks old, its still okay to kill it.

I dont care where you are on the abortion debate.  There's a word killing a baby that can survivie on its own after birth:  MURDER.

You don't need Gd to see that.

Quote from: CanukGS500 on September 30, 2008, 11:44:41 AM
You dont need to have Gd in your heart to avoid voting for Obama, you simply need to have morals.

I wrote another post elsewhere that discussed Obama's position on partial birth abortions- if the abortion is botched and the baby is born and is crying and can survive on its own because its 32+ weeks old, its still okay to kill it.

I dont care where you are on the abortion debate.  There's a word killing a baby that can survivie on its own after birth:  MURDER.

You don't need Gd to see that.

Yeah, that topic was pretty much passed by a long time ago in this thread.  It's like no one even thought about this with a logical mindset.

if people approached candidates with a logical mindset (and with the memory of something more than a dead bush), W wouldnt have gotten his 2nd term in office, and probably his first.

I'm voting for SARAH PALIN. The " IRON LADY II " !!

She has more in common with "real people" than "all the others". McCain has some very good qualities but I disagree with him and the Repubs mega-strongly on the immigration issues  (and Liberal Socialist Democrats too).

Sarah Palin does have a lot more in common with 'real people'.  She's a small town woman who hasn't been corrupted by the rest of Washington.  She's fought against bad ideas proposed by both sides.  She seems like an ideal candidate.  She's going to get things done, without all the corruption.

The way I see immigration is, come here legally, and you'll have a welcome mat placed at your feet.  Illegally, then you get sent back.

I agree, but it needs to be harsher if you come illegally

if you care caught illegally and you are sent back you are banned 10 years from entering the US.

But, I think we should get some kind of biometric data to make sure a fake passport isn't issued in order to ensure denial of entry.

If you manage to get in again and are deported a 2nd time, the ban should be LIFE.
If you manage to get in a 3rd time, then you get to go to jail and make our license plates at $0.25 an hour almost all of which is garnished to pay for the food you have to eat while we incarcerate you.

Its infuriating to see so many illegals get in then demand that they get rights just becuase they managed to duck the system for X number of years.  I fought tooth and nail to do immigration legally.  I know others who have waited years to get a chance to legally immigrate to the US or Canada.  If you want the dream of a better life that badly, then do what it takes to follow the rules.

Quote from: CanukGS500 on September 30, 2008, 12:42:12 PMIf you want the dream of a better life that badly, then do what it takes to follow the rules.

+1000  :thumb:

Quote from: CanukGS500 on September 30, 2008, 12:42:12 PM
I agree, but it needs to be harsher if you come illegally

if you care caught illegally and you are sent back you are banned 10 years from entering the US.

But, I think we should get some kind of biometric data to make sure a fake passport isn't issued in order to ensure denial of entry.

If you manage to get in again and are deported a 2nd time, the ban should be LIFE.
If you manage to get in a 3rd time, then you get to go to jail and make our license plates at $0.25 an hour almost all of which is garnished to pay for the food you have to eat while we incarcerate you.

Its infuriating to see so many illegals get in then demand that they get rights just becuase they managed to duck the system for X number of years.  I fought tooth and nail to do immigration legally.  I know others who have waited years to get a chance to legally immigrate to the US or Canada.  If you want the dream of a better life that badly, then do what it takes to follow the rules.

I support that plan.  Good idea on the 10 year ban and stuff.  My brother in law is half Mexican...his mom was full Mexican, and came here legally.  They work hard and have a great life.  And they've also adapted the culture here.  She learned English, and blended in with the rest of America.  She didn't refuse to learn the language and stay amongst her own people.  That's what coming here is supposed to be about.  To become part of the American Culture.  Not just moving your culture from your homeland to here.  And I'm not saying that the immigrants have to leave their culture.  My brother in law's Mom makes some mean Mexican food!

Quote from: quiktaco on September 30, 2008, 11:25:42 AM
I've noticed something during this thread.  Obama supporters do not have God in their hearts.  I don't think a single one does.  That kinda makes since though.  Without the Lord, these people don't really see that Obama is not a good person.  They have been corrupted with what is right and what is wrong.

Once again, you post something (with lousy spelling, even) about which you have NO knowledge.  You cannot make that statement.  Do I believe what YOU believe?  Not at all.  Does that mean I am wrong?  Hardly.  There are plenty of Christian liberals, just like Jesus was.

Catholics say that all other religions are abominations.  Mormons say the same. Baptists say the same.  Muslims say the same.  Foaming-at-the-mouth right wing evangelicals say the same.  Rubbish.

Quote from: trumpetguy on September 30, 2008, 01:10:01 PM

Quote from: quiktaco on September 30, 2008, 11:25:42 AM
I've noticed something during this thread.  Obama supporters do not have God in their hearts.  I don't think a single one does.  That kinda makes since though.  Without the Lord, these people don't really see that Obama is not a good person.  They have been corrupted with what is right and what is wrong.

Once again, you post something (with lousy spelling, even) about which you have NO knowledge.  You cannot make that statement.  Do I believe what YOU believe?  Not at all.  Does that mean I am wrong?  Hardly.  There are plenty of Christian liberals, just like Jesus was.

Catholics say that all other religions are abominations.  Mormons say the same. Baptists say the same.  Muslims say the same.  Foaming-at-the-mouth right wing evangelicals say the same.  Rubbish.

Why do you say Jesus was Liberal? (and there you go attacking me again.  I know I don't spell well, who cares?)

About time for this to go to the TF.
Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

Read the Beatitudes and tell me Jesus was not liberal.  Read what he said about camels and the eye of a needle and tell me He supports corporate America the way the GOP does. I could go on...

No, no TF.  I think this Thread still has substance

Quote from: quiktaco on September 30, 2008, 12:55:18 PM

Quote from: CanukGS500 on September 30, 2008, 12:42:12 PM
I agree, but it needs to be harsher if you come illegally

if you care caught illegally and you are sent back you are banned 10 years from entering the US.

But, I think we should get some kind of biometric data to make sure a fake passport isn't issued in order to ensure denial of entry.

If you manage to get in again and are deported a 2nd time, the ban should be LIFE.
If you manage to get in a 3rd time, then you get to go to jail and make our license plates at $0.25 an hour almost all of which is garnished to pay for the food you have to eat while we incarcerate you.

Its infuriating to see so many illegals get in then demand that they get rights just becuase they managed to duck the system for X number of years.  I fought tooth and nail to do immigration legally.  I know others who have waited years to get a chance to legally immigrate to the US or Canada.  If you want the dream of a better life that badly, then do what it takes to follow the rules.

I support that plan.  Good idea on the 10 year ban and stuff.  My brother in law is half Mexican...his mom was full Mexican, and came here legally.  They work hard and have a great life.  And they've also adapted the culture here.  She learned English, and blended in with the rest of America.  She didn't refuse to learn the language and stay amongst her own people.  That's what coming here is supposed to be about.  To become part of the American Culture.  Not just moving your culture from your homeland to here.  And I'm not saying that the immigrants have to leave their culture.  My brother in law's Mom makes some mean Mexican food!

The 10 year ban is already here.  I know someone from Macedonia who got scammed in an immigration scam.  He was supposedly going to get his green card and they deported him that day without even being able to go back to his apartment to get his things or anything.  He's now banned from entering for 10 years.

You hit something right on the head about coming to a new country, in particular the US... The offical language of the US is ENGLISH.  Im sick of hearing "para continuar en Espanyol, oprima el dos" or "para continuar, diga 'espanyol'".

If you love the US for something beyond the money you can make and your standard of living, make an effort to assimilate into society.  I'm not saying forget where you're from, but at the very least, learn english.

That annoys me almost as much as people who are adjective-americans... you know... "african american", "asian american", "latino american"... aside from these things being horribly innacurate unless you are a naturalized american citizen, what's so wrong with simply being an american?

Quote from: trumpetguy on September 30, 2008, 01:16:22 PM
Read the Beatitudes and tell me Jesus was not liberal.  Read what he said about camels and the eye of a needle and tell me He supports corporate America the way the GOP does. I could go on...

There's nothing wrong with Corporate America.  Successful people that worked hard to get there should not be cut down.  When corruption embeds itself into the system is when things go bad.  Corruption is on Liberal and Conservative sides.

Jesus was for one thing.  He spread the Word of God.  He obeyed the 10 commandments, and was perfect.  He then died for our sins, and rose again on the 3rd day.

You replied with an attack of Republicans.  I'm looking for what attributes of Liberalism are you saying Jesus had.  I'm sure there are issues that Jesus would agree with, as would I.  But Liberalism these days has turned into anything and everything goes, and has become a very Socialistic system.

From www.jesusisaliberal.org (temporarily down):

Biblical Quotes Supporting the Belief that Jesus Is A Liberal

Peacemaking, not War Making: Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. [Matthew 5:9]  Resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. [Matthew 5:39]  I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despite-fully use you, and persecute you; [Matthew 5:44]

The Death Penalty: Thou shalt not kill [Matthew 5:21]

Crime and Punishment: If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to cast a stone at her. [John 8:7]  Do not judge, lest you too be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. [Matthew 7:1 & 2.]   

Justice: Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.  [Matthew 5:6] Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy [Matthew 5:7]  But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.  [Matthew 6:15]

Corporate Greed and the Religion of Wealth: In the temple courts [Jesus] found men selling cattle, sheep and doves and other sitting at tables exchanging money. So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. [John 2:14 & 15.] Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions. [Luke 12.15.]  Truly, I say unto you, it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. [Matthew 19:23] You cannot serve both God and Money. [Matthew 6:24.]

Paying Taxes & Separation of Church & State: Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.  [Matthew 22:21] 

Community:  Love your neighbor as yourself. .[Matthew 22:39]  So in everything, do to others as you would have them do to you. [Matthew 7:12.]  If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. [Matthew 19:21] 

Equality & Social Programs: But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you. You will be repaid at the resurrection of the just. [Luke 14:13 &14.] 

Public Prayer & Displays of Faith: And when thou pray, thou shall not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.  But thou, when thou pray, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret... [Matthew 6:6 & 7]

Strict Enforcement of Religious Laws: If any of you has a son or a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out?  [Matthew 12:11] The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. [Mark 2:27.]

Individuality & Personal Spiritual Experience: Ye are the light of the world. [Matthew 5:14]

Liberalism as defined by Webster's Third New International Dictionary: "a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of man, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for tolerance and freedom for the individual from arbitrary authority in all spheres of life..."

This I would agree with.  I could see how you would view Christ as a Liberal.  However that is not the Liberal of today.

When I hear liberal, I think - baby killing, homosexuals, promiscuous sex, 'mother earth' worshiping, evolutionists, atheists, huge government that controls everything, high taxes, tons of needless programs and spending, stealing my money to pay for these programs, restrictions on guns, restrictions on tons of other things, freedom of all religions except Christianity, ACLU, Take the 10 commandments out of public places, take God off of the money, and out of schools, teach evolution and sex ed to my children.

These are not the morals and values that I hold.

Have you ever heard of Sodom and Gomorrah?  The men of Sodom "were wicked, such sinners against the Lord, He decided to destroy them." For the people of the land, there was no escape, as the Lord "rained down fire and brimstone . . . He destroyed everyone living there and everything growing in the ground."

In Genesis 18, God informs Abraham that he plans to destroy the city of Sodom because of its wickedness. Abraham pleads with God not to destroy Sodom, and God agrees that he would not destroy the city if there were 50 righteous people in it, then 45, then 30, then 20, or even ten righteous people. The Lord's two angels only found one righteous person living in Sodom, Abraham's nephew Lot. Consequently, God destroyed the city.

America, because of Liberals is turning into these cities of Sodom and Gomorrah.  All of the world is really.

:bowdown: To the Lord, for we will be with him soon

What about where it tell you to rightly devide to WORD OF GOD.
You sir and that web site need to look at the entire BIBLE and not just what you want.
IMHO
PS You can't tell me if somone hurts you or the ones you love that you will turn the other cheek.
Nice to say but hard to do.

Quote from: cafeboy on September 30, 2008, 01:55:51 PM
What about where it tell you to rightly devide to WORD OF GOD.
You sir and that web site need to look at the entire BIBLE and not just what you want.
IMHO
PS You can't tell me if somone hurts you or the ones you love that you will turn the other cheek.
Nice to say but hard to do.

Feel free to quote contrary scriptures -- good luck.

No one said it was easy.  And no where does it say "unless you find it difficult, then do whatever you want."

Hey look, I'm pretty lucky huh?

Many people make the mistake of believing the Bible says, "You shall not kill," and seek to apply this command to war. However, the Bible actually says, "You shall not murder" (Exodus 20:13). The Hebrew word literally means "the intentional, premeditated killing of another person with malice." God often ordered the Israelites to go to war with other nations (1 Samuel 15:3; Joshua 4:13). God ordered the death penalty for numerous crimes (Exodus 21:12; 21:15; 22:19; Leviticus 20:11). So, God is not against killing in all circumstances, but rather only murder. War is never a good thing, but sometimes it is a necessary thing. In a world filled with sinful people (Romans 3:10-18), war is inevitable. Sometimes the only way to keep sinful people from doing great harm is by going to war with them.

 I Timothy 5:8, "But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel."

II Thessalonians 3:6-12, "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us. For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you; Neither did we eat any man's bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you: Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us. For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies. Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread."

I Timothy 5:3-10,16 "Honour widows that are widows indeed. But if any widow have children or nephews, let them learn first to shew piety at home, and to requite their parents: for that is good and acceptable before God. Now she that is a widow indeed, and desolate, trusteth in God, and continueth in supplications and prayers night and day. But she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth. And these things give in charge, that they may be blameless. But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel. Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man, Well reported of for good works; if she have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints' feet, if she have relieved the afflicted, if she have diligently followed every good work. If any man or woman that believeth have widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be charged; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed." Leviticus 22:13, "But if the priest's daughter be a widow, or divorced, and have no child, and is returned unto her father's house, as in her youth, she shall eat of her father's meat: but there shall no stranger eat thereof."

Ezekiel 16:49-50, "Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good."

One of the reasons God destroyed the four cities on the plain was that they did not strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.

Government should try to strengthen the poor, not make them weaker. If the government is going to give things away, instead of giving fish, they should give a fishing pole. Then the poor would have the means to go out and catch their own fish. If government, church or individuals help the poor it should only be in such a way to get them started in helping themselves.

This principle is taught in the law of God:

Leviticus 19:9-10, "And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not wholly reap the corners of thy field, neither shalt thou gather the gleanings of thy harvest. And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather every grape of thy vineyard; thou shalt leave them for the poor and stranger: I am the LORD your God."

Leviticus 23:22, "And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not make clean riddance of the corners of thy field when thou reapest, neither shalt thou gather any gleaning of thy harvest: thou shalt leave them unto the poor, and to the stranger: I am the LORD your God."

(The widow Ruth practiced this in Ruth 2:1-3.)

By giving away free handouts (the fancy word today is "entitlements") the poor are weakened. They do not learn the value and self satisfaction of industriousness. The poor should not be weakened but strengthened. People should depend on themselves not on the government.



Wow I'm so lucky today...I should go play the lottery

TrumpetGuy
"Give me liberty or give me death"
  That tell me how you feel.



I am not going to go down and pee back and forth with you about the BIBLE or what JESUS was or is.
All I am asking is do you live what you believe or do you just like to talk it?
Becouse you seem to be very reddy to jump on others here so it just make me wonder.
The way I see it is what ever you believe if it be wrong or right one day there will be no ? about it.
Untill then just think about your walk and if it's up to par with what you say.



Have a graet day and Rom.10:13

Quote from: cafeboy on September 30, 2008, 02:28:47 PM
TrumpetGuy
"Give me liberty or give me death"
  That tell me how you feel.



I am not going to go down and pee back and forth with you about the BIBLE or what JESUS was or is.
All I am asking is do you live what you believe or do you just like to talk it?
Becouse you seem to be very reddy to jump on others here so it just make me wonder.
The way I see it is what ever you believe if it be wrong or right one day there will be no ? about it.
Untill then just think about your walk and if it's up to par with what you say.



Have a graet day and Rom.10:13

Thank you for your kind wishes.   :cheers:

Back on topic and off of religion.

What do you guys think about Obama going to Kenya and supporting Odinga.

And also, about Obama going overseas and Negotiating with the leaders of other countries (something that, by law, only the current, active president can do)

If "I" were running things...................it most probably would lead to his arrest and perhaps conviction of  treason if determined. No one of his calibre should be allowed to speak on behalf of the United States Government and especially it's citizenry. "Over there"......
"in that area" we have some filthy, murderous, savage, and even Communist countries that our representatives approve of sending billions of dollars of taxpayer's money to each year. Truthfully, they are no more than knuckle-dragging neanderthals wearing a nice business suit with AK-47's instead of a loin cloth and spears......................more of our tax dollars...............
I can hear the piss-ant liberals now screaming about how we all need to love Robert Mugabi. "Those" bastards have DESTROYED
"civilization" in those countries. Colonialism and Imperialism built great empires.........only to be forced to turn them over to the savages and have them turned back into mud, filth, and pestilence. Cecil Rhodes is spinning in his grave like a rotisserie. Ian Smith and Botha, I salute you and I spit on de Clerk. Let me go a bit further..........I shaZam! on de Clerk.

Has Mugabe killed that guy he agreed to share power with yet?

Quote from: spc on September 30, 2008, 08:00:53 PM
Has Mugabe killed that guy he agreed to share power with yet?

nah, he's having too much fun with 50,000,000% inflation (seriously!)

Quote from: Revere2 on September 30, 2008, 05:39:30 PM
If "I" were running things...................it most probably would lead to his arrest and perhaps conviction of  treason if determined. No one of his calibre should be allowed to speak on behalf of the United States Government and especially it's citizenry.

Exactly.  No one is even looking at this.  He should be imprisoned, not our next president.  He was negotiating to keep troops over there longer, so that he could take the credit for pulling them out after he becomes president.

I am compiling a (sorry) long list of reasons why Obama should be shunned, imprisoned, and watched as a threat by the National Security Administration, instead of running for President.

It's extremely long, so I'm sorry, but read through all of it if you are considering to vote for this man.  It's a side that the Obama Campaign has been trying hard to hide (that's actually part of this...you'll see)

You may want to grab a beer, or a bowl of popcorn, cause the movie is about to begin.

Obama's Scandals...

His Life Changing Lie – He wrote movingly of a turning point in his life when, as a nine-year-old, he read in Life magazine of a "black man who had tried to peel off his skin". But the Chicago Tribune - it and the Chicago Sun-Times being honorable exceptions to the media quiescence I have described - reported that "no such Life issue exists", and an exhaustive search of similar magazines failed to find any article remotely similar to the one Obama had described.

'I opposed this war from the beginning' - . Obama was not in the Senate in 2002 and did not therefore vote for the resolution that authorized the invasion of Iraq. But he has not been the sainted man of peace his supporters portray, either. In his three years in the Senate he has kept his head safely below the parapet, leaving two congressional colleagues - Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and Representative John Murtha of Pennsylvania - to spearhead opposition to the war on Capitol Hill. In 2006 he voted against a Senate resolution calling for the withdrawal of troops and has also voted to continue funding the war.
   Most recently, he said he would not hesitate to send US troops into Pakistan without Pakistan's permission to hunt down terrorists, and he insists that the US must not "cede our claim of leadership in world affairs". He wants the military to "stay on the offensive, from Djibouti to Kandahar" and to increase defence expenditure. Like most identikit US mainstream politicians, he talks of "rogue nations" and "hostile dictators", and says the US must maintain "a strong nuclear deterrent" and be ready to "seize" the "American moment". He appeared to support Israel's attack on Lebanon, but then said "nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people" - which, in turn, he denied saying.
   He voted to reauthorise the Bush administration's repressive Patriot Act, and says that as president he would not rule out a US first-strike nuclear attack on Iran.

What happened to not running for president until 2012? - He promised solemnly on coast-to-coast live television on NBC in 2006 that he would complete his six-year Senate term and definitely not run for the presidency.

My babies Daddy - His eccentric white American mother met his Kenyan father when both were students at the University of Hawaii, but like so many male politicians - Bill Clinton, for one - his father, an alcoholic who ended up fathering several families before being killed in a car accident in Kenya in 1982, was literally and figuratively absent from his life. He abandoned Obama and his mother to take up a scholarship at Harvard when the young Barack was a toddler. So much for his Kenyan "relatives".

I'm no elitist! - The young Obama acquired a half-sister when he lived in Jakarta (she is now a Buddhist), but his mother sent him to live permanently with his white grandparents in Honolulu when he was ten. He then began a new, elitist life that even he describes as "a childhood dream": surfing in Hawaii and attending the renowned private Punahou School, founded by Congregationalist missionaries in 1841 and known to local people as a school for the haole (whites). Its annual tuition today costs $15,725.

I'm sooo smart - Far from being the brilliant student his image suggests, Obama was a consistently B-grade pupil. He went on to attend Occidental College, a perfectly respectable private liberal arts college in Los Angeles, but hardly an academic powerhouse; its present-day endowment is $377m. He transferred to Columbia University in New York and completed his degree there, and finally graduated with a degree from Harvard Law School at the age of 30. His upwardly mobile ascent had begun, and Obama joined the Chicago law firm of Miner, Barnhill & Galland. He began his professional political career when he stood successfully for the Illinois General Assembly (the state senate) in 1996.

'I won't take money from Lobbyists!' - Part of Obama's contrived sainthood is an undertaking that he will not take funds from lobbyists or political action committees. But, like the Clintons and just about any other American politician, he has assiduously done just that. According to the Washington Post, Hillary Clinton has so far raised $78,615,215 and Obama $78,915,507; Obama's campaign has relied heavily on people such as Kenneth Griffin, a Chicago-based hedge-fund manager who reportedly earned $1.4bn last year.

'Tony Rezko who?' - Obama's close 17-year friendship with Antoin "Tony" Rezko, a long-time Obama donor and property developer awaiting trial on charges of attempted extortion, money laundering and fraud. A low-income housing project received more than $14m from taxpayers while Obama was a state senator, but he consistently denied that he had done any favors for Rezko.
   That was until the Chicago Sun-Times unearthed two letters Obama wrote to state officials in 1998 urging them to grant extra funds for Rezko's project. Democrats and Republicans alike in Chicago, too, are intrigued by the question of why Obama paid $1.65m for a mansion in the city's south side in 2005 - $300,000 less than the asking price - on the very same day Rezko's wife happened to buy the house next door for the asking price. In their tax return for the following year, Obama and his wife, Michelle, who is vice-president of a non-profit hospital organisation, reported taxable income of $983,826 for 2006, down from $1.6m the previous year.

'Healthcare for Everyone!' - A casual observer might assume Obama is proposing a vastly more ambitious health-care plan than Clinton; in fact, the reverse is true.  Clinton's plan was actually more aggressive than that of Obama.

'Jeremiah Wright – not the man I thought he was' – Wright bases his church's doctrine off of the teachings of Dr. James Coon, a Black Liberation Theologist, Marxist, and Racist.
Wright is also a longtime supporter of Nation of Islam's Louis Farrakhan. Last year, the "Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award" was given to Farrakhan, who, it turns out, "truly epitomized greatness."
Farrakhan, in addition to making frequent distasteful comments about race, is a person who referred to Judaism as a "gutter religion" and its adherents a bunch of "bloodsuckers."
Wright even tagged along when Farrakhan visited Libya's dictator Moammar Khadafy — a terrorist financier directly linked to the murder of Americans — for a chitchat in 1980s.
Obama has shown zero inclination to agree with any of Farrakhan or Wright's odious statements. But as Obama's largest recipient of charitable donations, Trinity United Church of Christ is more than a fleeting distraction in the candidate's life. This is not guilt by association. Until a last minute change of heart, Obama's campaign invocation was to be given by Wright.
After bumping Wright, an Obama aide explained: "Senator Obama is proud of his pastor and his church, but because of the type of attention it was receiving on blogs and conservative talk shows, he decided to avoid having statements and beliefs being used out of context and forcing the entire church to defend itself."
If he is proud of his pastor, then asking Obama to clarify his connection to Wright is neither slander nor innuendo — nor is it the right-wing "noise machine" in action.

Know your roots - Raila Odinga is a well-known politician in Kenya.  He served in various governmental positions including Prime Minister and was an opposition candidate for president in an election in Kenya in 2007.  He didn't win but claimed that the vote was rigged and the uproar and violence that resulted took hundreds of lives and displaced hundreds of thousands of people.
   In 2006, Odinga hosted Obama for a visit to Kenya and Obama appeared with him and praised Odinga at rallies in Nairobi.

Know who you associate with - While Barack Obama was a State Senator in Illinois, he sat on the nonprofit Woods Fund. This put him in a position to make shady but lucrative quid pro quo arrangements with his former boss Allison Davis and crooked slumlord Tony Rezko.
          Also sitting on the board of the Woods Fund was William Ayers, an Obama fundraiser who is best known as the Weather Underground terrorist who announced in the September 11, 2001 edition of the New York Times that he didn't go far enough in his terrorist activities directed against the United States, which included setting bombs. He lived in hiding for years, but eventually emerged and escaped prosecution on a technicality. Unsurprisingly, he is now a college professor. It was at the home of Ayers and fellow terrorist Bernardine Dohrn that Obama was introduced into the cesspool of Chicago area politics.
          While Obama was on the board, the Woods Fund awarded a $70,000 grant to the Arab American Action Network, a local group founded by Rashid and Mona Khalidi. Soon the Khalidis returned the favor, holding a fundraising event for Obama in his home. Rashid Khalidi is a well-known terrorist sympathizer who used to be director of the PLO press agency WAFA. He's a college professor too now.

'I feel we didn't do enough' - William Ayers, at whose home Obama's political career was reportedly launched.  Mr. Ayers was a leader of the Weather Underground, a terrorist group responsible for countless bombings against targets including the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon and numerous police stations, courthouses and banks. In recent years, Mr. Ayers has stated, 'I don't regret setting bombs ... I feel we didn't do enough.'

A hidden identity - a Hawaiian "poet" named Frank Marshall Davis (whose identity Obama tried to hide when referencing him in his book). Davis had some considerable influence on the young Obama when they both lived in Hawaii. Obama himself says as much in his book, referring to his early mentor merely as "Frank." It took some recent digging to confirm that Davis was in fact that influence. Did Obama really think that the very act of hiding the man's true identity would make no one curious?
   Davis has also been identified as a member of the Communist Party. When the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee in 1956 asked him to affirm or deny his membership in the party, he refused to respond, citing the Fifth Amendment. Adding to that is the fact — revealed in the news conference referenced below — that Davis began his communist career in Chicago and was a friend and associate of the singer Paul Robeson and the longshore union official Harry Bridges, both secret Communist Party members.

Give Everyone some money - In Chicago in 1995, Mr. Khalidi and his wife Mona founded the Arab American Action Network (AAAN), a group associated with confrontational statements of support for Palestinians and antagonism toward Israel.  In 2001 and again in 2002, the Woods Fund of Chicago, with directors Ayers and Obama, made grants of $40,000 and $35,000 to the AAAN. Importantly, the AAAN vice-president Ali Abunimah of Electronic Intifada has remembered Mr. Obama's speaking in 1999 against "Israeli occupation" at a charity event for a West Bank refugee camp; and Mr. Abunimah, an American citizen, Hyde Park resident and Princeton graduate, has also recalled Mr. and Mrs. Obama at a fundraiser held for the then-Congressional candidate Obama in 2000 at Rashid and Mona Khalidi's home, where Mr. Obama made convincing statements in support of the Palestinian cause.
   Rashid Khalidi was a paycheck-receiving PLO agent when it was formally named as a terrorist organization.  In Beirut from 1976 to 1982, Mr. Khalidi headed the Palestinian press  agency WAFA, for which his wife Mona Khalidi also worked.  Mr. Khalidi also served Yasser Arafat's PLO at the Madrid conference in 1991.  Mr. and Mrs. Khalidi have yet to comment on their reported political, financial and programmatic association with Mr. Obama in Chicago; as recently as last week neither of the Khalidis would speak on the telephone when asked about Mr. Obama, Mr. Rezko or Mr. Auchi.

Keep Your Friends Close.  They may just pay your way through Harvard Law - 
Newsfront
Obama Had Close Ties to Top Saudi Adviser at Early Age
Wednesday, September 3, 2008 5:58 PM
By: Kenneth R. Timmerman
New evidence has emerged that Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama was closely associated as early as age 25 to a key adviser to a Saudi billionaire who had mentored the founding members of the Black Panthers.
In a videotaped interview this year on New York's all news cable channel NY1, a prominent African-American businessman and political figure made the curious disclosures about Obama. (See Video Clip in the original article which is linked at the end)
Percy Sutton, the former borough president of Manhattan, off-handedly revealed the unusual circumstances about his first encounter with the young Obama.
"I was introduced to (Obama) by a friend who was raising money for him," Sutton told NY1 city hall reporter Dominic Carter.
"The friend's name is Dr. Khalid al-Mansour, from Texas," Sutton said. "He is the principal adviser to one of the world's richest men. He told me about Obama."
Sutton, the founder of Inner City Broadcasting, said al-Mansour contacted him to ask a favor: Would Sutton write a letter in support of Obama's application to Harvard Law School?
"He wrote to me about him," Sutton recalled. "And his introduction was there is a young man that has applied to Harvard. I know that you have a few friends up there because you used to go up there to speak. Would you please write a letter in support of him?"
Sutton said he acted on his friend al-Mansour's advice.
"I wrote a letter of support of him to my friends at Harvard, saying to them I thought there was a genius that was going to be available and I certainly hoped they would treat him kindly," Sutton told NY1.
Sutton did not say why al-Mansour was helping Obama, how he discovered him, or from whom he was raising money on Obama's behalf.
A Sutton aide told Newsmax that Sutton, 88, is ailing and is unlikely to do additional TV interviews in the near future. The aide could not provide additional comment for this story.
As it turned out, Obama did attend Harvard Law School after graduating from Columbia University in New York and doing a stint as a community organizer in Chicago.
The New York Times described how transformative his Harvard experience became for the young Obama: "He arrived there as an unknown, Afro-wearing community organizer who had spent years searching for his identity; by the time he left, he had his first national news media exposure, a book contract and a shot of confidence from running the most powerful legal journal in the country."
The details of Obama's academic performance are well known: At Harvard, Obama rose to academic distinction becoming the editor of the Harvard Law Review and graduating magna cum laude.
Less known are the reasons al-Mansour, an activist African-American Muslim, would be a key backer for a young man from Hawaii seeking to attend the most Ivy of the Ivy League law schools.
Khalid al-Mansour a.k.a. Don Warden
In an exclusive interview with Newsmax from his home in San Antonio, Texas, al-Mansour said he would not comment specifically on the statement by Percy Sutton because he was afraid anything he said would get "distorted."
"I was determined I was never going to be in that situation," he said. "Bloggers are saying this is the new Rev. Wright " in drag! " and he is a nationalist, racist, and worse than Rev. Wright. So any statement that I made would only further this activity which is not in the interest of Barack."
But in the lengthy interview, al-Mansour confirmed that he frequently spoke on university campuses, including Columbia, where Percy Sutton suggested he met Obama in the late 1980s, and confirmed his close relationship with Prince Alwaleed.
"I am not surprised to learn about this," said Niger Innis, spokesman of the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE). "It is clear that Barack Obama's ties to the left are familial, generational, and have lasted for several years."
Although many Americans have never heard of Khalid Abdullah Tariq al-Mansour (his full name), he is well known within the black community as a lawyer, an orthodox Muslim, a black nationalist, an author, an international deal-maker, an educator, and an outspoken enemy of Israel.
A graduate of Howard University with a law degree from the University of California, al-Mansour sits on numerous corporate boards, including the Saudi African Bank and Chicago-based LaGray Chemical Co. LaGray, which was formed to do business in Africa, counts former Nigerian President General Abdusalam Abubakar on its advisory board.
He also sits on the board of the non-profit African Leadership Academy, along with top McCain for President adviser Carly Fiorina, and organized a tribute to the President of Ghana at the Clinton White House in 1995, along with pop star Michael Jackson.
But his writings and books are packed with anti-American rhetoric reminiscent of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama's disgraced former pastor.
In a 1995 book, "The Lost Books of Africa Rediscovered," he alleged that the United States was plotting genocide against black Americans.
The first "genocide against the black man began 300 years ago," he told an audience in Harlem at a book-signing, while a second "genocide" was on the way "to remove 15 million Black people, considered disposable, of no relevance, value or benefit to the American society."
In the 1960s, when he founded the African American Association in the San Francisco Bay area, he was known as Donald Warden.
According to the Social Activism Project at the University of California at Berkley, Warden, a.k.a. Khalid al-Mansour, was the mentor of Black Panther Party founder Huey Newton and his cohort, Bobby Seale.

Newton later had a falling out with Warden, who was described in a 1994 book as "the most articulate spokesperson for black nationalism" at the time.
The falling out wasn"t purely political, according to author Hugh Pearson.
"Sometimes Newton and the other members of (Warden's) security detail got into fights with young whites who didn"t like what Warden had to say about whites. Rather than "throw down" along with the security detail, Warden refused to fight," Pearson wrote in "Shadow of the Panther: Huey Newton and the Price of Black Power in America."
U.S. Rep. Barbara Lee of California entered an official statement of appreciation of Warden and his Black Panther colleagues in the African-American Association in the Congressional Record on April 23, 2007.
"Among the founding members (of the Association) were community leaders such as Khalid Al-Mansour (known then as Don Warden); future Judges Henry Ramsey and Thelton Henderson; future Congressman and Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums, and future Black Panthers Huey Newton and Bobby Seale," the Democratic representative's statement said.
Al-Mansour's more recent videotaped speeches focus on Muslim themes, and abound with anti-Semitic theories and anti-Israel vitriol.
"Today, the Palestinians are being brutalized like savages," he told an audience in South Africa. "If you protest you will go to jail, and you may be killed. And they say they are the only democratic country in the Middle East. ... They are lying on God."
He accused the Jews of "stealing the land the same way the Christians stole the land from the Indians in America."
The Saudi Connection
But al-Mansour's sponsorship of Obama as a prospective Harvard law student is important for another reason beyond his Islamic and anti-American rhetoric and early Black Panther ties.
At the time Percy Sutton, a former lawyer for Malcolm X and a former business partner of al-Mansour, says he was raising money for Obama's graduate school education, al-Mansour was representing top members of the Saudi Royal family seeking to do business and exert influence in the United States.
In 1989, for example " just one year after Obama entered Harvard Law School " The Los Angeles Times revealed that al-Mansour had been advising Saudi billionaires Abdul Aziz and Khalid al-Ibrahim in their secret effort to acquire a major stake in prime oceanfront property in Marina del Rey, Calif., through "an elaborate network of corporate shells in California, the Caribbean and Europe."
At the same time, he was also advising Prince Alwaleed bin Talal in his U.S. investments, and sits on the board of his premier investment vehicle, Kingdom Holdings.
Prince Alwaleed, 53, is the nephew if King Abdallah of Saudi Arabia. Forbes magazine ranked him this year as the 19th richest person on the planet, with a fortune in excess of $23 billion. He owns large chunks of Citigroup and News Corp., the holding company that controls Fox News.
He is best known in the United States for his offer to donate $10 million to help rebuild downtown Manhattan after the 9/11 attacks. But after the prince made a public comment suggesting that U.S. policies had contributed to causing the attacks, Mayor Rudy Giuliani handed back his check.
"I entirely reject that statement," Giuliani said. "There is no moral equivalent for this (terrorist) act. There is no justification for it. The people who did it lost any right to ask for justification for it when they slaughtered 4,000 or 5,000 innocent people."
Since then, Prince Alwaleed's Kingdom Foundation has given millions of dollars to Muslim charities in the United States, including several whose leaders have been indicted on terrorism-related charges in federal courts.
He also has given tens of millions of dollars to Harvard and other major U.S. universities, to establish programs in Islamic studies.
The casual statement by Percy Sutton to NY1 is the first time anyone has hinted at a relationship between Obama and the Saudi royal family.

Although al-Mansour glosses over his ties to the Saudi mega-billionaire in some of his public talks, he has represented the Saudi's interests in the United States, in Britain, and in Africa for more than a quarter century, according to public records.
He told Newsmax that he has personally introduced Prince Alwaleed to "51 of the 53 leaders of Africa," traveling from country to country on the Saudi prince's private jet.
He knows virtually every black leader in America, from the business community, to community activists, to the worlds of politics and entertainment.
When Michael Jackson was on the ropes in the mid-1990s following a series of lawsuits by the parents of children accusing him of sexual abuse, al-Mansour introduced him to Prince Alwaleed, whose Kingdom Entertainment signed a joint venture with Jackson in 1996.
"Jackson and Alwaleed became pals in 1994, when a mutual friend from Alwaleed's college days in California arranged a lunch meeting aboard the prince's yacht in Cannes," Time magazine reported about the new partnership in 1997.
The mutual friend was al-Mansour.
"As a black American, I am exceedingly proud at the American people's response to Barack Obama's candidacy," said CORE's Niger Innis. "But to deny that he has long-standing ties to left-wing elements in our polity is to deny reality. If you want to be president of the United States, it is not racism if you ask these kind of questions, and he has to come up with an answer, hopefully the truth."
Sutton gives no clues as to why al-Mansour would be raising money to help Obama go to law school. Obama has said during his campaign that he paid his way through Harvard with student loans.
For Jesse Lee Peterson, founder of the Los Angeles-based Brotherhood Organization of a New Destiny (BOND), these latest revelations about Obama's ties to Saudi financiers were an important wake-up call.
"To me, this opened up more questions about Barack Obama and his relationship to the Muslim world," Peterson told Newsmax.
"A lot of people are caught up with the emotional aspect of Barack Obama, the movie star aspect, the false promises that he's going to take care of everyone and their Mama."
But when the full story of Obama's ties to radical preachers such as Wright and to black Muslim leader Louis Farrakhan comes out, Peterson believes that Obama's star power will fade.
"I think there's more to this story and to Barack Obama than we realize," Peterson said. "As all the truth comes out before the election, I don"t think he has a chance. I can"t see American's taking that kind of risk."

Shut your mouth before Obama sews your lips shut...while holding YOUR gun to your head –
Earlier this week, the National Rifle Association's Political Victory Fund released a series of radio and television spots to educate gun owners and sportsmen about Barack Obama's longstanding anti-gun record. In response to the NRA-PVF ads, a clearly panicked Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) are doing everything they can to hide Obama's real record by mounting a coordinated assault on the First Amendment.
They have gone to desperate and outrageous lengths to try to silence your NRA by bullying media outlets with threats of lawsuits if they run NRA-PVF's ads.
   
Other NRA ads include "Way of Life" and another focusing on Joe Biden's record, "Defend Freedom, Defeat Obama."
This week, Obama's campaign general counsel Bob Bauer wrote seeking to censor the ads at stations in Pennsylvania.
"Unlike federal candidates, independent political organizations do not have a 'right to command the use of broadcast facilities,'" Bauer writes. "Moreover, you have a duty 'to protect the public from false, misleading or deceptive advertising.'"
"This advertising is false, misleading, and deceptive," Bauer continued. "We request that you immediately cease airing this advertising."
The NRA says Obama's camp are sending out these "intimidating cease and desist letters" to cable operators and television stations, threatening their FCC licenses if they run the ads.
The NRA charged that "Obama and the DNC have been using strong-arm tactics reminiscent of Chicago machine politics to try and cover up the truth and silence NRA by forcing the stations to assist them in hiding Obama's radical anti-gun record."
And now, Obama and the DNC have opened a new front in their assault on your First Amendment rights by calling on their followers to contact these station managers to demand that the stations not run NRA-PVF's ads.
NRA stands behind the accuracy of these ads, and NRA attorneys have responded to the Obama campaign's despicable and abusive attempt to trample on the First Amendment by sending a thorough rebuttal to station managers. This rebuttal clearly and conclusively refutes the Obama campaign's fallacious claims that the ads are inaccurate.
The NRA has set up a Web site detailing its position on Obama at www.gunbanobama.com.
A copy of the NRA's letter to station, written by its counsel Cleta Mitchell,
http://argugonian.blogster.com/write-your-title-here_290908151146
About half way down.

They're supposed to cry before they die - Newly obtained documents prove that in 2003, Barack Obama, as chairman of an IL state Senate committee, voted down a bill to protect live-born survivors of abortion - even after the panel had amended the bill to contain verbatim language, copied from a federal bill passed by Congress without objection in 2002, explicitly foreclosing any impact on abortion. Obama's legislative actions in 2003 - denying effective protection even to babies born alive during abortions - were contrary to the position taken on the same language by even the most liberal members of Congress. The bill Obama killed was virtually identical to the federal bill that even NARAL ultimately did not oppose.

Shhh...this is against the law, but I want the credit - While campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.
According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.
Obama has given Iraqis the impression that he doesn't want Iraq to appear anything like a success, let alone a victory, for America. The reason? He fears that the perception of US victory there might revive the Bush Doctrine of "pre-emptive" war - that is, removing a threat before it strikes at America.
Despite some usual equivocations on the subject, Obama rejects pre-emption as a legitimate form of self -defense. To be credible, his foreign-policy philosophy requires Iraq to be seen as a failure, a disaster, a quagmire, a pig with lipstick or any of the other apocalyptic adjectives used by the American defeat industry in the past five years.

"Obama speaks in slogans and never explains the thinking that goes into his statements. That's what we need to know: To what extent do these people influence him — the communist Frank Davis, the neo-communists Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, the anti-Semitic pro-Arab terrorist groups that he met with in Chicago. To what extent do they influence his thinking, and will he repudiate those people?"

Nice cut and paste job, QT.  Now you're officially a member of the Right-Wing Echo Chamber.  You must be so proud...

But you had better get used to calling him President Obama.

Quote from: trumpetguy on October 01, 2008, 07:31:21 PM
Nice cut and paste job, QT.  Now you're officially a member of the Right-Wing Echo Chamber.  You must be so proud...

But you had better get used to calling him President Obama.

TG as i would expect, a liberal reply. But one could "accuse" you of being a part of the left wing echo chamber as well. and i sure as hell wont be calling him president obama, if he gets in, hell have to convince alot of people hes worthy of the job. as will Mccain. TG lemme ask you this, what specifically do YOU dispute to what hes posted? and why, HB i thought it was a pretty good read. you wont read any of these things. nor really any thing which can be construed as anti obama, in the liberal ( predominantly) media, what do you specifically dispute and why?, the floor is yours ( i look forward to your reply eagerly. ( im NOT being sarcastic either )

I'm not going to take my time to refute point by point a cut and paste job from RW smear sites.  All that "information" is available word for word on any number of RW sites already.  There is not one bit of original commentary by QT in there.  Google any phrase and you'll find it.

I will argue with you about the media being liberal.  All the networks are owned by LARGE corporations, not exactly known for being liberal.  CNN has Glenn Beck on Headline News and Lou Dobbs on CNN itself during primetime.  Liberal guys? Hardly.

The media was much more questioning of Obama than McCain for the first half of the campaign.  Now that McCain has made his bed with sleazy campaign ads full of half-truths and distortions, the media has finally woken up to the fact that McCain is no "maverick."  And Palin is not qualified to be Vice-President, much less (heaven forbid) President.

It was big news when (a MONTH after being nominated) Palin appeared before the press for the first time.  She has done herself no favors with her lack of understanding of common issues.  And who criticized her for not appearing before the press?  Not the media -- at least for the first three weeks.

I do read legitimate criticisms of Obama and I don't agree with everything he says or does.  However, the choice is between Obama and McCain.  I'm casting my vote against McCain/Palin based on REAL issues.

My point is still the same as it was in my first post on this thread.  Dirt can be dug up on anyone.  Stories can be spun to suit the purpose of whom ever is telling the story.  Which is why I really try not to put too much of my limited time nor trust into either side of it.  I prefer to rely on actual cantidate interviews instead of someone with an obvious agenda in either direction.  I happen to be a long term democrat, but if I honestly thought McCain would do a better job. I'd vote for him.  The fact is that I truely believe Obama will do the best job.  Will he be perfect, I doubt it.  Do I totally agree with him, no way.  I do, however, believe he will do the best at the jobs in which I think is important. 

I live in west virginia at this moment and the aera is usually very democratic.  However, the predominantly white towns freak out if you mention gun control.  No politician is going to be successful in attempting to ban guns completely in the US.  Around the world in places like Australia the gun ban actually increased crime rate.  What most politicians for gun control want to do is create laws to control guns, hence the name.  They want to keep automatic guns off of the streets.  They want to keep hand guns out of public schools. 

The only issues that I care about at this moment are the economy and getting out of Iraq.  In both issues, I have Obama being the better choice and neither has a thing to do with what religion he is, whether he is pro coice, pro gun control, who his preacher is, how he paid for law school, or any of the other nonsense that is suppose to make me see the light. What is relevant is that he is old.  He is old and she is only a nice smile and a public relations expert away from being retarded.       

Hell TG even teh vepp debate moderator COULD be accused of being an obama supporter. and why is it. most of the media is mostly obama stories, and few mccain, why is it. NYtimes can get a large article on obama, but mccain could not. why err what about hell even moveon.org, i might as well call them media, shoot. theyre quoted more often by liberals as being fact, when in some cases that could be doubted. and speaking of large corporations, hell fannie mae, and freddie macs former/ and last ceo's are on obamas team, in high positions. and both of those two had a hand in the companies downfalls. also gave LARGE sums of money to obama, Meh is it me, or is politics this election cycle f%&ked up lol. ill be glad when its over. and leaving country if obama gets in. sorry TG i know you love him  :laugh: ( said in jest) but im sorry i know nothing about him. not enough to trust. there is NO information about him out there. hell is "associations?' i htink tey are relevant. whereas mccains could be as well. but not the children of VP candidates though. NOT obamas children. i think kids are off limits , anyhoo, im going to sit back with pop corn, and french vodka, and watch teh flame war develop and get blamed on george bush,  :laugh: :laugh:

WTF? i konw im not doin drugs, but WHAT THE f%$k is THIS?!?   http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=zmoYYzB32Iw  :o :cookoo: :cookoo: :cookoo:

Quote from: trumpetguy on October 01, 2008, 09:10:40 PM
I'm not going to take my time to refute point by point a cut and paste job from RW smear sites.  All that "information" is available word for word on any number of RW sites already.  There is not one bit of original commentary by QT in there.  Google any phrase and you'll find it.

fine, since you refuste to refute all of em, humour us, andpick say two. adn explain why they are wrong, eithr in your opinion or via link., ( see im beign generous today. normally i ask for neutral links)

I found several articles talking about McCain "blowing goats"  Now, I am sure this means something different, but if I was to cut and paste the phrase I found that said "McCain to appologize for blowing goats" some may begin to wonder about this secret affair with the goat.  ... And this was the very first funny phrase I goolgled.

  Question Everything or Believed Anything!! - Einstein

Quote from: yamahonkawazuki on October 02, 2008, 01:15:21 AM

Quote from: trumpetguy on October 01, 2008, 09:10:40 PM
I'm not going to take my time to refute point by point a cut and paste job from RW smear sites.  All that "information" is available word for word on any number of RW sites already.  There is not one bit of original commentary by QT in there.  Google any phrase and you'll find it.

fine, since you refuste to refute all of em, humour us, andpick say two. adn explain why they are wrong, eithr in your opinion or via link., ( see im beign generous today. normally i ask for neutral links)

It's a waste of time.  Most of these things have NOTHING to do with being President.

Obama opposes the folly in Iraq.  That alone ALMOST gets my vote.
He opposes the American Taliban (those who favor a theocracy) and supports the constitutional separation of church and state.  I'm all for that position, too.
He supports reinstating fair taxes on wealthy people (pre-Bush income tax levels).  I'm for that.
He supports the right of women to choose abortion in limited circumstances.  I support that choice as well, along with a majority of Americans.

These are all positions in which Obama is in direct opposition to McCain, and which have bearing on the American quality of life and freedom.  The rest is distraction, brought to you by Fox News and so many others.

Every time that something is posted, the liberal backers keep saying that it has no relevance.  Please explain to us HOW it has no relevance.

Osama: Yes, that is right I am running for president of the United States of America
Reporter: Really?!? Aren't you a Terrorist?
Osama: Well...yes, but that doesn't have relevance.  That's in my past, and that's just what it is...my past.
Reporter: Oh, okay.  Well in that case...    Say, where do you stand on the issues?
Osama: I've always supported the young in my home town.  I've donated millions to the terrorist training camps to help these young Muslims see the light.
Reporter: Wow! Millions?!?  Wait, did you say terrorist training camps?
Osama: Yes...they are my people.  I've invested so much time and effort in being a Community Organizer, and I feel I've really made a difference in the community.
Reporter: Yeah, I guess you have made a difference.  Where do you stand on Abortion?
Osama:  That's not a fair question!  I haven't performed an abortion in years...  Well, back in the day, I'd usually just stand on the head...that would usually get the job done.
Reporter:  Isn't that a little inhumane?
Osama:  No, not at all.  You see, this was only after a botched abortion attempt earlier in the pregnancy.
Reporter:  Got it.  Tell me, where are you getting the money for your campaign?
Osama:  Well I'll tell you where I'm not getting it;  From Pakistan and Afghanistan.  They're too pushy for their agenda's.
Reporter:  I have a letter here that states that you've received over 450,000 dollars from the people of Afghanistan.
Osama:  Uh u u u, well, you see here,  The e e, this money is from the people.  It's not from these countries. 
Reporter:  Hey, is that a bomb around your waist?
Osama:  Yes, but that's not relevant.  It has nothing to do with this campaign.  Next question please.

I'm not an English Professor, I'm an Artist.  Where does it say in this thread's rules that you can't cut and paste?  Did I say I was going to write everything in my own words?  If I were to do that, then you'd just say it's all bs, cause I wrote it.  This is still attacking, you guys really don't know how not to attack, do you?  Keep this a debate.  I present issues, you comment on them, I comment back.  You present issues, I comment on them, you comment back.  That's how it works.

REFUTE SOMETHING.  That's what this is all about.  It's a debate.  These are things that I have found that bring a different light to Obama.  IF YOU SEE SOMETHING THAT YOU DISAGREE WITH IN THESE STATEMENTS, THEN REFUTE IT.  DON'T SAY THAT IT'S A WASTE OF TIME!  It's only a waste of time on your end, cause maybe these statements have a lot of relevance and you don't know how to refute them.  Is that what it is?

I love YOU  :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Quote from: jserio on October 02, 2008, 12:41:38 PM
I love YOU  :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

K, that's just childish.  Please leave this thread.

i will not leave this thread!!!  :flipoff:


:cheers: :cheers: :cheers:

Then please contribute.  This thread has been on the edge of the TF since it began.  It's very informative and people are enjoying reading and following it, so please don't be childish.  It's fine if you want to contribute.

Quote from: quiktaco on October 02, 2008, 09:04:54 AM
Reporter: Yeah, I guess you have made a difference.  Where do you stand on Abortion?
Osama:  That's not a fair question!  I haven't performed an abortion in years...  Well, back in the day, I'd usually just stand on the head...that would usually get the job done.
Reporter:  Isn't that a little inhumane?
Osama:  No, not at all.  You see, this was only after a botched abortion attempt earlier in the pregnancy.

And you call OTHER people childish?  Get real, QT.  How childish is this kind of garbage ^ ^ ^ ?

Your posts do not concern issues, they usually concern bizarre accusations, and often from some off-the-wall smear website.  You want to debate issues and where Obama or McCain stand on those issues, fine, but enough with the ridiculous smears.

i have contributed thank you. all i see lately is a bunch of he said she said. one poster saying obama is bad, the other saying no, he's good. there seems to be no real debate here. nothing is being refuted with any kind of evidence. it's all hearsay. one poster refuses to answer a post because it would "waste their time". how are we gonna talk about things if there is no talking? my comment, "I love YOU" was my way of saying that it seems this thread has degenerated into a schoolyard "your momma" argument. seriously. lets talk about where each candidate stands on the issues. and i'm sick of hearing, "oh, but that info is from a left-wing site or a right-wing site". grow some f%$king balls people. become AMERICANS not democrats or republicans, liberals or conservatives, left or right.

That was just something to show how ridiculous it is to not look at the person as a whole.  To discount the rest of the persons life would be voting for an anonymous person.

My posts do concern all types of issues.  You just avoid them.  There are also topics about the kind of man he is.  Also things about what he's lied about in his past, like having student loads for Harvard, or his life changing article that he read in a magazine.

If one looks at Obama's voting history in the past, then you will see where he stands on issues.  Don't go by what he's saying right now, because it's completely different.  He's always been apposed to guns, now he's saying that he never said that, and that he thinks self defense guns are fine, and hunting guns are fine, but if you look at what he's voted for, then he's wanted to ban all guns.

Look at his voting history, not his propaganda ads.

Quote from: jserio on October 02, 2008, 03:21:45 PM
i have contributed thank you. all i see lately is a bunch of he said she said. one poster saying obama is bad, the other saying no, he's good. there seems to be no real debate here. nothing is being refuted with any kind of evidence. it's all hearsay. one poster refuses to answer a post because it would "waste their time". how are we gonna talk about things if there is no talking? my comment, "I love YOU" was my way of saying that it seems this thread has degenerated into a schoolyard "your momma" argument. seriously. lets talk about where each candidate stands on the issues. and i'm sick of hearing, "oh, but that info is from a left-wing site or a right-wing site". grow some f%$king balls people. become AMERICANS not democrats or republicans, liberals or conservatives, left or right.

I know you've contributed, but the comments were out of line in the context they were presented.  How you describe it here is fine, and I understand what you are saying.

You are right, nothing is being refuted, however I do give lots of evidence along with my posts.  If that evidence gets refuted, then that's fine, but no one will know if it's bad evidence unless someone comes back with something to say that it is.

I've given so much information here, and it seems to be just passed by like no one really cares.  This information isn't just made up crap.  These are actual topics that are out there, and real things that people aren't seeing in the media.  Please take that long post that I posted and refute some topics that you think are false, or without proof.

i never said i thought what you were posting was false. i'm not voting for obama. and it has nothing to do with anything you've posted here. i made up my mind at the beginning of the primaries that i wasn't voting for him. in my mind, the words coming from his mouth sounded nice but they have a false ring to my ears. my dad always told me if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. obama reminds me of the guys running for class president in highschool. smart, educated people. smooth talkers and able to work a crowd. problem was, they'd say they were gonna do all this stuff but in reality, they couldn't. class president is like a figurehead, can't change much if anything. now, i'm not saying our president is a figure head, but he doesn't have final say in alot of matters. we have checks and balances (that i feel we need) to ensure no one branch of the govt gets too big for their britches. (sadly, i think the entire govt is too "big".)

Thanks Jserio, you are very right.  I just didn't want this to be thrown to the TF after 23 pages.

He does seem too good to be true.  If everything he were saying were true, then he'd be the best thing since sliced HDTV hotdog buns.  However, he hasn't stood firm on almost any issue since he started running.

Look at the war, economy, abortion, gun control, health care, social programs, you name it.  He has moved so far to the right from where his voting record stands.  The words he speaks are of a moderate Democrat.  The votes that he casts are of a far left Socialist.

He's two different people, and the media doesn't care to point out these things, they're too busy having tingling in their pants from him.

the media is never a "great" source for information. i'm sick of turning on the news and hearing bout this person's dead, that person is in jail, this politician had an affair, i don't know how many houses i have, i can't remember what my pastor said, the cowboys lost to the redskins so the sky is falling in dallas, the economy is in trouble, oil prices rise, oil company rakes in huge profit, consumer continues to take it in the ass(maybe they'll have ky available next time) etc, etc.... :2guns: :2guns: :2guns:   

That has kind of been my point from the begining.  Both sides will be able to find trash and even the supposed reputable sources have become trashy.  I really try to base my opinions on my beliefs and what I have personally heard the cantidates say.  And when I say "personally heard what the cantidates say", I am speaking of an entire interview and not just sound bites.  Out of context, anyone can say anything, but the conversation as a whole means two different things.  Honestly, I have attempted to debate in  the true fasion of the word and I get the same things over and over.  I get hearsay, sound bites, other people's opinions, and pages on top of pages of "he said this, but what he meant was this" 

I would love to debate issues.  I do believe his life, past and present are relevant.  I do not, however, feel it is necessary to read every agenda seeking web page in order to base my opinion.  The issue is the economy.  The issue is Iraq.  An issue that has been forgoten in this election is education.  I was given the privalege of tutoring freshmen, sophmore and junior students in different math and engineering courses this past year and OMG.  Our high school students are graduating without a minimal education.  I literaly had to teach a girl what a number line was and she said she had good grades in high school.  No child left behind is a joke and we, at present, doing an awesome job of making our children idiots. 

I will not comment again on Obama's religion or lack of because I do not care.  His past is relevant, but his religion(in this country we have a freedom of by the way) and hearsay, is not.

The US is my home and I am worried about what is happening to it right now.  And whats happening to the US has nothing to do with any of the points anyone has brought up about Obama.  How about we shift this thread from a Obama bashing sermon to why McCain would do good.  If you want to change my mind, try telling me why I should vote for McCain as opposed to why I should not vote for Obama.  Go figure?

Got to go see Palin make a horses ass out of herself :)  JK  I hope she does great, but loses of course.

Oh well, she didn't do bad at all.  I definately believe Biden won the debate, but I do not thing she did a bad job.  In fact, I believe she could have restored her image, not much help to McCain, but she did herself some good.  Besides the whole not answering questions that were directly answered thing.  It was a smart move to go back to her bread and butter topic, energy, when she did not understand a question.  Over all, she did worlds better than in the Couric interview and much better than I expected.

Quote from: trumpetguy on October 02, 2008, 03:12:37 PM

Quote from: quiktaco on October 02, 2008, 09:04:54 AM
Reporter: Yeah, I guess you have made a difference.  Where do you stand on Abortion?
Osama:  That's not a fair question!  I haven't performed an abortion in years...  Well, back in the day, I'd usually just stand on the head...that would usually get the job done.
Reporter:  Isn't that a little inhumane?
Osama:  No, not at all.  You see, this was only after a botched abortion attempt earlier in the pregnancy.

And you call OTHER people childish?  Get real, QT.  How childish is this kind of garbage ^ ^ ^ ?

Your posts do not concern issues, they usually concern bizarre accusations, and often from some off-the-wall smear website.  You want to debate issues and where Obama or McCain stand on those issues, fine, but enough with the ridiculous smears.

Cmon TG dont make me smack you upside the head with a doobie, this was what appeared to be sarasm or humour or somethign  :cheers:

Quote from: quiktaco on October 02, 2008, 03:41:17 PM
Thanks Jserio, you are very right.  I just didn't want this to be thrown to the TF after 23 pages.

He does seem too good to be true.  If everything he were saying were true, then he'd be the best thing since sliced HDTV hotdog buns.  However, he hasn't stood firm on almost any issue since he started running.

Look at the war, economy, abortion, gun control, health care, social programs, you name it.  He has moved so far to the right from where his voting record stands.  The words he speaks are of a moderate Democrat.  The votes that he casts are of a far left Socialist.

He's two different people, and the media doesn't care to point out these things, they're too busy having tingling in their pants from him.

LOL he hardly has a voting record. i cannot remember which thread it was in, but its here somewhere, BUT hes been on the campaign trail more tehn senate chambers, and his voting record reflects as such. someone said, well he has been runnign for president. and im thinking BUT hes being paid to be a senator. , so in essence, hes being paid for not showing up to work

Here is the script from a radio ad that is running in my area.

SCRIPT – "Defend":

Barack Obama: I'm Barack Obama, candidate for president, and I approved this message.

Ray Schoenke: This is Ray Schoenke. I played football with the Washington Redskins. Now I'm president of the American Hunters and Shooters Association. It's important to me that our next President protects our Second Amendment rights to own guns and defend ourselves.

Barack Obama and John McCain will both make sure we can keep our guns.

But what about keeping our jobs?

Barack's got a real plan that invests in creating jobs here at home and cuts taxes a thousand bucks for working families.

John McCain?

I saw a lot of cheap shots in my day...

But McCain's false attacks on Obama are just a fake to hide the ball. His plan sells out American workers.

McCain will keep giving tax breaks to companies that ship our jobs overseas.

And he'll look the other way while China breaks our trade deals.

It's the same old Bush playbook.

Look, when the coach loses eight years in a row, you don't bring him back for a ninth season!

We just can't afford more of the same.

Paid for by Obama for America.

---------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------

This ad goes to show the gross dishonesty of Obama.

The first part about Obama being pro gun is a load of crap. This "American Hunters and Shooters Association" is a group of anti-gunners. The people behind this organization read like who's who of the gun ban crowd.

Kind of like the KKK forming a group called the National Colored People's Association.

Quote from: Cal76 on October 02, 2008, 06:01:17 PM
I would love to debate issues.  I do believe his life, past and present are relevant.  I do not, however, feel it is necessary to read every agenda seeking web page in order to base my opinion.  The issue is the economy.  The issue is Iraq.  An issue that has been forgoten in this election is education.  I was given the privalege of tutoring freshmen, sophmore and junior students in different math and engineering courses this past year and OMG.  Our high school students are graduating without a minimal education.  I literaly had to teach a girl what a number line was and she said she had good grades in high school.  No child left behind is a joke and we, at present, doing an awesome job of making our children idiots. 

I will not comment again on Obama's religion or lack of because I do not care.  His past is relevant, but his religion(in this country we have a freedom of by the way) and hearsay, is not.

I think religion got too much hype once people found out what my religion was (on this thread anyways).  I don't care what religion he is, I would prefer mine of course, but it is correct, it doesn't affect the presidency.  However, it's not specifically the 'religion' of his religion that concerns me.  It's the racism that stems from that specific religion, and the extreme far left wing slant...You've got to admit, even Marxism (what that religion is based off of) is a little too far left for even most of you liberals here.  If the religion were just a religion, and not something bases off of James Cones teachings about social experience, then I would say whatever.  But it does play a major role in what he thinks because of this thing, which should really be more of an hour long seminar once a week instead of a religion.

I do think it's a good idea to listen to the actual people, but you can't stop there either.  You must compare this to their voting record.  That will tell where they really stand on issues.  Anyone can lie, and right now, Obama is doing it a lot.  He isn't the man that he was 6 months ago.  Not by what he's been saying and doing.

6 Months ago -
• With his church
• Proud of his Pastor/Friend/Mentor
• Anti-Gun
• Socialized Health Care
• Supported war - wants to increase in Afghanistan, and wouldn't be apposed to nuking Iran
• Helps every black person he could find and gives them tons of stuff (but not a job)

Now -
• Left his Church
• Never new this pastor was like this, now shuns him
• Pro-gun...I believe in gun control...yeah, use both hands
• ton less socialized of a health care system.  Even less than what Hillary was planning
• Never supported the war
• Helps everyone and is going to make millions of jobs so there's a surplus and even homeless people will work.

Look at all this.  He's not the same person.  When he gets in office, he's going to be the person he was 6 months ago, not the person he is now.  That's what his votes say, and that's where he'll stand.

And guess what guys, it's the dems that want to do the bail outs...it didn't pass the house vote because of the republicans.  Even being a big business, they want to give money to everyone, cause that's how they'll get more money in their pockets.

The Economy is going down because we're giving money to the poor instead of giving jobs and job training to the poor.  it makes too much since.  If they work for it, and don't need government money anymore, then the economy gets better.  Make programs that don't work, and never actually Help the people, just feed them or whatever, and the economy will die.

The media is not a good source since the objectivity of all media has gone out the window, the liberal left controlled media has openly shown their support for Obama.

Thanks but no thanks, I have looked at voting history and past performance says Obam is saying what the public wants to hear.

Speaking of voting for the first time in a very long time though I am voting for McCain for president our district 1 congressman John Sullivan will not be getting my vote. I will vote for the democrat who is opposing him since chose to ignore repeated e-mails from a large portion of his constituency and voted for the 700 billion dollar bail out.

Quote from: bettingpython on October 03, 2008, 10:49:28 AM
Speaking of voting for the first time in a very long time though I am voting for McCain for president our district 1 congressman John Sullivan will not be getting my vote. I will vote for the democrat who is opposing him since chose to ignore repeated e-mails from a large portion of his constituency and voted for the 700 billion dollar bail out.

It's amazing how some congressmen listen a month before the election. Frank Lucas (R-OK), my congressman, voted against the bailout because of all the email and phone calls from constituents.  When the emails and phone calls opposed continued involvement Iraq a year before election day, he couldn't hear a thing...

Obama is a rube, Palin is an Alaskan trailer ... lets be nice and say ... "resident" ...

Waaaaaaay more lies in her points then Biden's ... and darn tootin ... the facts dont count ...

Lets see, we're replacing a texan cowboy simpleton with an alaskan country bumpkin ... lets just face it, McCain is gonna croak by April ...

The right person for the top job is not your beer drinking buddy ... definetly not your local my mama inspite of what 'Joe six-pack" thinks ... WTF is Joe Six-pack anyway ... isn't that just calling us simple drunks ...

There is a fine line between being one of us because you're as stupid as the stupidest of us ... and being one of us because you can empathise and know what we are going through.

McCain of 2000 with leiberman or Giuliani or Ridge may have made a decent pair ... heck they would have made a decent pair in 2000 ...

There are a lot of shades of grey, not anything in black or white ... and I dont think McCain or Palin understand any of those ... no one is your friend or your enemy, they are all inbetween ...  Maybe Obama doesn't know that distinction either that well, but I will count Biden as having that sensitivity McCain as not caring and Palin as horrendously unaware.

Bush thinks in terms of yes and no ... the next president needs to think in terms of everything inbetween.

I think McCain is racing the other way ... he's too senile to care, palin is too full of herself and her self righteousness to even think in that line.
Obama may be a newb but with his Biden choice he has shown the need to know, understand, learn and improve and more than anything else, he has chosen to work closely with a former rival for the betterment of all of the country.

Just that one item I will count as a huge point for Obama - BTW remember they are all politicians ... and they all are dirty and not worth holding in any esteem ... like used car salesman ... no offence to used car salesman ... So dont even point out this one's or that one's flaws and mis-steps ...

Cool.
Buddha.

BTW, I am fiscally conservative, anti abortion and sorta split on most other long running issues.
Pro ghey rights, pro gun, anti illegal immigration what not ...
I dont agree with either of the candidates on everything ... but Obama is slightly ... very very slightly better than McCain of 08 in some issues ...
Thrown in Palin on McCain's side and he sinks ... not even close. Obama can pick Mr Potatohead and walk away as the winner. Now Obama had to make the choice first, and he had to pick better than any of the options before McCain - Jindal, Ridge, Leibermann many more ... and he just nailed it. Now with the mood the way it is in the country amongst his base, he could ahve picked Hillary, but back then he would have looked like a door mat if he had. Omaba nailed it, McCain blew it and they were equal before ... the fact that Obama even picked Biden was possibly what in my mind put him over McCain ... but top it off with the fact that McCain picked Palin, and its lights out McCain.
From where they are equal Obama gets a +1, McCain gets a -10, and then biden comes with a +1000, Palin with a -200. Its now a 1211 point lead for Obama.
The only worse choice McCain could have made would ahve been Cheney.
Cool.
Buddha.

I didn't catch the VP debate last night.  My wife's show on HGTV trumped the recording of it, so it didn't even record.  I heard that both did pretty good.  There were a few inaccuracies in facts on the side of Palin, but nothing too bad.

I would have voted for Ron Paul in a heartbeat ...

And good to know your priorities are in the right place - HGTV episodes will soon be collectible ... right after they go out of business ... or merge with telemundo ... Housing porn is about to be the next casualty of the housing bubble. Oh, they may get bailed out too, which is very good for them, that bail out will be in mexican dollars, not in american pesos ... and after that they will solely be building houses with a lot of hidden rooms, sub basements, mirrors in the right places to reflect the sun so Immigration agents cannot see the trap doors etc etc etc ... so that americans who will do the jobs in the burning sun in mexico that the locals cannot or will not do can effectively hide when the authorities come to deport them ...

quiktaco - There were 1/2 truths and comparing apples to oranges on the side of Biden ... a lot of watch the exact word he was saying etc etc ... but the big lies and seriously bad implications were all Palin. She was talking about some crap that literally implied that "alaska has a lot of oil and natural gas and natural gas is 100% clean and if she were VP she'd give us all that oil") ... Nice ... This is the truth however - You are irrelevant, the oil and natural gas are owned by all 50 states, the clean natural gas still contributes to global warming unless that whole concept is BS - not saying it is or it isn't, and there is barely enough to cover 10% of our needs on an ongoing basis, and pumping any faster will only cause the fields to die before full extraction occours - Same thing that is affecting Iraq now. Time to retire the ones that ahve been pumped faster than the design rate ...
Cool.
Buddha.

Can't really comment on it since I have no idea what was said.

Quote from: The Buddha on October 03, 2008, 12:07:54 PM
BTW, I am fiscally conservative, anti abortion and sorta split on most other long running issues.
Pro ghey rights, pro gun, anti illegal immigration what not ...

According to these, wouldn't McCain be the better choice?

Quote from: quiktaco on October 03, 2008, 12:24:12 PM

Quote from: The Buddha on October 03, 2008, 12:07:54 PM
BTW, I am fiscally conservative, anti abortion and sorta split on most other long running issues.
Pro ghey rights, pro gun, anti illegal immigration what not ...

According to these, wouldn't McCain be the better choice?

No ... not with palin added in ... With her, he's just pandering to the religious right.
McCain is anti illegal immigration by handing them legality ... -1 for him. OBama is only -1/2 here. He didn't write and push the bill atleast.

Anti abortion - not in the cases of rape and incest like Palin is ... Obama just said its between you and your god, and its above his pay grade. Does that mean its going to be in the laws as "allowed" I dont htink so, I think its going to end up in the hands of the states. This is a small point in favor of McCain, large point against Obama, a huuuuuge point against Palin.

McCain is fiscally irresponsible ... privatize the profits by deregulation, socialise the losses by bail out. Screw that, that is the W policy. Regulate all the time and prevent crap like this = the democrat way ... bad, but not as bad as the McCain way ... privatise the profits and dont bail sheite out ... prolly the best policy ... no one has the balls to suggest that except ron paul ... but McCain's way is very very bad. Obama is just very bad.

Ghey and Gun ... one to Obama and one to McCain - small issues IMHO.

Without Palin and Biden the other 2 are equally bad. Very very very closely in favor of obama. However the one descision Obama made that put him ahead was picking Biden. McCain blew it by not picking Giuliani, ridge, jindal, leibermann ... and totally lost it by picking Palin.
Cool.
Buddha.

QuoteMcCain is anti illegal immigration by handing them legality ... -1 for him. OBama is only -1/2 here. He didn't write and push the bill atleast.

Agree.  They shouldn't get legality.  It's all for personal gain on their parts, cause if they didn't do that, then they'd loose a ton of votes.

QuoteAnti abortion - not in the cases of rape and incest like Palin is ... Obama just said its between you and your god, and its above his pay grade. Does that mean its going to be in the laws as "allowed" I dont htink so, I think its going to end up in the hands of the states. This is a small point in favor of McCain, large point against Obama, a huuuuuge point against Palin.

Only time I would see it being ok, is when both the child and mother will die (no matter what) if it goes full term.  I don't see how we can punish a child for someone elses actions.  The rapist's should be killed.  Not the babies.  They can be raised by loving parents if put up for adoption, if the mother didn't want them.  There's just no reason to kill the babies.  And Obama being okay with letting a baby die due to neglect after birth, if a previous abortion attempt wasn't successful.  That's horrible.  No one can say that, that is not murder.  Give the kid to and adoption agency or at a fire station or hospital.  Don't just let it die.  That is a major point loss for Obama in my book.

QuoteMcCain is fiscally irresponsible ... privatize the profits by deregulation, socialise the losses by bail out. Screw that, that is the W policy. Regulate all the time and prevent crap like this = the democrat way ... bad, but not as bad as the McCain way ... privatise the profits and dont bail sheite out ... prolly the best policy ... no one has the balls to suggest that except ron paul ... but McCain's way is very very bad. Obama is just very bad.

I totally agree with you here

QuoteGhey and Gun ... one to Obama and one to McCain - small issues IMHO.

I'm anti ghey.  It's as bad as child pedofilia, incest, adultry, bestiality, and any other sodomistic type of sex.  I do think that ghey rights is a smaller issue.  I don't think gun rights is quite as small, though.  Smaller of course than most other things though.  So I understand you here.

QuoteWithout Palin and Biden the other 2 are equally bad. Very very very closely in favor of obama. However the one descision Obama made that put him ahead was picking Biden. McCain blew it by not picking Giuliani, ridge, jindal, leibermann ... and totally lost it by picking Palin.

I really don't think that Palin is bad.  She is really religious, which isn't a problem.  Not quite what I believe...not her denomination anyways, but closer to my own beliefs.  However, she's fought for and against things that needed to be fought.  She did this against Rep's and Dem's, and she got things done.  I really think she can do the same as a VP.  I do admit that she is a little overly Alaskan when she speaks about things, but she is the governor there.  She cares about that state, and I'm sure she'd care about this country just as much being in a national office.

maybe i should start a new thread but what the hell, i lay it out here. i only watced approx. 15-20 mins of the "VP DEBATE". now, correct me if i'm wrong, but it's supposed to be the VICE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE!!  in my mind, that should mean the VPs talk/debate how THEY stand on the issues at hand. what are THEIR policies/ideas etc. i'm so f%$king sick of hearing Palin say "well, you know, john mccain will do this and this and obama will not" and bidden say, "obama will do this and this and john mccain will not". WTF!!!!  oh, and i caught Bidden saying that back in 2005 obama knew there was a problem in sub-prime mortgages and sent a letter to the treasurey or someone to that effect. hmm..that's f%$king hilarious. i believe Bidden actually said obama knew there was a "crisis" (correct me if i'm wrong). now, if obama the all powerful friend of the people knew this, why the f%$k didn't he say something? and i'm not talking about some letter he sent to some other washington jack-off. i'm talking about US, the f%$king people he's asking to vote him into office! if you knew back then there was this major problem, f%$king SAY SOMETHING kitty cat!  seriously, get on whatever news outlet you can and tell people, "watch out, the banks are trying to pull a fast one. don't do this type of mortgage, please. it will f%$k shaZam! up, seriously." or something to that effect. for cryin out loud, now that this "crisis" is here, everyone is saying they knew about it in advance and tried to warn or tell "someone". give me a f%$king break, don't try to piss down my f%$king leg and tell me it's raining @$$hole.  :flipoff:   




other than the above rant, my 27th birthday is going great.  :icon_mrgreen:    :cheers:

Quote from: jserio on October 03, 2008, 01:20:43 PM
maybe i should start a new thread but what the hell, i lay it out here. i only watced approx. 15-20 mins of the "VP DEBATE". now, correct me if i'm wrong, but it's supposed to be the VICE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE!!  in my mind, that should mean the VPs talk/debate how THEY stand on the issues at hand. what are THEIR policies/ideas etc. i'm so f%$king sick of hearing Palin say "well, you know, john mccain will do this and this and obama will not" and bidden say, "obama will do this and this and john mccain will not". WTF!!!!  oh, and i caught Bidden saying that back in 2005 obama knew there was a problem in sub-prime mortgages and sent a letter to the treasurey or someone to that effect. hmm..that's f%$king hilarious. i believe Bidden actually said obama knew there was a "crisis" (correct me if i'm wrong). now, if obama the all powerful friend of the people knew this, why the f%$k didn't he say something? and i'm not talking about some letter he sent to some other washington jack-off. i'm talking about US, the f%$king people he's asking to vote him into office! if you knew back then there was this major problem, f%$kING SAY SOMETHING kitty cat!  seriously, get on whatever news outlet you can and tell people, "watch out, the banks are trying to pull a fast one. don't do this type of mortgage, please. it will f%$k shaZam! up, seriously." or something to that effect. for cryin out loud, now that this "crisis" is here, everyone is saying they knew about it in advance and tried to warn or tell "someone". give me a f%$king break, don't try to piss down my f%$king leg and tell me it's raining @$$hole.  :flipoff:   

Wow, couldn't have said it better myself.

I did catch the last 2.5 minutes of the debate last night.  The closing argument that Biden ended with, was something to the affect that "And I know that Obama is totally ready to be the next president of this United States".  Wasn't it just around 3 months ago that he's quoted as saying something like "No, I don't think Obama is ready, he's too inexperienced."  What happened in this last few months?  All I know that he's done is not show up for his job in the senate.  Oh wait! I think Biden is lying cause he wants to be VP!

Yea, rape and incest - not quite that simple. The woman who is in that position may have her life seriously interrupted by that and no adoption is not a guilt free pass. Parents who give up their kids literally die everyday, its extremely traumatic.I'd in that case take an abortion over adoption.

Ghey - See population control. Get the population as low as you can wihtout china style BS. However the illegals and the irresponsible are reproducing like bunnies and the ones who are responsible are ghey or not having kids ... total reverse of what is good for the world.

Palin is a moron ... Palin is a conceited, conniving, ignorant, bible thumping, small minded, petty and completely completely out of her game simpleton. She's hoping to get by on her looks, the fact that they have the element of surprise over the democrats and is hoping no one notices before the elections, after which in ~3 months she's going to jockey herself on McCain's heartattack into the white house.

Those that make the best first impressions dont make the best long term impressions, and she's not made an impression, she's just made a splash. Her dodging of 'what magazines have you read on current affairs" from softie katie elicited a 'I'll get back to you on that one response' ...

She's not an insider ... yet, but the instant she lands in the washington DC zip code she's going to be the trampiest lobbyist wheore ever seen this side of hollywood boulevard.

Obviously she's energised the base ... that was her job ... also listed as her job - one which no one has seen is getting pork to alaska (which is already the largest consumer of public dollars relative to their tax out flow as well as per capita), burying McCain, pandering to the right while lobbying herself into extreme wealth, making a fool, of herself with her ignorance with all foreign countries, selling out america's name, brand and standing in the world and making Bush/Cheney look like benevolent leaders and geniuses.

Many many many staunchly religious countries can keep religion out of their administration. Why cant we. Why is everything controlled by the religious right. The only countries that are worse in this regard are our best friends - saudi arabia and our worst enemies - Iran, Iraq and afganisthan.

BTW I have become more conservative after the bail out. I'd like to find a freight train go to washington DC and run over Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

Here is another good one I came up with ...

What does the "W" in George W bush stand for ...
The 2 trenches of the W stand for the 2 recessions in his term ...

BTW 2006 had already started the recession with housing crash leading the way, and Greenspan and most of the then republican congress take it squarely in the chin for this one. The loss mitigatoin efforts by the clueless democratic congress will only make it worse, and I'd like to hit those clowns with a freigh train for that.

The only meddling I'd like the government to do in a free market is to hand the address of the CEO's and the other top level executives to any one who complains of their misplaced trust/money/retirement etc and referee the kicking match that will follow when they find the executives on their yachts in the Long Island harbor.

Forget limiting CEO pay, what happened to the millions they were paid in the last few years when this crap was tanking ... and when they were stting up the schemes to cause it to tank. retroactively confiscate that $$ and arrest the clowns and cut off their trust funds to their kids. All their $ goes to charity or to the tax payers.

And Jserio - Obama was a pretty junior senator at that time, and really 1 voice against the whole raft of senators that were in Mozillo's pocket (Senator Dood is a biggie) and the many more in Fannie's pocket McCain amongst the biggest here is going to simply be drowned out.

Quiktaco - That not ready and ready - have you heard that the president typically grows in the job. That is what Obama has done. Heck even W has been credited with growing in the job ... gawsh dog gonne it ... how much worse would he have been if he hadn't ... and President Palin too plans to grow in the job ... she's just so hot right now though ...  :wink:
Cool.
Buddha.

It's not really that big of a thing to me.  I don't really care about all the inexperienced whatever crap.  Most people grow in the job.  I don't think anyone is 'ready' to be president.   There's nothing that really prepares fully for it.  That's why people go in looking 45-50 and come out looking 65-70 in a 4 year term.

I was just pointing out what he had said, cause he so conveniently changed his own mind about Obama going from not at all ready, to absolutely ready.

Maybe its because Obama has shown the wisdom to seek the guidance of his largest critic.

Maybe it is an abraham lincoln-esque thing to do. He picked his biggest dissenters and listened to them very very closely.
Seriously ... that willingness to get guidance is huuuuuuge ...
For example what do you think of a newb who listens to gstwin advice and check out and buys a good clean GS500 from one of the forum regulars.
He could well take advice from the hayabusa crowd ... after all they tell him bling is everything, and the gs500 kids just cannot afford or are not man enough to ride a busa ... and bling out a hayabusa and buy it taking a $20,000 loan at 24% interest and doesn't even ride it.

See how gstwin to real world to politics how easily it translates.

McCain has gotten the bling ... it would have even worked if he only had to cover 2-3 weeks before the election, now he's trying to ride his busa and guess what ... he's looking like a fool.

Cool.
Buddha

But damn, look at the tail section and the gauges on that busa.  J/K  :kiss3:

Yea the busa has good tail section, good headlights but McBain is still unable to ride her ... Too bad ... we were pulling for the old guy ... even with the viagro and practice helping him ... aint happening ...
Mean while ... the newbie got good advice ... he looks a little stupid cos he is a bit lanky for the GS ... but he's off to a good start ... lets see maybe after some practise he'd try the busa ...
Cool.
Buddha.

I still can't believe that f%$king bill passed.  Somewhere in washington there is a basement with a lot of senatorial and congressional testicles in jars.  It was like a depressing circus watching congressman/woman after congressman/woman stand up and say "I don't agree with this bill, but I'm voting for it anyway" 

A qoute from TS Eliot comes to mind:
This is the way the world ends,
This is the way the world ends,
This is the way the world ends,
Not with a bang but a whimper.

This is the start of the whimpering.


Come to think of it, the entire text of 'Hollow Men' seems very relevant.

first, jserio, look at vp debates for as long as I personally can remember.  Their job is to do a tiny bit of promoting themselves and a whole lot of promoting their presidential hopeful.  It would be foolish to get up there and talk on and on about what they would like to do, especially since they have very very little to do with decision making once in office.  Palin did not make an ass of herself and evryone is yelling that she did so good b/c she didn't do as bad as in other recent interviews.  WHAT??  Biden absolutely smoked her on almost everything!!  But, since she didn't completely bomb, she did great.  I do not think so, I hold them both to the same standards.  She could not pronounce world leaders names, she answered just whatever question she wanted regardless of the question actually asked, and her folksy talk made me se her as a simpleton.  Definately not a VP and possibly president during the worst economic times of my life.  I believe her religion is far far more a danger than Obama's religion is regardless of what you believe he is.  Let me explain this:  Let's say that all the crazy, mean ole', black church that QT describes is true.(not that I for one minute believe this rubbish, I will not listen to a few seconds of one single sermon and pretend that I know the entire church's philosophical views)  But, say it is true, the fact that he so quickly denounced it tells me that he could take it or leave it.  Now, Palin however is what I would call a religious zelot!!  She, IMO, is no better mentally than the terrorists that we have unsuccessfully been fighting for the past seven years.  I am positive that in a world of 6,706,993,152 people that every religious sect has some racist extremeists, but in my life I have meet far far more that are of a "christian" faith than any other.  It is very well possible that this is because I have always lived in perdominately christian areas, but that does not change the fact that there are some wack-o christians.  My whole point is the same as it was with every other bit of information that I see that tries to show Obama as anything different that what he says he is, it is put online for agenda seeking people that care very little about the truth and a lot about their agenda.  It is BS, I watched the video clip with Obama's old reverend on it and it was a single piece of a entire sermon of the entire history of the church.  How about I base the entirety of my opinion on one preists inability to keep his hands off of boys.  What if I base my entire opinion of christianity on the snake handling Pentecostal churches.  It is just narrow minded and ignorant.  

The only reason you are for McCain is that you are against Obama and their are very few reasons you are against Obama.  And few of those reasons have any validity.  The one single legitimate arguement is the abortion thing and he's not totally for abortion so, I guess you are not totally against Obama.  :)

Quote from: spc on October 03, 2008, 07:52:31 PM
I still can't believe that f%$king bill passed.  Somewhere in washington there is a basement with a lot of senatorial and congressional testicles in jars.  It was like a depressing circus watching congressman/woman after congressman/woman stand up and say "I don't agree with this bill, but I'm voting for it anyway" 

A qoute from TS Eliot comes to mind:
This is the way the world ends,
This is the way the world ends,
This is the way the world ends,
Not with a bang but a whimper.

This is the start of the whimpering.


Come to think of it, the entire text of 'Hollow Men' seems very relevant.

indeed Terry, i liked how Biden made reference to Mccains opposition, to a war funding bill. BUT neglected to mention the opposition was because of a timeline. ( THAT would be info YOU DO NOT let out into public hands), nme sees, " us will be out by may '09" nme thinks, okay we wait till mid may 09 and then we move. that IMHO was the source of the opposition. and WTF this 700b pkg which was signed in today was so loaded with pork, it made walmarts grocery store envious

this bail out is not going to solve anything.   wall street needs to be regulated and properly insured under government control to insure that it is handled properly. oh yes you free market people i can hear you taking a deep breath to ready yourself in protest.  STOP.  you can not have it both ways.   you want government help when you have let greed and stupidity ruin your company and drain almost a trillion(very hard to comprehend) dollars from stock holders you need to answer for it.  you have proved you can not do it under "capitalism".    all this free market crap and American dream nonsense is just that.  if you look at the asset to debt ratio of American you will see that we are losing ground daily.  even our own government(s) are spending money like a drunk sailor in foreign port.  who is going to pay for this?  our children, our grandchildren?  i doubt it .   again look at Canada.  back in the early 90's they passed a law that federal budgets had to be balanced in the books.  after 15 years not only have Canadian managed their balanced budgets but they have decreased the debt load considerably.  the city i was deputy mayor of has wiped out its dept totally...nothing red on the books anymore at all.  this fiscal responsibility started before i got elected but i was president of the chamber of commerce at the time.  the chamber supported it completely.  once elected i continued to keep our books together and brought in to law Sunday shopping to increase revenue. i did this with NO tax increases.   it just took some tightening of the belt.

trillions and trillions we are just over spent.  where to cut?  police, jails and the military.  do we really need that much protection? no it is fear mongering.  jail is just college for criminals. get them where it hurts the pocket book.  we are putting so many people in jail because it is big business.  states and counties contract out jails to private corps who in turn employ locals and pay taxes.  people are in jail for the silliest of reasons. take speeding for example.   it is all greed greed and greed.  the housing crisis should be a wake up call but it is not and will not be.  America and Americans are born and raised to want to make money.  it takes president over anything else, money money money.  it is just a terrible way to live.   i am not poor but nor am i rich.  i live on my 40k or so(after tax) pensions and i am happy with that. i don't want or need the big flashy home or car.  that is for people that are much less intelligent than i.  i would rather be happy in my life as a person with my family and friends than to  make more money.  i lived and worked the go go go of business and i did not like it at all.  sure i made money but that was not enough to keep me there.  i needed more in life. 

OK too long of a post and most of you, like myself, will not read it.

Frankie

Lol government cant control its own spending much less anyhtign else. and military cutbacks imho got us into some ducumentable trouble. but hell teh  bailout frankie, imho you are right. it wont help. those who f%$k it up, bneed to pay. form thepresident on down through congress, to the local civilian :thumb:

frankie i read it, but alas, i cannot say i agree with most of it. but some , yes i do  :thumb:, BUT let me ask you this, if you think canada is so good, why do you want to leave. ( H me id like to be in canada, lol)but i cannot make it happen lmao

we were screwed no matter how they handled this "bailout". this may be the lesser of two evils. from talking with my father at length last night about this i'm of the impression that the only "real" pains (immediately) that the average consumer will feel are the hardships of getting loans. it will be very, very, very hard. my dad also told me that there is supposed to be a "time limit" so to speak for the govt to be able to get their money back and if they can't, then they go after the banks. he also told me that because the government is stepping in to do this, now they "own" the banks and can regulate them better and fix this crap so it can't happen again. i didn't ask him for his source but, my dad has never given me false/bad advice before.  :dunno_white:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUEQz5dltmI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTp_atr2G9E

That is scary stuff!! Watch this one......


http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=sxKpdxiXKgY&feature=related

 :o

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=4TEbIPOHNBQ&feature=related

i'm just curious, are any of these rants by this "preacher" justifiable? can they be proven FACT and not just some crazy preachers rants just to get some limelight?  :dunno_white:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q86O7qh44I0

No, we dont need a bail out, and we dont need regulation.
We need to publish that there is no regulation, none what so ever and if they give their money to someone, tommorow the receiver can run off with it ...
The FDIC and this or that ... should be replaced by a system where the FDIC does nothing more than hand out all known addresses of the person/persons that made off with your $$$ along with a handout that is titled 'So you lost all your money, aren't you stupid' ...
Prove you lost your $$ by giving it to someone and essentially ... that some one's home address is given to you ...
What is wrong ... really really really wrong is ... deregulate when they're making out like bandits and regulate when they start losing ... Get this, CEO of wamu made 19 million. That bank failed 3 weeks after he started the job ... easy money ... 19 mill 3 weeks.
In case some bank/company is bailed out with public $$$ ... I'd go back to the first time they said deregulate ... and arrest everyone from that point on, make them work in prison ... doing labor, or working as a school teacher or painting bridges or some serious job they are qualified for ... being answerable to someone 100% of the time, and confiscate all their $$$ made from the firm ... like he made 120 million in 10 years, but before that he had 50 million ... he needs to return the 120 million ... if he had 50 from before acquired by non bailout means, he can move that to his wife and kids etc etc ...
It is nowadays fashionable to make huge profits on paper for a few years ... cos your pay  depends on immediate profits, and concentrate all your losses into 1 tight 6 month/1 year window and repeat your tricks again ... need serious oversight ... or need serious ass kicking by people you have ripped off ... back to the no FDIC business.
Cool.
Buddha.

me thinks to prevent "regulations" allowing this to happen, from happening again, impose term limits on elected officials., cause people inpower can be bought. from those in the financial, oil gun whomever else., would be harder to buy a green senator. methinks, and make penalties for shady shaZam!, much harsher. to EVERYONE involved

Do i think Obama can fix this mess. absolutely not. Do i think Mccain can fix this mess? again, absolutely not, but either one, can get a good start on it. the fix should have started 10+ years ago, but alas, it did not  :icon_confused: :icon_rolleyes: :oops: :laugh:

Quote from: yamahonkawazuki on October 04, 2008, 02:06:26 AM
frankie i read it, but alas, i cannot say i agree with most of it. but some , yes i do  :thumb:, BUT let me ask you this, if you think canada is so good, why do you want to leave. ( H me id like to be in canada, lol)but i cannot make it happen lmao

about once a week someone brings that up.  American just cannot take criticism without blasting back.  all i have to say is 20yrs 6 months and 22 days.....so what have u done lately?  seriously though i am just making comparisons. there are things in Canada that compared to the US just suck...it goes both ways.

Whoa chill beavis, i aint bringin shaZam! up. WTF have i done?. man chill thef%$k out. i take care of my terminally ill mother, i work full time, and deal with my own issues  :mad: both countries have their own problems, hell all countries have their issues. not one is perfect aka a "utopia" sorry man, iddnt mean to blast at you. but hell been hurting in chest for several days. and dealing wiht crap from pretty much every direction. did not mean at all to fire at you directly :cheers:

Sounds like the crazy rantings of a wack-o preacher to me.  He seems to take a very very little bit of truth (if any at all) and then add alot of BS to it, then spit it out in only a way that a preacher can.  Preachers may be the only people who can get everyone to believe absolute nonsense, but then again, I guess its kind-of their thing.  The end result is still 95% BS no matter how many times he says the same things, no matter how many big names he spouts, no matter how loud he is. 

Quote from: Cal76 on October 03, 2008, 08:46:01 PM
<snip>
I am positive that in a world of 6,706,993,152 people that every religious sect has some racist extremeists, but in my life I have meet far far more that are of a "christian" faith than any other.  It is very well possible that this is because I have always lived in perdominately christian areas, but that does not change the fact that there are some wack-o christians. 
<snip>

There is some similarities and some difference I should post here. The religious wacko's are hardly christians, I am going to say definetly muslims, maybe zorashtrianism, maybe jewism, definetly parsi, and maybe some sects of hinduism. Like mine ... shame on me ... OK.

Here is the interesting item to note. In the theory of how people moved out from africa and one group went to SE asia and then australia almost immediately in like 1-2 generations, but another group went to western asia, eastern europe lived there for 5000 years and then spread both east and west, went to siberia and on to alaska and America, as well as to western europe and to northern India. Most of the religious zealots are from that group. That group populated the whole of what is now western europe, russia, middle east, and northern India. In that group, I almost want to say religion was invented. Islam, christianity, jewism, hinduism are definetly in that group. Once it went to India, in an unreligious population that had arrived there 5000 years ago, this group spread hinduism. Same with islam in the middle east, and jewism ... which later split into christianity.
I'd just say that the rewards of converting people into your religion were obvious in these religions where they encountered populations without any religion. Nice way of putting 'convert into our religion or we kill you'.
Cool.
Buddha.

well, for everyone, its "fashionable to bash on christians" when christians, ( and others will give you the shirt off tehir back. ( those living within the teachings of tehir holy book, and not adding to it anyway

I dont think so ... I think those that talk ... only talk ... you need to behave the way your holy book asks you to, not just be constantly yakking about that book.
I think most of the very "religion spewing" clowns of any religion are essentially using gods name to rob you blind.
Cool.
Buddha.
Like I call myself the buddha but will beat the crap out of the next clown who asks a stupid question about carbs ... that way ...  :2guns:

Quote from: The Buddha on October 06, 2008, 11:57:01 AM
I dont think so ... I think those that talk ... only talk ... you need to behave the way your holy book asks you to, not just be constantly yakking about that book.
I think most of the very "religion spewing" clowns of any religion are essentially using gods name to rob you blind.
Cool.
Buddha.
Like I call myself the buddha but will beat the crap out of the next clown who asks a stupid question about carbs ... that way ...  :2guns:

agreed. read ones hol;y book. aka teh torah, the qu'ran, or the bible, and read it as it is. not interpreted to how it would suit you.

yami no harm no fowl i was not pissed when i typed that at all we are still kewl :)

QuoteLet's say that all the crazy, mean ole', black church that QT describes is true.(not that I for one minute believe this rubbish, I will not listen to a few seconds of one single sermon and pretend that I know the entire church's philosophical views)

I didn't base my opinions and comments of this church off of one sermon that I saw.  After hearing about him and this church, I researched the church.  I looked at their statements on the church website (which has since been revised), and watched interview after interview of Wright, and watched many sermons by the man.

If you would do the research on this church that I have, then you would come to the same conclusion.


This research I put into most of the opinions that I have made of this man.  Don't think that I just hear something and take it for fact.  I admit that there are a few things that I have posted here without research, but I posted them for topics of discussion, and from there I did research on them.


Like I said, I don't know much about this Economic crisis right now.  Not much of an economist, so it's pretty much over my head.  However, this bailout does fit into the constitution.  The government has the right to spend money to secure the welfare of the nation.  Maybe this crisis would have gotten so bad that it would have been another depression of the 30's, so this bailout stopped that from happening.  That's what it sounds like at least.  Yes it puts more money into the debt that we owe, but it could have stopped a depression from occurring.  Whatever, I could be completely wrong on this.  I feel that it's not right to bail out companies like they did, but who knows...  :dunno_white:

the wife and i are voting for obama

The great depression was worse because the govt intervened.
What would have been very very severe and last 9 months was less severe but lasted 3 years. Duration is what causes pain at the individual level. Not severity ... severity causes pain to govt, not to people at the individual level.
The govt has the right to intervene and make it better ... not for itself, but for the people. This comming/ongoing depression/recession squarely lands in the governments lap. We been flailing for ~2 years now and the govt only fanned the flames. The place to have corrected it was back in 03-04 not in 07/08. I would definetly call for non intervention, let the whole economy clean itself out. The Illegals and the marginals go home, the excess burden will shed itself, poorly managed companies will fail, models with high over head will also die, and the cost of everything will drop as will cost of labor and our currency ... in 1 year or so china will delink from the $$ cos its too cheap ... they goods will go up in $$$ and that will have so much excess capacity in the US with everythign cheaper here, it will start a reindustrialisation of the US.
Oil, energy, raw material all have to drop in $$$  and labor has to get re initialised due to inflation. It cannot be cheaper to ship crap form china ... no way ...
Cool.
Buddha.

hmm...buddha makes a point.

I will not support a candidate who is pro universal health care and banning the manufacture of firearms.  I would like to keep my god given right to protect myself and my family with my 2nd amendment rights, so I will not be voting for Obama. 

The argument "it isn't fair" doesn't work for me.  I don't believe that people with higher incomes should be taxed more than the middle class.  They work hard, go to school, and work hard some more to get where they are so they can make that money.  We don't need any more government programs to help people who will not help themselves.  Our government is way out of control.  Ideally, I would like to see Ron Paul in office.

second amendment per Wiki. ( even though i distrust wiki somewhat, as far as constitutional or bill of rights stuff. it is verbatim

anyhoo per wiki" A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Quote from: jserio on October 07, 2008, 06:05:54 PM
hmm...buddha makes a point.

Yeah, I totally agree.  That sounds like a great plan there Buddha, but the only problem is getting it to be implemented.

Economic pain if a recession lasts looooooong period of time is only going to ruin the most marginal of us. The older people, the ones that are stuck with mortgages or with other problems. It will totally favor the young and the ones that can be mobile. It will clear out the marginal but not quite the marginally talented or marginally competent. It may do the exact opposite.
Short and sharp recessions or depressions will clear out the untalented and un educated. But those that have the ability ro re build the economy - those who can invent things, or develop and re tool things will have a great life on the rebound. Then the whole country can move forward and upward.
Yes we are so afraid of pain that we will take 3 years or more of mind numbing, dull and listless over sharp contraction. We have a true depression, you guys will have SM2 handle bars with the same price tag as before ... if we get 3 years of BS, the bars will cost almost as much but I wont make it for a long time. Artificially propped up economies will have artificially bloated prices ... didn't that really cause the housing bubble blow up ... handlebar bubble anyone ?
Problem is, neither candidate wants that to happen, and they will do anything to distract and divert from that. I'd in that case support an old guy like McCain, especially since he may not want to get reelected. However he has so much real estate and business, a recession will hurt his bottom line a lot more. I then think Obama will want to have a likely re election bid, so he's likely to avoid it by any means neccesary. Our best bet is, depression in the next 3 months, which is unlikely with 850 billion distributed to dead paper.

Health care: we dont need universal health care, we need pay as you leave the doctors office health care. We cannot have doctors doing paper work out the wazoo and we cannot have them buy $$$ insurance against lawyers, and we cannot have them negotiated by insurance companies, its just over head. Food is inexpensive, mainly because we dont finance it and have it paid for by someone else and we can look and see and just buy what we like at the price we like. In fact I contend that McDonalds with their 1 price across the country, are hurting consumers in cheaper areas and benifitting ones in expensive areas. But I would like to see a price list on a doctors office. Or like in India, they say, consultation is 10 bucks for ~15 minutes with the doctor. Injection is 5 bucks + cost of the medication, x ray this or that is so much etc etc ... of course doctors do care about people they see 100's of times, and they do what each person is requiring etc etc etc ... Pity ... here your doctor may want to do soemhting but insurance wont let them.
The place it hurts though, you wont have serious advances come to your local doctors office the instant its out on the market. However lets face it, the expensive and new crap usually is superfluous and its perfectly fine to use older stuff.
Cool.
Buddha.

Quote from: 97gs500e on October 07, 2008, 10:45:15 PM
The argument "it isn't fair" doesn't work for me.  I don't believe that people with higher incomes should be taxed more than the middle class.  They work hard, go to school, and work hard some more to get where they are so they can make that money.  We don't need any more government programs to help people who will not help themselves.  Our government is way out of control.  Ideally, I would like to see Ron Paul in office.

But with the current tax code (written BY the wealthy FOR the wealthy), the wealthy pay FAR less than you or I.  They have mega deductions written just for them.  A flat tax would be more fair than the current system.

However, a flat tax is still regressive.  A certain amount of income is required just to buy food, pay rent or mortgage, etc.  That's why a graduated system is inherently more fair.  But our current bloated tax code makes it easy for the superwealthy to avoid taxes.

In the USA, the top 400 richest people have more wealth than the poorest 150 million people combined.  That gap has GROWN in the last eight years.  So our system is very good for the super-rich.

TG you forget that the top 10% pay over 80% of collected taxes, hell the bottom 24% don't pay taxes, my ex is a do nothing slug with child tax credit and earned income credit she receives a refund greater than what she pays throughout the year. Screw your progressive tax scale. Right now my wife and I pay almost 18k a year in taxes, under the clinton administration our tax rate would have been around 27k. How about everybody pays the same. Progressive tax scales are bullshit.

They reward the LAZY unmotivated portion of our society, That bottom 24% that gets refunds of every dime they paid in during the year and then some managed to survive all year without the money they were loaning the federal government so f%$k them, the government needs to go ahead and keep it.

But a person making 20K spends most of that to get by -- rent, food, etc.  They don't have much extra.  A person making 100K has 80K over and above basic needs.

I agree with you to a point --  a flat tax is more fair than what we now have.  The middle class PAYS taxes.  The super-rich AVOID most of their taxes but have so much that their measly percentage is a huge amount (and they never feel it).  But to tax poor people on the money they need for essentials is (IMHO) wrong.

I'll tell you whats WRONG. Last year I paid over 20k in tax and WOW I got about 2k back  :icon_rolleyes: but others that make less than me are getting like 10k back. I mean THAT'S WRONG.  :mad:
and this bail out crap. Don't even need to talk about that horse crap.  :2guns:

Tax based on consumption ... flat tax yea, but consumption based.

You buy a car, you'd pay 20% as a tax ... the rich buy new $$$ cars, they pay 20%, the poor buy used old cars, they pay 20% of the declared value ... see declared value ... not actual value ... write in 10 bucks and you pay 20% of that ... Same with food ... You can buy from a farmer or from a high end market ... I am all for cutting all middle men out by creating a middle men free system. Slowly middle men wont be cut out, they will be phased out. Remember ... the super rich will still buy from a high end store just so they dont have to look at the rest of us ... its fine by me, they can pay the hefty price tag and 20% on top of that. In the mean time I'll gladly walk though a field to find my tomatoes.

Its all global ... and we have built condo's where we used to have vineyards in CA and so on ... Anyway, consumption based tax ... that way you dont have to do your Idiotic taxes every year ... Things that are life saving or for purposes that are supposedly tax exempt ... will be listed as tax free ... or tax free with prescription. Say you're a senior citizen. You go to a doctor ... he charges you 30 bucks say ... you'd just pay that 30 bucks cos you're tax exempt ... seniors need medical care, we dont want them dropping dead cos they cant pay the 20% on top of that ... but if you're say a ... ahem socialite and have gone to get your Boobies measured and xrayed ... you'd be hit with the 20% on top of the 30 bucks. The added benefit is ... if someone makes a case where say aspirin has been proved to be good to prevent heart attacks, get a doc to prescribe it and its tax free, and it can even be legislated into effect very simply so all asprin will be tax free.

We just need to get the system to where we get rid of all the layers between consumers and producers. Then those unemployed middle men can do actual work ... like making car parts or repairing houses.

We just got so many layers on top of crap ... try this ... the corpotate bond market's value was 5 trillion. The credit default swap (CDS) market was ... 60 trillion. The CDS was invented to insure the corporate bonds ... that was it. Its called layering ... in other words ... a $1 tomato will be 50 trillion if everyone in the world has to touch it before you can eat it, and guess what, it will be rotten by then because of all the touching.

Cool.
Buddha.

Quote from: The Buddha on October 08, 2008, 10:39:00 AM
Tax based on consumption ... flat tax yea, but consumption based.
Cool.
Buddha.

:thumb: +1

many of the "super-rich" claim they aren't taxed enough. sure obama says he'll raise taxes, but only to their level BEFORE bush took over.  bush's trickle down theory tax breaks sound great, but they aren't working. the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. there is almost no middle class now.  it makes sense to tax the wealthiest more and the poorest less. the more money you make, they higher your taxes are. this is how it is right now anyways. except that the ultra-rich are given tremendous tax breaks and are just pocketing the extra money. don't agree, look at the profits exxon-mobil is raking in.

on to the 2nd ammendment. how is wanting to regulate the types of weapons availialbe in order to curb crime taking away YOUR right to own a firearm? i read a quote from obama the other day. "nobody needs a firearm that will allow you to shoot 19 consecutive rounds. you don't shoot 19 rounds at a deer. if you do, you shouldn't be hunting"  personally, i don't think we need to ban the weapons, make stricter regulations regarding them. make it harder for criminals to get them.  :thumb:

Quote from: jserio on October 08, 2008, 11:33:42 AM
look at the profits exxon-mobil is raking in.

You need to look at profit margins not "profits" Lots of other companies make a lot bigger profit margin than Exon.

even still, that money from the tax breaks went directly into their pockets. it didn't go for research and development. it didn't go to improve pay for the workers etc.

Quote from: cafeboy on October 08, 2008, 11:38:55 AM

Quote from: jserio on October 08, 2008, 11:33:42 AM
look at the profits exxon-mobil is raking in.

You need to look at profit margins not "profits" Lots of other companies make a lot bigger profit margin than Exon.

+1

Quoteon to the 2nd ammendment. how is wanting to regulate the types of weapons availialbe in order to curb crime taking away YOUR right to own a firearm? i read a quote from obama the other day. "nobody needs a firearm that will allow you to shoot 19 consecutive rounds. you don't shoot 19 rounds at a deer. if you do, you shouldn't be hunting"

But one may need something like this to help defend his freedom against a corrupt federal government...which is what the second amendment is really about anyways.

QuoteBut a person making 20K spends most of that to get by -- rent, food, etc.  They don't have much extra.  A person making 100K has 80K over and above basic needs.

I don't see where you're getting your numbers.  My wife and I make around 80k per year, and we are living paycheck to paycheck.  We live in a crappy place, in a crappy city, and don't live high and mighty.  I'm riding my bike everyday to save on gas, so that we have enough money to buy food and diapers for my daughter.  If I didn't, I don't think we could afford it.
There is no way that we are making 60k over what we need for essentials.  We living in Southern California, so it's a ton more expensive to live here than most other places in the country.

I have worked very hard to be able to make what I do, and even though it's not that much, it is getting us by, but to say that we have a major surplus, that's just stupid.

If these big companies did not get tax breaks...like exxon, then they'd have lay offs, and they'd charge more for their product.  That's how business works.  That would affect the consumer, and everyone will be paying more.  If there's tax cuts for large companies, then they employ more people, they charge less for the products, and everyone benefits, with more people working, and cheaper prices.

You don't have tax cuts for the big businesses, then they lay off people, and charge more.  These lay offs increase the amount of unemployment, and welfare that the government has to pay out.  The prices of things go up, and that affects everyone, so intern, other companies that have to pay more for these products, will increase their prices for their products, cause they need to stay above water, and that's when inflation takes over.

I think technology is going to make the whole gun control point moot.
You put your dna into the database which will write into a chip in the gun. You pick up the gun and there is a tiny sensor pad that reads your sweat and knows its you and leaves it in the firing position, drop it and it will trigger lock ...
So a Stolen gun is going to be useless, as is a gun that is unregistered. The dna step will be done at registration. Its a gun that is ready and armed and ready to fire, but only in your hand. Criminals have their current guns, but that supply runs out and its the end for those.
Cool.
Buddha.

Quote from: The Buddha on October 08, 2008, 12:21:24 PM
I think technology is going to make the whole gun control point moot.
You put your dna into the database which will write into a chip in the gun. You pick up the gun and there is a tiny sensor pad that reads your sweat and knows its you and leaves it in the firing position, drop it and it will trigger lock ...
So a Stolen gun is going to be useless, as is a gun that is unregistered. The dna step will be done at registration. Its a gun that is ready and armed and ready to fire, but only in your hand. Criminals have their current guns, but that supply runs out and its the end for those.
Cool.
Buddha.

But guns are modified all the time.  It probably wouldn't be too hard to go around this feature.  Guns in essence are extremely simple.  You have a barrel, and a firing pin.  That's pretty much it.  Right now, they're trying to get firing pins to have a code or something on them to have them identify with the rounds that they shoot.  I think that's actually going into effect this coming year.

The thing is, guns in normal people hands are fine.  It's when they get into the hands of criminals that they are bad.  Ban guns, and criminals will still have them.  it doesn't change anything, except give the criminals free range of the place that they're banned because they know they won't get shot.  Look at Washington DC, England, and Australia.  They all banned guns, and crime rate sky rocketed.

Guns don't kill people, People do.

Quote from: quiktaco on October 08, 2008, 12:28:25 PM
Guns don't kill people, People do.

+1  :thumb:

Quote from: quiktaco on October 08, 2008, 12:11:45 PM

QuoteBut a person making 20K spends most of that to get by -- rent, food, etc.  They don't have much extra.  A person making 100K has 80K over and above basic needs.

I don't see where you're getting your numbers.  My wife and I make around 80k per year, and we are living paycheck to paycheck.  We live in a crappy place, in a crappy city, and don't live high and mighty.  I'm riding my bike everyday to save on gas, so that we have enough money to buy food and diapers for my daughter.  If I didn't, I don't think we could afford it.
There is no way that we are making 60k over what we need for essentials.  We living in Southern California, so it's a ton more expensive to live here than most other places in the country.

I have worked very hard to be able to make what I do, and even though it's not that much, it is getting us by, but to say that we have a major surplus, that's just stupid.

There ARE people making 20K a year and paying for everything, but maybe not in SoCal.  I'm not saying YOU have a surplus.  My stepson, his wife and my grandson live in San Diego.  I'm familiar with the cost of living there -- ridiculous.

My point is that at some point you will have more than basic necessities and one should be taxed on THAT amount, not on your entire income.  Most flat-tax proposals have this exception built in.

Nooo.... with gene coded firing in the gun, the fear that the kids will find it and play with it is gone ... and criminals will know many more people will now have gund cos they are safer ...
The criminals will ahve guns, but soon, cannot get bullets for them ... we'll only sell the DNA coded guns and bullets.
Yea yea its hard ... we have to make weird sized ... like a .37 or .36, and a .21 not a .22 and whatever.
Cool.
Buddha.

Quote from: trumpetguy on October 08, 2008, 12:44:31 PM

Quote from: quiktaco on October 08, 2008, 12:11:45 PM

QuoteBut a person making 20K spends most of that to get by -- rent, food, etc.  They don't have much extra.  A person making 100K has 80K over and above basic needs.

I don't see where you're getting your numbers.  My wife and I make around 80k per year, and we are living paycheck to paycheck.  We live in a crappy place, in a crappy city, and don't live high and mighty.  I'm riding my bike everyday to save on gas, so that we have enough money to buy food and diapers for my daughter.  If I didn't, I don't think we could afford it.
There is no way that we are making 60k over what we need for essentials.  We living in Southern California, so it's a ton more expensive to live here than most other places in the country.

I have worked very hard to be able to make what I do, and even though it's not that much, it is getting us by, but to say that we have a major surplus, that's just stupid.

There ARE people making 20K a year and paying for everything, but maybe not in SoCal.  I'm not saying YOU have a surplus.  My stepson, his wife and my grandson live in San Diego.  I'm familiar with the cost of living there -- ridiculous.

My point is that at some point you will have more than basic necessities and one should be taxed on THAT amount, not on your entire income.  Most flat-tax proposals have this exception built in.

Thank you for clarifying.  I think a percentage tax would cover that.  It would tax the less income less, and the more income more.  I like Buddha's idea of a consumer tax. 

QuoteNooo.... with gene coded firing in the gun, the fear that the kids will find it and play with it is gone ... and criminals will know many more people will now have gund cos they are safer ...
The criminals will ahve guns, but soon, cannot get bullets for them ... we'll only sell the DNA coded guns and bullets.
Yea yea its hard ... we have to make weird sized ... like a .37 or .36, and a .21 not a .22 and whatever.
Cool.
Buddha.

Why do you think guns aren't safe.  I have never seen a gun laying on a table and get up all by itself and shoot someone.  It has to be done in the hands of person.  Responsible people keep their guns away from access to kids.  Locked in a gunsafe.

Those sizes would just be made...it's not hard to make your own ammo.  And manufacturers would just switch to those sizes.


I heard something the other day, don't remember if it was here or somewhere else, but it was...

Prison is college for Criminals.  You get educated in Prison, and learn how to become a better criminal.  You get connections, and form gangs.

I say, have severe limits on felons, which they have constant porol.  They have to check in once every other day or so, and their residence gets searched on a regular basis.  When in prison, everyone is in solutary.  You get to come out for 10 minutes per day, but only when everyone else is locked up.  No communication in prisons with anyone on the inside or outside.  They did something wrong, they need to pay for it.

Well you can put a gun on the table at my house and my son would not even look twice at it. (IE) he knows about guns and what they can do and seing one holds nothing for him becouse he has seen them before. It's the folks that try and hide the fact that they have one that there kids find it and kill some one due to not knowing.
Knowing is not half the battle.... it's the entire battle.

Lets try this then ...
In your house, at the kitchen table or anywhere else where its visible you leave a gun a nice big one with the gene coded trigger lock, set up full with a silencer, and a picture of the firing range target with a bunch of holes near the center and a note saying, Welcome! there is plenty more like this everywhere in this house and all 4 residents have theirs and are trained in its use.
If I had a gene coded weapon, I'd not even bother ... Id leave it on the hood of my car in my driveway.
Cool.
Buddha.

Yup, the buddha is all about shooting the crap out of people.

I understand what you're saying, but the likelihood that this technology couldn't be gotten around would be highly unlikely.

If you left your gun unloaded, this would be the same situation for the most part.  It takes responsibility on the gun owners part, and accidents won't happen.

Side note...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_HZMD97nMw&feature=iv&annotation_id=event_372970

here's a (6 part I think) video about all the connections that Obama has, and a lot more information that has not been well know.  Worth taking a look.  Goes a little more in depth about a few things that I've brought up.

Quote from: The Buddha on October 08, 2008, 01:10:02 PM
Let all be about shooting the crap out of people.

Fixed.




and only if they need it  :2guns:

Quote from: jserio on October 08, 2008, 11:33:42 AM
on to the 2nd ammendment. how is wanting to regulate the types of weapons availialbe in order to curb crime taking away YOUR right to own a firearm?

Its just the first of many changes that Obama would like to make to prevent law abiding citizens from purchasing/owning guns.  You can create all the laws you want, but the bad guys will always be able to get guns.  Obama is a senator from Illinois, one of the only 2 states that has made it illegal to carry a concealed handgun.  But bad guys break the law, so does that mean that they won't still carry that gun into the convenience store while your wife or girlfriend is paying for her gas and groceries?  I don't trust bad guys enough to wait a few minutes for the police to arrive. 

I never ever got a job from a poor person. The rich buy expensive items, the rich eat out the rich travel, they would buy more but they won't because they are afraid of getting raped by the government.

I used to make 13k a year as a delivery driver years ago. As a matter of fact during the clinton era. Annually I paid in about 600 dollars in taxes, I got back about the same as I paid in. I didn't miss that 600 dollars. I lived within the means of what I was paid. My wife and I make a combined 85k a year, we paid almost 17k in last year and had to pay another 1000 in at the end of the year.

So lets see by bettering myself i went from a 4% tax withholding to a 20% tax withholding, Hell we pay more in taxes a year than I used to make, yeah screw the it's fair for me to pay more taxes because I make more money. Tax my consumption, because I will spend extra on a vacation, buy an extra motorcycle get that rifle I been drooling over shaZam! like that, and I would eat out more and support the service industry. The effect of taxing me is I buy groceries and eat at home, those tips wait staff used to get they aint getting and like all people who know what it was like not to have money I tip well.

FYI I had the same attitude when I didn't have money. Make it a 10% across the board VAT tax to the feds let the states continue to charge their sales tax, guess what we would be at an economic surplus in 10 years because corporate america and people with more than 2 peenies in their pocket living from paycheck to paycheck wouldn't find ways to shelter 1.7 trillion dollars a year keeping it squirreled away and hidden from the governents greedy hands. Of course joblessness would go up a few percentage points because there would no longer be a market for middle leve pompous ass beuracrats working trying to take your money.

 :thumb: Good post

I dont see how democrats who want to take away your guns are seen as taking away your freedom, while republicans who want to take away your right to have an abortion are seen as not taking away a freedom ...
Yea yea second amendment and this and that ... besides the point ... the question is about a freedom.
Cool.
Buddha.

Quote from: The Buddha on October 08, 2008, 07:36:06 PM
I dont see how democrats who want to take away your guns are seen as taking away your freedom, while republicans who want to take away your right to have an abortion are seen as not taking away a freedom ...
Yea yea second amendment and this and that ... besides the point ... the question is about a freedom.
Cool.
Buddha.

Good point.   Personally I believe abortion is immoral, but I do think people should have the right to choose.  I'm neither democrat or republican.  I have problems with most politicians belonging to both parties.  I'm not a fan of McCain, but to me, he is "the lesser of two evils".  I would love to vote a 3rd party candidate, but that would be a vote in the garbage. 

Same here however I see Obama as the lesser of 2 evils.
Either of the 2 will be nearly worthless ... they are wrong on nearly all counts on everything.
However the changes that will be comming soon are going to be so big, no one is going to be able to stop it.
Something like this ... they will be bickering about what the "federal gas mileage standards for cars" have to be and gas will go to 15 bucks a gal. Guess what, no matter what the ruling on the gas mileage standard is, only priuses and insights will sell.
It costs 2300 bucks with insurance to get a root canal. R/T ticket to india is 1100, and a root canal costs 50 bucks. Guess what, the politicians can bicker about medicare and medicaid ... people are simply going to jump on a plane and get their tooth done.
If economics dictates it, legislation is irrelevant.
We can argue about who will pay more tax under whose reign, and 1/2 the people become unemployed ... guess what, you aint collecting no taxes no matter what.
Legislation is smart can preceed and drive economics. If legislation is out of touch with reality, economics will trample legislation.
We can argue how we should let the illegals into the country ... and we have 45% tax and gasoline is at 15 bucks a gal and constructions and all other manufacturing is in china ... guess what, the only illegals will be the americans sneaking across to mexico to snag some farm work.
Both the clowns and their vice clowns are about to become irrelevant.
Cool.
Buddha.

Taking away my guns infringes on my freedom to own them as given me by the constitution,

Taking away someones freedom to have an abortion, is really giving the unborn child the freedom to live.

BeSafe

Buddha, I actually know a guy that went to Thailand for some dental work because he basically got a vacation in there for free and still spent less than the same work would have cost in the states.

It does take away your freedom to not have a baby.
Cool.
Buddha

Quote from: spc on October 08, 2008, 08:05:50 PM
Buddha, I actually know a guy that went to Thailand for some dental work because he basically got a vacation in there for free and still spent less than the same work would have cost in the states.

I have been doing it since 94 ... I just go to India ... one time my neighbor across the street when we were growing up was my doctor.
India is predominantly english speaking and doctors really really want to be doctors. They grew up as a child wanting to be one ... many of them were poor as they grew up. Many of them knew of no other work they wanted to do. I was the same way, except as an engineer. Was building and taking things apart before I could walk ... OK fine after I could walk ...
Anyway a lot of eastern europe is that way too. I heard bulgaria, croatia I think ... a few more. I cant see the US health care system surviving past the next president's term.
Cool.
Buddha.

Quote from: The Buddha on October 08, 2008, 08:06:02 PM
It does take away your freedom to not have a baby.
Cool.
Buddha

you always have the freedom not to have a baby. It's called keeping 'it' in your pants.

Quote from: The Buddha on October 08, 2008, 07:36:06 PM
I dont see how democrats who want to take away your guns are seen as taking away your freedom, while republicans who want to take away your right to have an abortion are seen as not taking away a freedom ...
Yea yea second amendment and this and that ... besides the point ... the question is about a freedom.
Cool.
Buddha.

Republicans, or Conservatives don't see it as letting the woman choose to have an abortion or not.  We see it as murdering an innocent child.  It's not an issue of the woman's rights.  It's an issue of murder.

Democrats, or the left in general see it as a choice because they tend to not think of it as a life yet.  This 'non' life is in the woman, and it's her body and she can do what she wants with it.

Republicans see this living being inside a mother as a full fledged human being, and the mother is just a host for this child to develop.  Kinda like how parents harbor their children until they can make it on their own in the 'real world', it's the same deal.

So to sum it up.  R - to allow murder or not.  D - to let the woman do what she wants with her own body.

Why people would see it differently is whether they see killing the unborn child as murder or not.  I'm all for strong women...my wife runs the house.  I'd always give her the right to do what ever she wants, but abortion is affecting another person, and even true libertarians should see that as wrong, because it's affecting another person.

Hopefully this makes things a little more clear.

Well said Quicktaco.

I've always thought it rather harsh that a person (the Baby) should pay with it's life, for the mistake that someone else made.

BeSafe
PJ

Well ... guns are meant to kill people too ... so you owning a gun is taking away the other person's right to life. He may be a criminal ... but ...
Anyway, I am anti abortion, but I could not think of a better example when I posted that argument. I have to ... please gimme some time.
Cool.
Buddha.

Guns protect people.  That's what people that want guns, want them for (besides hunting).  You have the right to protect yourself if someone is infringing on your rights to live.  If I had 20 people running at me trying to kill me, I wouldn't think twice about shooting them all.

R - want guns for protection (and hunting).  D - want to get rid of guns so criminals don't use them.

It's proven that getting rid of guns from the citizens just makes things worse...like I said earlier, England, D.C. and Australia.  Republicans want to take away guns from the criminals just as much as Democrats do.  However, they don't want their right as a law abiding citizen, to own a gun for protection from others, and from a corrupt government, to be taken away to do it.

Hope that makes a little more since, also.

How about rape or incest? The woman shouldn't have a choice?  You'll hold a woman hostage for nine months as the "host" (as you put it) for a criminal's fetus?  

Are there circumstances in which you would allow the government to say what YOU must do with YOUR body for nine months and with your financial resources for potentially eighteen years after that?  I think not.

A child breathes on its own.  A fetus does not.  There is a difference.  The Jewish religion makes that important distinction.  When a woman miscarries at 2 weeks, she may not even know it.  When a woman miscarries at 12 weeks, she may know it, but we don't have a funeral.  We also don't blame God for "murdering" the "child."  It's NOT a black-and-white issue.

I will agree with you on late-term abortions when the mother's life is not endangered (and so does almost every politician).  They should not be allowed.  The fetus is viable at that point, and that makes a big difference to me.

And your distinction is wrong.  Not all Republicans are anti-choice.  Not all Democrats are pro-choice.  Not all conservatives are anti-choice.  Not all liberals are pro-choice.

India has very very low violent crime ... and we dont have any guns at all ... not for criminals, not for normal people. In fact not even cops ... they have these huge single shot rifle. I've never seen any of them use it.
I wont say its a 100 % without merit, but I am all for that gene coding and just abandoning the current gun models. Guns have to be 100 electronic. It will fire in your hand, not fire in anyone elses.

The guns that currently are in the hands of criminals will either have to be destroyed with time or as each gun gets used in multiple murders cos they cant get em any more ... so they cant toss it after a murder ... they get more and more pricey, and the ones that are caught with the gun now have to answer to several murders because the gun ties them to it.

Guns ... there is several million of them out there in hands of criminals. They have to be phased out. we will offer a gun trade in. Swap yours for the current model with gene code triggers. If you're a criminal you wont, and that gun now becomes very very valuable ... you cant use it, but its $$$ ... slowly, you have to make bullets for it ... but still its unknown to the govt, and slowly ... there will be so many genecoded guns out there ... with honest people, you cannot use this to threaten anyone ... they will grill a few 1000 holes in you, your gun while valuable will lead back to you pronto, and you will be outgunned.

Guns deter other guns. the way to stop it is to put lots of guns out there that cannot be mis used and are ready to use in each honest man's and woman's hands.

Criminals will have a dwindling supply of guns and will have to fight each other for the little scraps ... and those scraps will be woefully under powered.
Sorta like having a model T and using it to commute 90 miles 1 way ... like me.

Guns have to be in the hands of responsible people to stop irresponsible people. Gene coding will just make sure that happens.

Cool.
Buddha.

Quote from: trumpetguy on October 09, 2008, 08:39:51 AM
How about rape or incest? The woman shouldn't have a choice?  You'll hold a woman hostage for nine months as the "host" (as you put it) for a criminal's fetus? 

Are there circumstances in which you would allow the government to say what YOU must do with YOUR body for nine months and with your financial resources for potentially eighteen years after that?  I think not.

A child breathes on its own.  A fetus does not.  There is a difference.  The Jewish religion makes this important distinction.  When a woman miscarries at 2 weeks, she may not even know it.  When a woman miscarries at 12 weeks, she may know it, but we don't have a funeral.  We also don't blame God for "murdering" the "child."  It's NOT a black-and-white issue.

I will agree with you on late-term abortions when the mother's life is not endangered (and so does almost every politician).  They should not be allowed.  The fetus is viable at that point, and that makes a big difference to me.

And your distinction is wrong.  Not all Republicans are anti-choice.  Not all Democrats are pro-choice.  Not all conservatives are anti-choice.  Not all liberals are pro-choice.

The child still didn't do anything wrong.  It's another person that is being murdered.  The child is just as innocent in this situation as you are.  So if you were come to and murdered to get rid of this situation, would that be alright?  I don't think so.

Yeah, it's a horrible situation, but it still doesn't take away the fact that it's still murder.  If they don't want to take care of the child afterward, then they can always give it up for adoption.  Many people will actually have the child of a rape, and are glad that they did, because it brought a shining light to a horrible situation.

You bring up miscarriages...Miscarriages are not at the hands of humans.  The child was not capable of making it full term on it's own, and therefor, was more similar to a natural death, than that of murder.

Does a living child, once born, eat on it's own?  Does it go to work and bring home money so that it can have a roof over it's head?  It's not capable of taking care of itself, so is it not a child?  The elderly that can't breathe without the aid of oxygen...should they be killed, cause they can't breathe on their own?

I said in general, not all and all.  Get over yourself.

For a lot of people, it is a black and white issue.  It's very clear, what is right and what is wrong.

Quote from: The Buddha on October 09, 2008, 08:50:56 AM
India has very very low violent crime ... and we dont have any guns at all ... not for criminals, not for normal people. In fact not even cops ... they have these huge single shot rifle. I've never seen any of them use it.
I wont say its a 100 % without merit, but I am all for that gene coding and just abandoning the current gun models. Guns have to be 100 electronic. It will fire in your hand, not fire in anyone elses.

The guns that currently are in the hands of criminals will either have to be destroyed with time or as each gun gets used in multiple murders cos they cant get em any more ... so they cant toss it after a murder ... they get more and more pricey, and the ones that are caught with the gun now have to answer to several murders because the gun ties them to it.

Guns ... there is several million of them out there in hands of criminals. They have to be phased out. we will offer a gun trade in. Swap yours for the current model with gene code triggers. If you're a criminal you wont, and that gun now becomes very very valuable ... you cant use it, but its $$$ ... slowly, you have to make bullets for it ... but still its unknown to the govt, and slowly ... there will be so many genecoded guns out there ... with honest people, you cannot use this to threaten anyone ... they will grill a few 1000 holes in you, your gun while valuable will lead back to you pronto, and you will be outgunned.

Guns deter other guns. the way to stop it is to put lots of guns out there that cannot be mis used and are ready to use in each honest man's and woman's hands.

Criminals will have a dwindling supply of guns and will have to fight each other for the little scraps ... and those scraps will be woefully under powered.
Sorta like having a model T and using it to commute 90 miles 1 way ... like me.

Guns have to be in the hands of responsible people to stop irresponsible people. Gene coding will just make sure that happens.

Cool.
Buddha.

In a perfect world, I totally agree with you (for the most part anyways).  If this were a viable option, I could see your situation working as described.  But it would be highly unlikely that these mechanics would be un-get-around-able.  Like I said earlier, guns are extremely simple pieces of machinery.  I could make one in one afternoon if I really wanted.  Yes it would be crude, but it would fire a bullet.  What would stop criminals from doing this?  Necessity leads to innovations.  It wouldn't stop criminals.  It might just make it a little harder.

I see what you're talking about in India.  If guns weren't ever invented, it would be the same deal.  Lots let crime in that fashion.  But they do exist, and will always exist.  I'm surprised that India hasn't had many come into the country by now. 

The down side to the gene coded gun, is if a person needed to defend themselves or someone else, and had a gun, but wasn't coded to them, then it's useless.  Or firing at a gun range, or for hunting, sons, or friends couldn't borrow someone elses gun.  These are some cercumstances, that I'm sure could be addressed somehow, but at the end of the day, bullets fire very easily.

Without a gun, I could fire a bullet in less than ten minutes, with decent accuracy, and damage...in a few different ways at that.

I don't think making the gun itself harder to use is really going to do anything.  But like i said, in a perfect world, I could see what you are talking about, and I would, for the most part, agree with you.

Quote from: quiktaco on October 09, 2008, 08:53:37 AM
For a lot of people, it is a black and white issue.  It's very clear, what is right and what is wrong.

And those people (like you) who think that this issue is black and white can do whatever they want in terms of choosing an abortion.  But for those same people to attempt to legislate based on THEIR religious beliefs is wrong.  That part IS black and white.

Quote from: trumpetguy on October 09, 2008, 09:16:39 AM

Quote from: quiktaco on October 09, 2008, 08:53:37 AM
For a lot of people, it is a black and white issue.  It's very clear, what is right and what is wrong.

And those people (like you) who think that this issue is black and white can do whatever they want in terms of choosing an abortion.  But for those same people to attempt to legislate based on THEIR religious beliefs is wrong.  That part IS black and white.

We don't see it as our religious beliefs that are determining things.  We feel that it is murder.  Murder is wrong, and therefor abortion is wrong.

Like I said, most of the left doesn't see it as murder, so they feel that it's our religion that's telling us that it's murder.  It's true that our religion confirms the fact that it's murder, but it's not our religion that is making us know that it's murder, and know that it's wrong.

Quiktaco: Rape is very emotionally traumatic ... without that trauma it would just be ... sex. Then a woman has to take the baby to term ... then if she gave up the baby to adoption ... you cannot imagine the pain ... anyone who offers adoption as an alternative to abortion is a moron. And anyone who suggests abortion to a normal pregnancy - non rape is a murderer.

You think a criminal is going to make his own gun and then make his own bullets and commit a crime ... when the person he is pointing his gun at could well have a gene locked gun that can hit the target ... on the nose ... no problem ...
Now if he can make such a nice gun, maybe he can make a safe and honest living as a machinist, or a blacksmith ... I have some steering stems I need him to machine up and these carriers I need to make. Good money paid, 40-50 bucks a pop. Takes under 30 mins for the first few, then maybe under 15 mins ... depends on how good he is.
Guns are cheap and can be handled and used by anyone with no education/training. Take that away, and the threat of guns in the hands of criminals dies with it if not immediately, atleast a few years from now. Took 100's of years for this problem to appear, cant make it go away in a day ... or even a decade.

You can fire a bullet in 10 mins ... what if you were facing someone who had a very very clean sophisticated modern gun ... he prolly could bash your head in before you start firing your bullet without a gun.

I am all for gun control by putting a gun in the hands of every man, and woman who want one. It just will be useless to all others. Control by flooding the market. When everyone is super ... no one will be super.

Cool.
Buddha.

Quote from: The Buddha on October 09, 2008, 09:32:57 AM
Quiktaco: Rape is very emotionally traumatic ... without that trauma it would just be ... sex. Then a woman has to take the baby to term ... then if she gave up the baby to adoption ... you cannot imagine the pain ... anyone who offers adoption as an alternative to abortion is a moron. And anyone who suggests abortion to a normal pregnancy - non rape is a murderer.

You think a criminal is going to make his own gun and then make his own bullets and commit a crime ... when the person he is pointing his gun at could well have a gene locked gun that can hit the target ... on the nose ... no problem ...
Now if he can make such a nice gun, maybe he can make a safe and honest living as a machinist, or a blacksmith ... I have some steering stems I need him to machine up and these carriers I need to make. Good money paid, 40-50 bucks a pop. Takes under 30 mins for the first few, then maybe under 15 mins ... depends on how good he is.
Guns are cheap and can be handled and used by anyone with no education/training. Take that away, and the threat of guns in the hands of criminals dies with it if not immediately, atleast a few years from now. Took 100's of years for this problem to appear, cant make it go away in a day ... or even a decade.

You can fire a bullet in 10 mins ... what if you were facing someone who had a very very clean sophisticated modern gun ... he prolly could bash your head in before you start firing your bullet without a gun.

I am all for gun control by putting a gun in the hands of every man, and woman who want one. It just will be useless to all others. Control by flooding the market. When everyone is super ... no one will be super.

Cool.
Buddha.

I understand rape is a very emotionally charged issue concerning abortions.  When I was younger, before I really thought about it, I used to think that it would be alright in those situations.  Now that I'm older and actually understand what is going on.  I know that it is not right.  It's not right in any circumstance.  There's no reason that anyone can come up with that will justify the killing of an innocent baby.  It's just wrong.

Yes, I do think criminals would make their own guns.  It's not all that difficult.  Look at all the innovations in prisons.  Shanks, tattoo machines, crossbows, GUNS, and the list goes on.

I do think that your idea of gene coded guns could be a possibility, but I don't see the practicality, because I don't see how it would stop anything, that's all.  I could see how it would stop accidental firings, but it wouldn't stop people that wanted to shoot a gun.

I'm not saying that it would take 10 minutes to fire a bullet.  I meant that it would take me about 10 minutes to rig something up that could fire a bullet.  From that point, it would be just point and shoot.

I do like your idea of gene coding.  If some instances could be address, it could very well work.  However, I just see too many obsticals, because of the sheer physics of bullets, and guns themselves.  There's just so much Potential Energy packed into a bullet, that they only take the right touch, and that Energy becomes Kinetic, and the bullet is fired.  If issues such as bullets don't fire without certain coding that it gets from a certain gun being held by a certain owner, then I could see it working.  But the cost of one coded bullet would be so astronomical.  I just don't see this as a viable option.  I think it would do more good to crack down harder on gangs to get guns out of their hands.

No coded bullet. Electronic trigger mechanism.
And making a gun ... if someone has that skill, They could make a living otherwise ... like making stems for me.
Cool.
Buddha.

Quote from: The Buddha on October 09, 2008, 11:15:02 AM
No coded bullet. Electronic trigger mechanism.
And making a gun ... if someone has that skill, They could make a living otherwise ... like making stems for me.
Cool.
Buddha.

That's my point though.  If the bullets are normal bullets, then the potential energy is too easily released.  They can be fired in other ways than using a specific gun.

Drug trafficing/sales, and theft bring in a lot more money a lot faster than using these skills.  And these people probably don't have the drive to harness the skills for a career.  Especially when they're making so much money doing easier things.

It wouldn't be hard to make a sufficient gun that could use the bullets that would be used in these other guns.  They may not be as great as manufactured guns, but they'd get the bullet out of the barrel.

I think for the most part, we agree on these coded guns, but I only disagree with the fact that the bullets could still be used, and because of that, not too much would change.

Maybe the bullets for the gene coded gun should be oval or triangular. Not a lot, just slightly. and the barrel too.
The criminals just have to make everything ... kinda like GS500 people do ...
Cool.
Buddha.

I understand where you are trying to go with it, but bullets spin as they come out of the barrel.   And that still wouldn't stop them from being easily set off in some other contraption.  Maybe there could be innovation that could work, but I think the main thing would have to be in bullet technology, and not gun technology.  Gun's don't fire without bullets.

Anyways.  I think we should get off this subject, since it kinda went astray from the presidential race.  Good discussion though.

Yea triangular or oval can have a twist too. Like I said, not a lot, just a little, if its a serious triangle it will have massive drag.
Cool.
Buddha.

Quote from: The Buddha on October 09, 2008, 01:32:15 PM
Yea triangular or oval can have a twist too. Like I said, not a lot, just a little, if its a serious triangle it will have massive drag.
Cool.
Buddha.

Oh...k.  Got it.  I see how that could work.  And that would hinder and standard circular barrel from being used.  I guess that could have a reduction of homemade guns.

It should also be better than a regular gun ... dunno how ... but should be.
Then you could make a gun by hand, and make the bullets by hand, only to break into a house and have a guy point this triangular triple laser twist, target finder equipped, night vision enabled heat seeking gun in the hands of 2 people complete with silencer ... in the total darkness you barely make out the man pointing it at your head, and woman pointing it at your you know ... and she softly says, I'll take this one please darlin ...
And ... a voice over says (clint eastwood's circa 1982 voice) , you have a gun you hammered together in the ghetto, they have 2 that was machined by the smartest people in the world, in a 3 billion dollar smith and wesson factory ... the question you have to ask yourself is ... do you feel lucky ... do you punk.

Think of what it will do to the crime rate, never mind the gun, just the ad. All you have to do is to make a gun that every gun hating liberal will want to own, because its only purpose is to work for you and only you. No need for gun cases, no danger of kids taking it to school, no reason a untrained person can accidentally hurt themselves or others with it. Every adult who wants one is going to be trained and gene coded and registered for its use. You have to take and pass target shooting as well as maintenance classes to be able to have one. But once you do, its your right to carry on private property.

Criminals will not want to enter your house if there is a high probability that there is a gun. The will not want to enter it when you are not in to steal your gun because they know its useless to them. That is the end.

Cool.
Buddha.

Why be allowed to carry it only on private property? Crimes are committed in public too. Think of the deterrence factor if the criminal has to be worried about being shot wherever he is committing a crime, not just in someone else's home.

I enjoyed your Clint Eastwood ad script.  If the gun existed, and this ad were run, I would definitely see how crime rates would be almost non existent.

Quote from: pkhoff on October 09, 2008, 02:26:37 PM
Why be allowed to carry it only on private property? Crimes are committed in public too. Think of the deterrence factor if the criminal has to be worried about being shot wherever he is committing a crime, not just in someone else's home.

naah because of the ACLU wed have to obtain a warrant first  :flipoff: :laugh: :laugh:. no seriosuly id like to see this as well

Buddha, is there such a thing as murder in india? If the murderers don't have guns, how is this possible?  If a criminal wants to kill another person they will find a way. Gun, knife, rock or bare hands. Stop the BS already no new gun with dna will change anything.

OK, yeah, back on topic...........
I have a sneaking suspicion that the Intelligence and Defense Community as a bastard whole would be very nonplussed with Obama as President and some theorists will tell you they have ways of dealing with that situation.  Those educated in our nations history can make an educated guess as to what I'm inferring.

(http://homepage.ntlworld.com/sionyboy/randomshop/palinhot.gif) found while looking for photochop candidates

(http://imgcash6.imageshack.us/img300/7853/sppsah3.jpg) :thumb:

"Barack Obama continues to criticize John McCain's economic plan. McCain would like to criticize Obama's plan, but nobody knows what it is yet. So we're still waiting." --Jay Leno

"Barack Obama gave a speech in Germany and 200,000 people showed up. There were so many Germans shouting and screaming that France surrendered just in case." --Craig Ferguson

Why is it that 50,000 people show up to hear Barack speak yet only 10,000 show up to hear McCain speak?
McCain supporters actually have jobs.

Quote from: b_long_1 on October 09, 2008, 10:05:49 PM
Buddha, is there such a thing as murder in india? If the murderers don't have guns, how is this possible?  If a criminal wants to kill another person they will find a way. Gun, knife, rock or bare hands. Stop the BS already no new gun with dna will change anything.

India has an extremely low murder rate. Very very low incidence of most violent crime. Pickpockets are the worst crime you can think of. There are probably many many more accidental deaths than murders. However the mid 80's saw a rash of "bride burnings" in northern India. Ergo, you dont like your son's wife, you douse her with kerosene and light her up.
Then claim it was an accident. Only in the north, where joint families were common, they torch them and 20 of the people in the family will swear up and down that it was an accident when the stove caught her on fire.
Anyway, very very low murder rate, however India is rather seriously bound by some sorta moral code and ahimsa etc etc etc ...
Cool.
Buddha.

Quote from: yamahonkawazuki on October 10, 2008, 12:19:57 AM
(http://homepage.ntlworld.com/sionyboy/randomshop/palinhot.gif) found while looking for photochop candidates

(http://imgcash6.imageshack.us/img300/7853/sppsah3.jpg) :thumb:

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

I am voting for McCain for many reasons, but here are some reasons why not to vote for Obama.  First, he has connections with known perpetrators of the morgage crisis who got mucho money out of the deal( actually he was the lawyer for ACORN, who was one of the main groups for the spread of sub prime mortgages. Second, he was in the senate for a total of 100 days before he started campaigning for President( most votes of which that time he voted 'present')-his prior job was community organizer.  Third, and finally, all he talks about is change and hope, change and hope---From one of my favorite politicians, Rudy Giuliani, "Hope is not a strategy, and chance is not a destination."  So anyone that tells you to vote for senator Obama because he's for "change and hope" :bs:, you can tell them to shove it- thats what I do.]

Why do people like this guy, who is he, what religion is he, what are his policies (the ones that haven't changed since he started campaigning), and what the hell is his middle name?

the mortage crisis as it is/were/was, started i believe in 1977 under jimmy carter?, (a democrat i blieve) wiht the cummunity reinvestment act. basically designed to give loans to those wiht marginal credit, mainly to help more and more realise teh american dream of home ownership. and that bill was VERY ramped up, in the mid 90's under clinto. soon thereafter jim johnson and scott rains, essentially started teh downfall of fannie and freddie. and now this errm fiasco has gone beyond our shores. and in essence is global now. and i hear dems, well libs mostly gripe about greedy ceo's but say nothing about those two. rains and johnson :dunno_white:, seems to gripe about mainly republican leaning type execs? who knows, ill be glad when this shaZam! is over. but alas, i fear it is far from it. only beginning :icon_confused:

By the way, I'm changing my vote.  I'm voting for Ron Paul.

Quote from: spc on October 11, 2008, 09:34:06 PM
By the way, I'm changing my vote.  I'm voting for Ron Paul.

okay. ive heard all the explanations why. ( and tbh he does strike me with some interest as well) least hes not bob barr. and i hate to talk shaZam! about famly  :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Hell, who can argue with a guy who doesn't give a shaZam! what you do in your personal life, doesn't want to take away your guns,  thinks the best solution to the drug problem is to legalize and tax them and wants to do away with the IRS???????

prb is pauls been tryin for what 20 years now. and cant do much. . heh i wonder why  :dunno_white:

Quote from: spc
By the way, I'm changing my vote.  I'm voting for Ron Paul.

I like most of Ron Paul's platform as well, but I know that my vote wouldn't could for much in the present election if I voted that way.  That's why I always vote for the 2 that have a chance...the Rep or Dem.  (Usually the Rep).  Anyways, not a grass roots kinda guy, cause I want it to actually count.  Not go into statistics a decade down the line that says...."see, this movement is growing"

I urge everyone that sees the true side of Obama, to not throw their votes away by voting outside of the 2 major parties.  This reason is probably why Obama will become president, because too many people don't really like either one, and they're going to go with an outside party.  Just think about what you're doing if you really don't want Obama in office.

I definitely see your point and am a little torn, but if everyone voted RP that liked his standpoints on the issues he would have a real chance and an even better chance 4 years down the line.  I'm not overly worried if BO wins.  It's nasty to say, but our DOD and Intelligence communities have ways of dealing with a President they dislike.

Grassroots Ron Paul is not.  He abides by the philosophy that the Republican party has historically stood for but has in recent times drifted from.  So, in reality, it is the majority of the Republican party that should be considered grassroots or extreme.

Quote from: spc on October 13, 2008, 09:02:02 AM
I definitely see your point and am a little torn, but if everyone voted RP that liked his standpoints on the issues he would have a real chance and an even better chance 4 years down the line.  I'm not overly worried if BO wins.  It's nasty to say, but our DOD and Intelligence communities have ways of dealing with a President they dislike.

Yeah, I know what you mean.  :icon_rolleyes:

Quote
Grassroots Ron Paul is not.  He abides by the philosophy that the Republican party has historically stood for but has in recent times drifted from.  So, in reality, it is the majority of the Republican party that should be considered grassroots or extreme.

True...I'm using 'grassroots' a little loosely.  What I mean by it, is that he's not one of the two parties that have a chance.  It's rare that an outside party wins.

Only issue I don't like of Ron Paul's, is pulling stationed troops out of all the countries that we occupy.  I feel that our occupancy is what makes us so strong as a nation.  Everything else is great though.

Election's getting close, so I guess things will be getting more cut throat shortly.

Just remember, at the end of the day...  :cheers:

Quote from: quiktaco on October 13, 2008, 08:43:38 AM
This reason is probably why Obama will become president, because too many people don't really like either one, and they're going to go with an outside party.

Baloney.  He will become President because people prefer his policies.  If Ron Paul and Ralph Nader combined don't get a larger percentage of the vote than the differential between Obama and McCain, your argument will be proven false.

Hypothetically speaking, yes.  But that hasn't happened yet, so we'll see.

Quote from: spc on October 13, 2008, 09:02:02 AM
So, in reality, it is the majority of the Republican party that should be considered grassroots or extreme.

I'm SHOCKED you would say such a thing.  But I agree...  :thumb:

myself and the Republican party aren't exactly seeing eye to eye. I. Have this funny kick about not liking socialism and they have this funny kick about not giving a holy f%$k about their constituents.
Let's not forget the last time a powerful nation saw a massive socialist movement what actions eventually stemmed from that movement. I truly do see a lot of disturbing similarity between Adolph and Obama.

Quote from: spc on October 13, 2008, 10:02:12 AM
I truly do see a lot of disturbing similarity between Adolph and Obama.

+1000

Absolutely.  And any leader of the kind...Mussolini, Stalin, Hugo Chavez, Che Guevara, etc, etc

Quote from: quiktaco on October 13, 2008, 10:12:33 AM
Absolutely.  And any leader of the kind...Mussolini, Stalin, Hugo Chavez, Che Guevara, etc, etc

I mean realy when Nobama speaks the crowd is almost in a trance and what's funny is if you ever heard The Rock from WWF speak to the crowd Nobama trys to sound just like him.  :laugh:

http://fredshelm.wordpress.com/2008/06/05/barack-the-black-hitler/

Here's a good link describing the similarities between Obama and Hitler.  This isn't some right wing article saying how bad they are.  It goes in depth about speaking, motivation, body language, rhetoric and emptiness, and tons of other stuff.  It's almost as though he studied Hitler on how to become the leader of a movement.

"The nation was in shambles. A previous ruler had led the country into an unnecessary war, the economy was failing, and a sense of depression filled the air. Then, a new leader emerged. He was a powerful speaker, offering hope, change, and a fix to the economy. He wrote two books about his experiences and used his literary work to propel him to success. He was an open christian with some muslim friends. He called for unity and considered himself an advocate of peace. Some of his political opponents cast him as naive and inexperienced. He also had alot of radical ties, but the media, and ultimately the voters, were willing to overlook that."

Who is this speaking of? 

Wrong...it's about Hitler.

really? and where did you pull this from? now, i'm sure i'll be flamed for this statement but as far as i'm aware, the Germans hailed hitler as a hero. (except the jews). now, that being said, i think the holocost is really the only place hitler went wrong. feel free to correct me, "show me don't tell me".  :thumb:

LADIES AND GELTLEMEN, CONSERVATIVES AND, AND those WEIRD ppl on the left, LET THE FLAMING BEGINNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNn  :thumb:

Quote from: jserio on October 13, 2008, 06:31:49 PM
really? and where did you pull this from? now, i'm sure i'll be flamed for this statement but as far as i'm aware, the Germans hailed hitler as a hero. (except the jews). now, that being said, i think the holocost is really the only place hitler went wrong. feel free to correct me, "show me don't tell me".  :thumb:

It was from that link that I gave earlier.  Didn't fact check, but for the most part, it's all true from what I know about Hitler.
Yes, Hitler did have an 'ok' plan for the country.  Not really my ideal plan though.  The term NAZI stands for something like National Socialist Party or something.  Meaning, that Obamasiah has even more in common with Hitler.  Hitler's plan was a Socialistic Society where there was Nationalized health care, and all sorts of stuff, JUST like Obama.

The "holocaust" wasn't really something that went wrong, it was inevitable with these plans that he made.  He believed in a Supreme Arian race.  He wanted the best for his people, and wanted to spread the seed of the Arians across the lands.  In doing this however, he wanted to dispose of those who were not of pure blood.  Hitler hid that he had Jewish blood flowing through his veins, just like Obama hides that he has White blood flowing through his veins.

This is very similar to Obama...not so forward as Hitler was with his ideas, but Obama wants almost the exact same system of government that Hitler wanted.  We know for sure that he is also fine with killing babies that may have something wrong with them.  Hitler did that as well.  If they were born with defects of any kind, they were killed.  Obama lets that happen as well.  It's not mandatory, but I wouldn't put it past him so be thinking that.

Obama is also VERY anti-Jew.  He denies this now like he denies everything else, but he has said in the past that he is...in secluded meetings with select people obviously...but these places seem to be where we learn the most about him.  All of his friends, accuantances, idols, and mentors are anti-Jew, so it's not hard to see that he is as well.

He is also fine with meeting with Iran, without preconditions.  This means that us meeting with Iran 'to talk' is going to just give him more time to finish his nuclear program, and carry out what he promised to do...destroy Isreal.  He promised that he would be the one that will do it.

The problem with meeting with Iran 'without preconditions' is because this allows Iran to continue with their nuclear program.  If he met 'with preconditions' then we could require them to halt work on it and disarm and dismantle anything that has been made.  Then we'd talk.

This will directly cause Isreal to be bombed...


However (a little of my religion again), it's not going to happen.  It can't.  Isreal would probably stop it with an anti missile missile, and send 10 of their own nukes in the other direction.


But anyways, the Holocaust was the worst part of Hitler's plans, but he was an open and media loving socialist.  Only difference with Obama, is that he says he's a democrat.  Just like he says he's a Christian, not going to raise taxes on 95% of us, didn't know that his pastor said those things, didn't know who Farrakhan really was before his church gave him an award, didn't know a microphone was in that room in San Fran when he said that half the country clings to guns and religion, didn't know Ayers was a domestic terrorist, didn't know that his house's land was done with shady dealings, didn't know he was half white as well, didn't know he didn't really see any magazine article about a black guy trying to rip off his skin, didn't know that he was purposely seeking out the most Socialistic, Communistic, and Marxist people to get mentoring, and political advice while growing up, didn't know that he was well off when he was attending one of the most prestigious private schools in Hawaii, when his grandmother was the VP of a bank, and his step father was a big oil man, and his mother was getting her PHD.

Obama knows exactly what he's doing, and exactly who he has ties with, because he has been brought up on, and by these teachings for all of his life.  He knows exactly what he plans to do, which is a lot different from what he says.


Both Obama and Hitler are Very, Very smart people.

And now I will end with some quotes by the one we love to hate... (sounds like he speaks on behave of those who love Obama)  I agree with everyone of these quotes...Obama implements every one of these quotes.

By the skillful and sustained use of propaganda, one can make a people see even heaven as hell or an extremely wretched life as paradise.
-Adolf Hitler

He alone, who owns the youth, gains the future.
-Adolf Hitler

How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think.
-Adolf Hitler

I use emotion for the many and reserve reason for the few.
-Adolf Hitler

If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.
-Adolf Hitler

All propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach.
-Adolf Hitler

The broad masses of a population are more amenable to the appeal of rhetoric than to any other force.
-Adolf Hitler

As soon as by one's own propaganda even a glimpse of right on the other side is admitted, the cause for doubting one's own right is laid.
-Adolf Hitler

Great liars are also great magicians.
-Adolf Hitler

It is not truth that matters, but victory.
-Adolf Hitler

Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.
-Adolf Hitler

Sooner will a camel pass through a needle's eye than a great man be "discovered" by an election.
-Adolf Hitler

The day of individual happiness has passed.
-Adolf Hitler

The great mass of people will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one.
-Adolf Hitler

The leader of genius must have the ability to make different opponents appear as if they belonged to one category.
-Adolf Hitler

The victor will never be asked if he told the truth.
-Adolf Hitler

Universal education is the most corroding and disintegrating poison that liberalism has ever invented for its own destruction.
-Adolf Hitler

I found this interesting

The Koran says...
Surah 5:51 -
Oh you who believe (Muslims), do not take the Jews and al-nasara (Christians) as friends.  They are friends to one another.  And whoever among you takes them as friends, so surely he is one of them.  Surely God (Allah) does not guide the unjust people.

Louis Farrakhan (leader of the Black Nation of Islam, who believes in what the Koran says)
"I love that brother (Obama), and I want to see that brother successful.  I don't want to say anything that would hurt that brother.  And I don't want them to use me or the Nation of Islam.  I didn't tell anybody who to vote for.  Do whatchu wanna do.  I've taught you enough sense, that I know you will vote yourself interest.  If you know what your self interest is."

Now, if Louis Farrakhan really believes in the Nation of Islam (which he does), then to 'love a brother', who is an Infidel, is forbidden, and if you take an Infidel as a friend, then you are an Infidel.  A Muslim can only love another brother of Islam.

It is also true, that most, if not all Muslims in America, are voting for Obama.  Why would this group of people vote for someone who is and Infidel?  By their religion, they shouldn't even be living here, let alone voting in a country that is primarily Infidels.

I don't know what this really means, but take from it what you will.  As the days go on, I am only seeing Obama, as more and more of a Muslim Sympathizer, and possibly, a Muslim himself.

* He was enrolled in school, when in Indonesia (I think that's where), as a Muslim...under religion, they wrote "Islam"
• When attending a Catholic school, he wasn't registered with the school as Catholic, he was registered as Muslim, and attended Muslim prayer, not Catholic prayer.
• He said in his book, that he's following in the footsteps of Malcolm-X, a known Muslim.
• His "Christian" church gave an award to Louis Farrakhan, the leader of the Black Nation of Islam.
• His father was Muslim
• His step father was Muslim

There is no doubt that he is a sympathizer at the very least.  And to deny that possibility that he could be Muslim, is to be denying everything that points to it.

The Koran tells all Muslims to kill infidels, to slit their throats and to shatter their skulls.  And infidel, is anyone who does not believe in Islam.

I'm a right-wing, anti-illegal, pro-life, gun owning, straight, white, college educated, politically informed, conservative, Christian male.  Liberals hate me, and Muslims want to kill me.

Quote from: quiktaco on October 14, 2008, 01:56:13 PM
I'm a right-wing, anti-illegal, pro-life, gun owning, straight, white, college educated, politically informed, conservative, Christian male.  Liberals hate me, and Muslims want to kill me.

I don't hate you.  I just find you very self-righteous and incredibly misguided.  The only things I hate are 1)  laws based on someone else's religion being imposed on me, and 2) lies.

Quote from: trumpetguy on October 14, 2008, 05:11:18 PM

Quote from: quiktaco on October 14, 2008, 01:56:13 PM
I'm a right-wing, anti-illegal, pro-life, gun owning, straight, white, college educated, politically informed, conservative, Christian male.  Liberals hate me, and Muslims want to kill me.

I don't hate you.  I just find you very self-righteous and incredibly misguided.  The only things I hate are 1)  laws based on someone else's religion being imposed on me, and 2) lies.

Thank you for not hating me.  I don't feel I am self-righteous.  I don't mean to be.  I am just expressing my beliefs and opinions as you are expressing yours.  And lies that you feel I have said or not purposeful.  They are merely topics I have found that I would like to debate in this thread.  Like I have said, if info that is proposed is incorrect, please provide other sources which rebut it.  It's proven that Obama has lied about many things, yet you are still a strong supporter of him.  I'm not talking about some things that can't necessarily be proven or what not, but I'm talking about many of the things he's said, like his grandfather and Auschwitz, and not saying that he was registered as a Muslim in the Catholic school he attended, or claiming in one interview that he never heard his pastor say such things, then in a speech, he apologized for misguided things he's said.  The list goes on.

Please explain to me why you feel I am self-righteous.  I'd like to know, so I can change if I truely am coming across that way.

Also, I feel that you are the misguided one.  We see things differently, so nothings going to change on that front.
It does make for a good thread that's continued for a long time, so I thank you for that.

I didn't, however, get any of your comments about all this information that I posted.  What do you think about all of this Muslim stuff?  I don't want the rant about his campaign says he's not, nor has he never been a Muslim, and he is a Committed Christian, crap.  Based on the evidence provided, not by the manipulative campaign, what do you feel is the truth?


If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.
-Adolf Hitler

"Senator Obama has never been a Muslim, was not raised as a Muslim, and is a committed Christian. Further, this myth perpetuates unfortunate falsehoods about the Muslim-American community that are offensive to people of all faiths." - from his website   
:bs:

(first off, I'm sorry that I may be offensive to a religion that wants me dead)

(http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/01u33pL9Ns06D/340x.jpg)

This image is of Barry Soetoro (Barack Obama), listed as being enrolled with his religion listed as 'Islam' on line number 4

This proves that he was raised as, and was infact a Muslim.  Therefor, this statement given on his website is false.  Maybe he is not now, but he was at one time.  Along with his grandfather, his father, his step father, his brother, and many more people who fill his life.

Quote from: trumpetguy on October 14, 2008, 05:11:18 PM

Quote from: quiktaco on October 14, 2008, 01:56:13 PM
I'm a right-wing, anti-illegal, pro-life, gun owning, straight, white, college educated, politically informed, conservative, Christian male.  Liberals hate me, and Muslims want to kill me.

I don't hate you.  I just find you very self-righteous and incredibly misguided.  The only things I hate are 1)  laws based on someone else's religion being imposed on me, and 2) lies.

very nice. you do know that liberals tell lies as well right  :thumb: , heck everyone does. NO one is perfect. 'cept for christ  :thumb:

First, I don't care if he's a Muslim or a Christian or an Atheist.  I don't think any of those make one a better leader.  So whether he is or is not a Muslim is a useless question.  If you want to get real picky about violent religions, you'd better look at the actions of those who call themselves Christian (and have throughout history).  Bush claims to be Christian.  So does Fred Phelps.  So does duck Cheney.  So does Tony Alamo.  Does that make them fine upstanding people?

Second, what does it take to become a Christian, and what facts do you possess which tell you that Obama is not and was not always a Christian?  What religion do children truly have?  If you were raised by atheist parents, were you an atheist until the age at which you began to believe?  Does it matter?

Third, in the last eight years, anyone comparing the actions of Bush to the actions of Hitler (which I find a VERY valid comparison) was castigated wildly.  Yet the same people now compare Obama AS A PERSON to Hitler.  I don't expect consistency from angry people, but this is a little over the top.

Fourth, whose handwriting is on the form you posted?  Someone at the school?  Obama's father or stepfather? Obama himself?  How old was he at the time?  It is utterly meaningless in and of itself yet you take it as fact because you desire to believe that the man about to be elected President (over your strenuous objections) is evil.

Fifth, why do Obama's alleged lies bother you but McCain's obvious continuous pandering flip flops NOT bother you?

Ron Paul.  f%$k the IRS and let's build a big f%$king electric fence on all of our borders.

Quote from: trumpetguy on October 14, 2008, 08:19:14 PM
First, I don't care if he's a Muslim or a Christian or an Atheist.  I don't think any of those make one a better leader.  So whether he is or is not a Muslim is a useless question.  If you want to get real picky about violent religions, you'd better look at the actions of those who call themselves Christian (and have throughout history).  Bush claims to be Christian.  So does Fred Phelps.  So does duck Cheney.  So does Tony Alamo.  Does that make them fine upstanding people?

Second, what does it take to become a Christian, and what facts do you possess which tell you that Obama is not and was not always a Christian?  What religion do children truly have?  If you were raised by atheist parents, were you an atheist until the age at which you began to believe?  Does it matter?

Third, in the last eight years, anyone comparing the actions of Bush to the actions of Hitler (which I find a VERY valid comparison) was castigated wildly.  Yet the same people now compare Obama AS A PERSON to Hitler.  I don't expect consistency from angry people, but this is a little over the top.

Fourth, whose handwriting is on the form you posted?  Someone at he school?  Obama's father or stepfather? Obama himself?  How old was he at the time?  It is utterly meaningless in and of itself yet you take it as fact because you desire to believe that the man about to be elected President (over your strenuous objections) is evil.

Fifth, why do Obama's alleged lies bother you but McCain's obvious continuous pandering flip flops NOT bother you?

LOL obama changes position more than mccain, and more than most people change their underwear. and as you can guess by now, TG you of all people know im not a probama guy, i wonder myself, err id have to see a link of some sort between thepaper and obama himself. as far as religions go. no one is "saved" err becomes one of them untill they choose to do so. and as far as being violent. look at islam as well ( during the crusades ( 1 example. im surte there are others.)

What about Islam during the crusades?  They got slaughtered.  Sure they were combatant, but you would be too if a bunch of fat foreigners were trampling all over your land and murdering/raping your family in the pursuit of a religious icon.

Quote from: spc on October 14, 2008, 08:40:43 PM
What about Islam during the crusades?  They got slaughtered.  Sure they were combatant, but you would be too if a bunch of fat foreigners were trampling all over your land and murdering/raping your family in the pursuit of a religious icon.

i know terry, everyone seems to think christianity is the ONLY violent religion out there. i disagree. the crusades were one example, of either side not adhering to its teachings or its god. radical sects were to blame for that. essentially the one percenters  :thumb:

Quote from: trumpetguy on October 14, 2008, 05:11:18 PM

Quote from: quiktaco on October 14, 2008, 01:56:13 PM
I'm a right-wing, anti-illegal, pro-life, gun owning, straight, white, college educated, politically informed, conservative, Christian male.  Liberals hate me, and Muslims want to kill me.

I don't hate you.  I just find you very self-righteous and incredibly misguided.  The only things I hate are 1)  laws based on someone else's religion being imposed on me, and 2) lies.

btw TG no need to HATE. hate is a very negative word. lol, i more prefer dislike. but in essence i hate no one or nothign. i dislike however close minded people of all political persuasions. close minded people of all genders, races, and such. ( jsut my thoughts, do as you will . here have an e-beer  :cheers:

so me boss tells me that obama cant produce papers saying hes a citizen, somethign about conflicting stories of birth country and citizenship stuff...any word on this from anyone?

Quote from: shiznizbiz on October 14, 2008, 10:21:14 PM
so me boss tells me that obama cant produce papers saying hes a citizen, somethign about conflicting stories of birth country and citizenship stuff...any word on this from anyone?

ive heard this myself, and if it is true, then weve got a problem. now most on tehleft will say this is a RW propaganda piece. but id like to see whassup. or a suit filed if need be

*disclaimer, the following is just idiotic rambling that bears no real insight to the opinion of the poster, its just a what if? style post with goofy satiristic not so humorous humor*
Yeah Id like to know for sure.  IT would suck for so many people to want him as president if he isnt even qualified to begin with. rules are rules. 
If he isnt a citizen, what was going through his head when he was younger?  I want to be the first president of the US that isnt a citizen. obama, not a citizen, tryign to take over the country...oh nos son!  if he wins, and hes a terrorist, were f%&ked.  lmao.  They will rebuild him, make him stronger, faster, smarter, more american. his mission objective, to become president. 

okay volvo sniffer, drugs are bad mmmkay  :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Quote from: trumpetguy on October 14, 2008, 08:19:14 PM
First, I don't care if he's a Muslim or a Christian or an Atheist.  I don't think any of those make one a better leader.  So whether he is or is not a Muslim is a useless question.  If you want to get real picky about violent religions, you'd better look at the actions of those who call themselves Christian (and have throughout history).  Bush claims to be Christian.  So does Fred Phelps.  So does duck Cheney.  So does Tony Alamo.  Does that make them fine upstanding people?

The reason you should care that he may be a Muslim, is because in the Koran, it specifically says to kill Infidels...that means you, too.  Anyone who does not believe in Islam.  It's not a matter of who could lead better.  Hitler led the masses very well.  So did Stalin, and Mussolini, but they are all not good for the country.  Technically Black Muslims aren't even Muslim, because the 'Mohamed' that they say is a prophet, is a different 'Mohamed' that true Islam says is a prophet, but they feel that they can more easily convert them, so they allow it.
You are pulling out specific people out of Christianity and saying they are violent.  Christianity is not violent as a religion.  It does call for war, and protection at some times, but in general preaches to love one another.  The religion of Islam as a whole is violent.  Those who claim that it is a peaceful religion, either have never read the Koran, or don't truly practice being a Muslim.  It calls for all Muslims to kill anyone who is not Muslim, there's no way around it.

QuoteSecond, what does it take to become a Christian, and what facts do you possess which tell you that Obama is not and was not always a Christian?  What religion do children truly have?  If you were raised by atheist parents, were you an atheist until the age at which you began to believe?  Does it matter?

It takes believing in Christ, the son of God, birthed by Mary, who died for our sins.
The proof that I have that he is not Christian, is that he/his church believes that Christ and God are black.  Christ was a Jew, born to a Jewish Mother.  HE'S NOT BLACK.  That single fact, says that he's not a Christian, because he doesn't believe in the true Christ.
It's true that you will probably believe what your parents believe, but you will during your life time be exposed to the truth.  Once exposed, you either reject it or believe it.  That's when the person has accountability.  If you are never exposed to the truth, then you have no accountability, and you are judged like an innocent child.

QuoteThird, in the last eight years, anyone comparing the actions of Bush to the actions of Hitler (which I find a VERY valid comparison) was castigated wildly.  Yet the same people now compare Obama AS A PERSON to Hitler.  I don't expect consistency from angry people, but this is a little over the top.

Hitler was Socialist.  Obama is Socialist.  Bush is not.  Hitler commanded a crowd of tens of thousands based on emotion.  Obama commands a crowd of tens of thousands based on emotion.  Bush doesn't use emotion to talk to a crowd.
If you had read pretty much anything that I had wrote about the comparison, then you'd see all the similarities.  Previously, I never called bush or defended bush from being called Hitler.  So, I'm not the same people, sorry.

QuoteFourth, whose handwriting is on the form you posted?  Someone at the school?  Obama's father or stepfather? Obama himself?  How old was he at the time?  It is utterly meaningless in and of itself yet you take it as fact because you desire to believe that the man about to be elected President (over your strenuous objections) is evil.

I'm assuming it's either his step-father's or a registrar.  This is for his Catholic School enrollment.  It's not the fact that he has Islam listed, but it's the fact that he so conveniently left the fact that he attended Catholic School, as a Muslim out, when telling the American people about his schooling.  Whether he believed it or not, if your father is Muslim, then you are automatically Muslim.  His campaign says that he was never a Muslim...which is shown incorrect.

QuoteFifth, why do Obama's alleged lies bother you but McCain's obvious continuous pandering flip flops NOT bother you?

Mostly because Obama's lies are a lot more dangerous to the world.  If he is hiding the fact that he's Muslim, then America will change dramatically, Israel will be bombed, Western Civilization will crumble.  These are highly likely if the most powerful man in the world, secretly wants to kill all Infidels.

Quoteso me boss tells me that obama cant produce papers saying hes a citizen, somethign about conflicting stories of birth country and citizenship stuff...any word on this from anyone?

This has been brought up, but has been hit down by the Liberals...unjustly at that however.
The issues about this concern Obama's birth certificate.  There are about 6 discrepancies with his, compared to other Hawaiian birth certificates at the time.  The record number is blacked out, so it can't be tracked, there is no seal that shows it's certified, there's a few of the documents words that differ from the others, Obama's has no creases, and they supposedly were always folded and mailed. And a couple more
I understand that some of these things are probably nothing, but when there is an authenticity issue, then all these things matter.  I really don't know if he is a natural citizen or not...I've kind of given that front up, because there are so many other reasons he should be the president, other than the fact that he may not even be eligible.  Also, if Hillary really wanted to be President, then she'd have her staff going through Hawaii's records like mad, trying to disqualify him.  So with all that, I'm sure he is, but I'd still like some proof.

Quote from: quiktaco on October 15, 2008, 09:07:44 AM
Christianity is not violent as a religion.  It does call for war, and protection at some times, but in general preaches to love one another.  The religion of Islam as a whole is violent.  Those who claim that it is a peaceful religion, either have never read the Koran, or don't truly practice being a Muslim.  It calls for all Muslims to kill anyone who is not Muslim, there's no way around it.

So Christianity can be judged in general terms, but not Islam?  Do you see a flaw in your thinking?  I do.  There are some violent Christians.  There are some violent Muslims.  End of story.  Every word in the Bible is not taken literally by anyone.  Do you eat pork?  Do you associate with women during their menstrual cycle?  There are some wacko things in there which we conveniently ignore.  But we sure point out every flaw in the Quran.

QuoteIt takes believing in Christ, the son of God, birthed by Mary, who died for our sins.

So it doesn't take attending the "right" church?  In the next sentence you say it does.  You have NO basis to judge Obama's claim to Christianity.  None -- Zero -- Zippo.  You're spouting crap, of which none matters.

QuoteHitler was Socialist.  Obama is Socialist.  Bush is not.

Hitler called his party socialist, but was not a socialist nor a communist - look at his economy.  Obama is not a socialist.  He is a democrat.  If you look only at his economic policies in the last three weeks Bush IS a socialist.  But fortunately, the world is NOT black and white.  Bush has fascist tendencies (as does McCain) but that does not mean he is a fascist.  Only a simpleton would say such a thing.

QuoteOnce exposed, you either reject it or believe it.  That's when the person has accountability.

QuoteWhether he believed it or not, if your father is Muslim, then you are automatically Muslim.

If Obama never was a practicing Muslim (his father was an atheist) then he can truthfully say he was never a Muslim.  How do YOU f*cking know?  You don't.  That doesn't stop you from saying it...

QuoteMostly because Obama's lies are a lot more dangerous to the world.  If he is hiding the fact that he's Muslim, then America will change dramatically, Israel will be bombed, Western Civilization will crumble.  These are highly likely if the most powerful man in the world, secretly wants to kill all Infidels.

Let's talk in a couple of years. You'll have some explaining to do.  Israel may be bombed -- they have been under people you claim are Christians -- but I can't wait to see if Western Civilization crumbles because America elects Barrack Obama.  THEN will you stop with the smears?

Hey, Check out this vid
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kA9D9_x9bgY

Quote from: trumpetguy on October 15, 2008, 09:32:11 AM

Quote from: quiktaco on October 15, 2008, 09:07:44 AM
Christianity is not violent as a religion.  It does call for war, and protection at some times, but in general preaches to love one another.  The religion of Islam as a whole is violent.  Those who claim that it is a peaceful religion, either have never read the Koran, or don't truly practice being a Muslim.  It calls for all Muslims to kill anyone who is not Muslim, there's no way around it.

So Christianity can be judged in general terms, but not Islam?  Do you see a flaw in your thinking?  I do.  There are some violent Christians.  There are some violent Muslims.  End of story.  Every word in the Bible is not taken literally by anyone.  Do you eat pork?  Do you associate with women during their menstrual cycle?  There are some wacko things in there which we conveniently ignore.  But we sure point out every flaw in the Quran.

QuoteIt takes believing in Christ, the son of God, birthed by Mary, who died for our sins.

So it doesn't take attending the "right" church?  In the next sentence you say it does.  You have NO basis to judge Obama's claim to Christianity.  None -- Zero -- Zippo.  You're spouting crap, of which none matters.

QuoteHitler was Socialist.  Obama is Socialist.  Bush is not.

Hitler called his party socialist, but was not a socialist nor a communist - look at his economy.  Obama is not a socialist.  He is a democrat.  If you look only at his economic policies in the last three weeks Bush IS a socialist.  But fortunately, the world is NOT black and white.  Bush has fascist tendencies (as does McCain) but that does not mean he is a fascist.  Only a simpleton would say such a thing.

QuoteOnce exposed, you either reject it or believe it.  That's when the person has accountability.

QuoteWhether he believed it or not, if your father is Muslim, then you are automatically Muslim.

If Obama never was a practicing Muslim (his father was an atheist) then he can truthfully say he was never a Muslim.  How do YOU f*cking know?  You don't.  That doesn't stop you from saying it...

QuoteMostly because Obama's lies are a lot more dangerous to the world.  If he is hiding the fact that he's Muslim, then America will change dramatically, Israel will be bombed, Western Civilization will crumble.  These are highly likely if the most powerful man in the world, secretly wants to kill all Infidels.

Let's talk in a couple of years. You'll have some explaining to do.  Israel may be bombed -- they have been under people you claim are Christians -- but I can't wait to see if Western Civilization crumbles because America elects Barrack Obama.  THEN will you stop with the smears?

Islam tells to kill anyone who is not Islam.  Christianity does not condone such violence.  End of story.

Obama believes in a Black Christ.  Not Christian Christ, therefor not Christian. 

Obama is too a Socialist.  He's more liberal on issues than open Socialists.  How can he not be a socialist if this is true?
"If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed."
-Adolf Hitler

His Grandfather was Muslim.  His father, he says is Atheist, but he practices what Muslims practice, including Polygamy, and other things.  Because he does admit that his Grandfather was Muslim, then that makes his father Muslim, which makes him Muslim.  Not to mention the fact that it's on enrollment records for school.  He was raised as a Muslim.  If he wasn't, then his religion wouldn't be listed as Islam.

I'm not saying it will for sure crumble.  And it may not be extremely soon, but we are not far behind England on much, and England is currently thinking about allowing Shariah law to take place, which goes around English courts.


You'll believe what you want to believe, because you don't look at ANY of the evidance that points to ANY of Obama's faults.  You don't care if he is Muslim and wants to kill you.  You don't care if he is a Socialist.  You don't care about your freedoms.  You don't care if you are happy in life or not, you just want whatever the government wants.

The day of individual happiness has passed.
Adolf Hitler

The broad masses of a population are more amenable to the appeal of rhetoric than to any other force.
Adolf Hitler

You are a sheep, that is blinded by meaningless rhetoric, and lies.  You attack me, saying that I'm blinded, but have not basis for that, but I do have basis going the other way.

i think all religions have their violent factions or persons whom take the terrorist route.  however i think it is human nature, as well with most if not all animals, to fight over resources and power.  so a end to conflict is just a dream.

Quote from: frankieG on October 15, 2008, 11:19:34 AM
i think all religions have their violent factions or persons whom take the terrorist route.  however i think it is human nature, as well with most if not all animals, to fight over resources and power.  so a end to conflict is just a dream.

Well said. Every religious group has those who are extremists.  The difference comes, however, when the religion itself is telling the people to be extremists.

Hitler claimed to be Christian.  KKK says they're Christian.

However, these people are acting on individual beliefs, and not those of the religion itself.  They are extremists who also happen to be Christian (or call themselves Christian, because they are not acting Christian)

On the other hand, the extremists of Islam (or what it says in the Koran that all Muslims should do), act directly in accordance with their religion.

Quote from: frankieG on October 15, 2008, 11:19:34 AM
i think all religions have their violent factions or persons whom take the terrorist route.  however i think it is human nature, as well with most if not all animals, to fight over resources and power.  so a end to conflict is just a dream.

Well I have to say +1 Frankie

you know, this whole thread has been nothing but one person/persons bashing obaman and then others defending him. let's turn this around. i normally don't "attack" people on this board, but for the sake of discusion and "enlightenment" i'm going to call out MR. QUICK TACO....  don't take any offense, just present your agrument sir. you have been bellowing about how bad obama is. now, tell me, why is mccain so great? and please, don't say mccain is so great just because obama is so bad in your eyes. will mccain contine the failed policies of Bush? will mccain work to keep our jobs here in the states? will mccain work to solve our immigration woes? will mccain work to regulate the economy better? (recent credit crisis etc). foreign policy? education?

religion and politics...two things that people get very emotional about...please do not take offence.

Quote from: frankieG on October 15, 2008, 11:47:20 AM
religion and politics...two things that people get very emotional about...please do not take offence.

Religion and politics are the 2 subjects which should never be discussed in polite company. Other than the occasional right wing humorous jab at the left I have pretty much given up discussion of politics with people whom I have a friendly aquantance with.

my father and i can and do discuss politics at length at times. there are items we agree on and some we do not. we just agree to disagree.  :thumb:

Quote from: jserio on October 15, 2008, 11:35:01 AM
you know, this whole thread has been nothing but one person/persons bashing obaman and then others defending him. let's turn this around. i normally don't "attack" people on this board, but for the sake of discusion and "enlightenment" i'm going to call out MR. QUICK TACO....  don't take any offense, just present your agrument sir. you have been bellowing about how bad obama is. now, tell me, why is mccain so great? and please, don't say mccain is so great just because obama is so bad in your eyes. will mccain contine the failed policies of Bush? will mccain work to keep our jobs here in the states? will mccain work to solve our immigration woes? will mccain work to regulate the economy better? (recent credit crisis etc). foreign policy? education?

One of the biggest reasons, is the one you said I can't list, so...

First off, most of Bush's policies aren't failed.  Liberals like to play that up.  He actually kept the economy pretty stable during time of war.  The war has diminished funds, but other than that, the economy has been great.  McCain will bring home troops in an appropriate matter.  The war will end under both potentials, however, it will end properly, and in victory with McCain.  Obama wants to rush troops home which will threaten not only their lives, but everything that has been fought for over the last 7-8 years.

Of course McCain will work to keep jobs here.  That's what tax cuts on businesses do.  When it's cheaper to work here, they'll stay here.  Not only that, but they'll employ more people, and pay people more.  It's called supply side economics, or the trickle down theory.  It works great.  The other option is to end the tax cuts on them, which Obama wants to do.  That will drive these businesses to other countries.  Why would anyone want to keep their business here, when it's cheaper to have it in Mexico or elsewhere.

The recent credit crisis didn't start with republicans.  It started back in the day of Jimmy Carter.  he made it easier for people with poor credit to get loans.  Clinton then ramped this up, and that's a lot of the reason why Clinton's economy is viewed at being so good.  All this was pushed into Bush's presidency.  The housing market was getting ridiculously high because there were all these easy to get loans.  Once people couldn't sell homes for as high anymore, it all crashed.  That along with the banks supplying these loans.  The very banks that are backed, and in ties with democrats.  Hopefully these bail outs will do some good, and the market will equalize soon.  Then, McCain's Supply side economics will be able to help build up the economy again.

McCain has excellent foreign policy.  We'll have a stronger, and more well prepared military, and McCain will be able to deal with the inevitable threat from Iran.  Obama wouldn't be able to handle it.  That is, if he even wanted to...something we really don't know about him.

Public Education is bad, there's no way around it.  Work hard and put your kid through private school.
Some things that are good with his plan though, is to award good teachers.  However, this plan may not work because of the liberal unions that public school teachers are in.  They get paid so much, and that's what they get, so there's no use to strive to be a great teacher, cause it's not going to get you anywhere. (socialism anyone?)  He also wants to reform 'no child left behind'.  He feels that it was a good start, but doesn't need to be tossed away like most republicans think.  He also wants to ensure access to students that strive to go further.  This is a big problem with the democrat side.  The perpetuating drop outs and welfare recipients.  Feeling like they can't succeed just cause they're in the projects.  Even those kids have the ability to succeed, but it is their lack of drive that pushes them to failure.  I think that something that would counteract this, would be to reform Welfare, and actually teach people to catch the fish instead of giving them a fish every day.  This will help those people become responsible citizens and help their children see that they can be something more.

He says he's going to secure the borders, but I don't think that's ever going to happen.  Watch this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAaBgMmSrJo
Very good video on Immigration.
So anyways, he says he's going to secure the border.  I don't agree with some of the policies, because he plans to allow many of them to stay, but he is going to be a lot more strict than Obama.  He does say that the recent immigrants will be sent back.  I don't feel that it will work, or that it will really ever work.  Too much politics on both side of the rope for this one.

Other things that I agree with McCain on, are Traditional Marriage, wants to do away with abortion, he's pro gun, he's a true Christian (however he did have a divorce, which I disagree with), he's been part of the military, which to be a Commander in Chief, I think is necessary.  He also knows the horror of war, and I feel that his time being a prisoner, has shaped him in a way to more humainly deal with situations.  He believes that we should drill for oil right now, while other means of energy are being developed.  (you all say it'll take 10 years, but new developments of technology will take 15 to 20 years to be really mainstream.  If we work for what we have now, then we'll make the transition more comfortable)

Obama and his campaign have been trying to lump McCain and Bush as the same person, but if you look at the facts, they are two totally different people.  Yes both on the right, but McCain is far more centric than Bush.  I am fairly far right, and I disagree with a lot of things that McCain does, or will do, but even then, he's so far to the right of Obama, that McCain can't even see Obama.

I want to go back to Reagan days.  He was a good republican conservative.  Since then, the right's gotten more centric, and the left's gotten more socialistic.  Back then, McCain would have been the Democratic Nominee.  Things  in this country have changed, and I'm just voting on the side that is closest to my values, beliefs, and proven ability.  I want less government, more freedom, and the ability to keep as much of my money as possible, so that I can succeed in life.  I don't want bigger government, with tons more stupid programs that take my money and give it to people so that they can keep sitting on their ass doing nothing.