A Different President....A Different Response...

[Lazarus]

I kinda think that this says it all........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIHz5tevLAw&eurl

[Sponsored Links]

[Oldrem]

No comparison. One treated our troops like they should be treated and the enters like a smug and pompous #@%

[gueuzeman]

Mission accomplished, lol.

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/files/bush-mission.jpg
What's the body count these days?

Propaganda. :usflag:

:yawn:

gueuze

[Levi the Tile Guy]

That's how it is! My brother is a staff sergent for the army, and on his second tour. I get e-mails from him every now and again and was crushed with the election. He said Obama did have some supporters obviously, but they didn't talk about it openly.

[ob1kanobee]

Apparently the 25% of Americans who actually approved of President Bush were all stationed in Iraq.

[tilerite]

What's the body count these days?

If you're referring to Saddam;

"Along with other human rights organizations, The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq. Human Rights Watch reports that in one operation alone, the Anfal, Saddam killed 100,000 Kurdish Iraqis. Another 500,000 are estimated to have died in Saddam's needless war with Iran. Coldly taken as a daily average for the 24 years of Saddam's reign, these numbers give us a horrifying picture of between 70 and 125 civilian deaths per day for every one of Saddam's 8,000-odd days in power"

[gueuzeman]

No, I was actually referring to U.S. military. But now that you mention it......

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
so their estimates, which are considered very conservative (you should like that) due to thew fact that these are verified, confirmed deaths, estimates run five times that in some places.

Anyway, currently we have a 41-45 death per day average in Iraq, a huge improvement, lol.

And like your unnamed source pins it all on Saddam, I can put these all on Bush, who you can then argue is only half as bad as Saddam. That OK?

Here, in America, in 2004, the latest data available (for 2007 publication) is 81 gun deaths a day. So we're killing ourselves off at about the same rate as Saddam. I guess we as a nation as should be invaded to be saved from ourselves.
Source- (see how this attributing thing works?)
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/04/21/weekinreview/20070422_MARSH_GRAPHIC.html

While you may whine about the NY times being "liberal", the data comes from the then Bush controlled federal government.

Be well- gueuze

[Davestone]

We'll get plenty of opportunity to see how the left handles the world over the next four years.:crap:

[tilerite]

I’m sorry. I forgot that you’re a guy who prefers to stick with the facts and only the facts. Here’s some facts about your boy;

Hundreds of thousands of people died as a DIRECT result of Saddam's actions.
Saddam had approximately 40 of his own relatives murdered.

1980-88: Iran-Iraq war left 150,000 to 340,000 Iraqis and 450,000 to 730,000 Iranians dead.

1983-1988: Documented chemical attacks by Iraqi regime caused some 30,000 Iraqi and Iranian deaths.

1988: Chemical attack on Kurdish village of Halabja killed approximately 5,000 people. This event was come to be known as Black Friday. Please feel free to click on the link for some graphic pictures (if you have the stomach for it).
http://www.kdp.se/old/chemical.html

1987-1988: Iraqi regime used chemical agents in attacks against at least 40 Kurdish villages.

1990-91: 1,000 Kuwaitis were killed and countless women and children were brutally raped, in Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

1991: Bloody suppression of Kurdish and Shi'a uprisings in northern and southern Iraq killed at least 30,000 to 60,000. At least 2,000 Kurdish villages were destroyed during the campaign of terror.

These FACTS are well documented and 100% true.

You should watch the documentary that is sometimes shown on the Discovery Channel, about the life of Saddam, his rise to power and how he controlled the Iraqi people with systematic torture and genocide. I learned things from watching that show, I never imagined.

We can argue all day long about whether invading Iraq was in our best interests, but go ask the Iraqi people who lived under the tyranny of Saddam, if our invasion was worth it and you’ll get one response; “damn right it was!!”

[MHI]

I've said it before, we will be looking back at the Bush years as the good old days.

I won't say I told to you so when you realize it, because I'm saying it to you now.:)

[jgleason]

Well gueze, since you bring it up I'm not sure how you equate 81 deaths per day due to guns in America to 70-125 deaths per day in Iraq under Hussein.

Sure it is approximately the same number per day but considering Iraq's population is one tenth of the USA it can hardly be described as the same "rate".

Carry on.

[Levi the Tile Guy]

Regardless of whether you think our troops should be in Iraq/Affganistan or not. We are there, and our soldiers are doing their best to prevent another 911. Don't get me wrong I don't think innocent women and children should have to die. But that is an unfortunate side of war, and I would rather it be over "there" instead of here.

[jgleason]

And, my take on Iraq....

I could care less whether Saddam butchered his own people. The USA isn't supposed to go rescue everybody in the world. Lots of other bad regimes out there that we haven't stopped with use of our military.

I had no problem with troops being sent to Iraq because, at the time, it was determined that Iraq posed a threat to the USA. We went in and after neutralizing the threat, as it was perceived at the time, we then should have gotten out.

[Levi the Tile Guy]

A lot of our troops did leave, although maybe not enough. They went to affganistan which is much more dangerous and worse conditions

[jgleason]

To me it is simple though. If there is a threat to the nation - neutralize it. I don't think Iraq or Afghanistan pose a serious threat to the country therefore we should pull out.

I do believe there are tons of crazies out there that would surely love to visit more harm upon us. The question is how to stop them. I suppose you could argue that while we are engaged over in Afghanistan/Iraq it is harder for them to organize anything against us here at home. If this is true then we should spend way more time over there finding the bad guys and killing them and a whole lot less time having our military play at being social workers.

[gueuzeman]

Rick- Saddam Hussein is not "my" boy, and I've never said he was a nice guy.

As long as you're gonna cut and paste text, just please tell me where you got it. I'm not sure why it's so hard.

gleason, you're right about the comparison, it's bad (not apples to apples). But just a little bit more gas pouring on the fire.:rolleyes:

Back to rick- thanks for the link to the chemical attack. Loved the photos, not high res enough. I think everyone should be seeing high resolution pictures of dead soldiers and innocent civilians every day, especially teens that play thesae violent video games. See how not pretty it really is.

Scroll down that page for text to G.W.Bush speech noting 15 year anniversary of this heinous action...........


Hmmmmm,........ |April 1998? Who was President here? Reagan, that's right.

And? ......................

http://www.karljones.com/images/rumsfeld_hussein.jpg

Oh, yeah, that's where he got the chemicals!! And our response at the time? Nothing. Your boy Ronnie Ray-gun.

And while I haven't used anything from this next link it is a good read, but a lot of info.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

After all those pictures, I want a grilled cheese sandwich.

gueuze

[ob1kanobee]

Why does the United States have to invade any country? We have enough problems here? I'm sorry to hear about Saddam's reign of terror but those people could of revolted if they wanted to.

If the President or leaders of this country started a reign of terror tomorrow would you just stand by and take it. The majority of citizens in this country would revolt. Why do you think we have REX 84? Were getting our buts kicked by Wallstreet and we are already talking about another revolution.

Those people over there have been fighting and carrying on for years. What is gonna happen if we ever leave? Chances are it will eventually just go back to the same. We as a country cannot afford to be the policeman of the world. Heck we cannot even afford police officers anymore apparently or fireman or school teachers.

This wasn't a war for freeing the people of Iraq. It is a war for oil and more military bases. There is no money to fight these wars. Pretty soon when we are broker than we are now, we will be the ones being invaded, either that or we will just self implode. This is a war that has no winner. Wait, we have been invaded, by like 20 million illegal immigrants.

I think our number one priority should be to get all these illegals out and seal up the border. There is a reason though why that border is not sealed up tighter than a drum, apparently other powers are at play.

“I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,”. Quote Alan Greenspan
Some of these soldiers are going through such bad cases of post traumatic stress disorder, they wish they were dead.

[Crestone Tile]

We can argue all day long about whether invading Iraq was in our best interests, but go ask the Iraqi people who lived under the tyranny of Saddam, if our invasion was worth it and you’ll get one response; “damn right it was!!”

Rick,

I don't doubt that many Iraqis feel the way that you describe, but to say that the singular response is in favor of our invasion is just wrong. I've heard many interviews of Iraqi citizens stating otherwise.

[jgleason]

Ben, I agree with most of your post. I don't think it was a war for oil though. What it should have been was a kick in the door, neutralize the threat (at the time the major intelligence agencies in the world seemed to agree that Iraq had WMD) and then get the heck out. No rebuilding, no trying to turn the place into some utopian democracy.

In a war i could give a flip about civilian casualties. Kind of hard to avoid this in urban warfare. Better to go in with full force, root out the bad guys and then go home.

We should quit trying to be the world's policeman. Let France have a turn at it for a while.

[jgleason]

but go ask the Iraqi people who lived under the tyranny of Saddam, if our invasion was worth it and you’ll get one response; “damn right it was!!”

No argument, Iraqis as a whole are better off without Hussein around. I'm just not sure I see why we had to stick around and try to rebuild the place.

[tilerite]

Rick- Saddam Hussein is not "my" boy, and I've never said he was a nice guy.

Well, that's a relief!! I was getting a bit worried.:D

As long as you're gonna cut and paste text, just please tell me where you got it. I'm not sure why it's so hard.

Are you serious? The information can be gotten from dozens of websites. Saddam's atrocities are common knowledge. There is some question as to the exact numbers. When you get into the hundreds of thousands, I suppose its not easy coming up with an exact figure.

Back to rick- thanks for the link to the chemical attack. Loved the photos, not high res enough. I think everyone should be seeing high resolution pictures of dead soldiers and innocent civilians every day, especially teens that play thesae violent video games. See how not pretty it really is.

The photos are necessary, imo. People need to remeber the cold facts of what happened in Iraq before we intervened. As for your picture, c'mon gueze, is it really so hard to understand why we once supported Saddam and then turned on him? Should we have remained "best friends"? Politics is ugly business. Yes, we have made our share of mistakes but our intentions, for the most part, have been noble and for the right reasons.

The video games debate is a subject for another thread and irrelevant to this topic, don't ya think?

[tilerite]

Rick,

I don't doubt that many Iraqis feel the way that you describe, but to say that the singular response is in favor of our invasion is just wrong. I've heard many interviews of Iraqi citizens stating otherwise.

Matt,
I do not believe that law abiding Iraqi's, who had to endure the daily harassment of Saddam's henchmen, would say that life was better during Saddam's rule. Did you know, it was common place for Iraqi police to force people to squeal on their neighbors. Imagine, you make a comment to your best friend, and two days later, the police enter your home and drag you away in front of your family, to never be heard from again. This happened over and over. Its one of the ways Saddam prevented uprisings. WATCH THE DOCUMENTARY!!

[ob1kanobee]

Well like I mentioned, Alan Greenspan in his memoirs was quoted for saying the war in Iraq was largely about oil.

Rebuilding after a war is more of a moral duty. You just can't go into a place, such as a country and wreck the heck out of it and not rebuild it. Other nations would tear you apart for that. We would be known for something worse than we are. We would be known as vandalizers / vandals and nobody likes one of them.

It is kind of an excuse if you will. Yeah we went in and caused a ruckus but hey look when we left it was better than before. Don't want to be bad house guest. Plus the people we were supposed to be helping wouldn't appreciate that much either.

I'm sure there is money being made by some fat cats for rebuilding as well and we pay for it here in the form of more taxes, hidden taxes being fleeced, ect. ect.

[tilerite]

No argument, Iraqis as a whole are better off without Hussein around. I'm just not sure I see why we had to stick around and try to rebuild the place

That's a whole nuther topic, Joe. I guess the general thought was; it was necessary to defeat the insurgency in order to prevent Iran from taking over Iraq, which probably would have happened. We should have been better prepared.

[gueuzeman]

Rick- "but our intentions, for the most part, have been noble and for the right reasons."


Rick, that's so delusional it's sad to think you really believe for a moment that it's true. EVERYTHING that has happened in that area of the world since 1930 as far Euro/American involvement there has been about oil. Period.

Response to Chemical attack by Reagan- nothing

Response to chemical attack by Bush (I)- nothing

Reason for supporting Saddam, he was against Iran, who hated us for staging a coup to install the pro- U.S. Shah, a tyrant that treated his people pretty badly as well.

So back off of the "He's so evil we need to remove him because of a chemical attack" crap, we used that as an excuse as soon as it became convenient to do so.

gueuze

[gueuzeman]

Joe- rebuilding Iraq was necessary only as a way to steer billions of dollars into the hands of friends of Bush thru fraudulently huge no-bid contracts.

But Rick is right, that's for another time. See, we can agree on some things. :lol2:


gueuze

[ob1kanobee]

Look, if the United States wanted to get rid of Saddam they had many chances to assinate him. There was numerous times that he was in a position to be assinated but whoever it was or they, were not given the OK to do so.
I might also point out that it is illegal to assinate the leader of a foreign country. However it is legal to invade under certain conditions, wreck the heck out of the place and rebuild.

I would of just hired one of the drug cartels to kill him. You want somebody dead, just hire a drug lord. If the next guy comes into power gets out of line, do the same. Sooner or later they will get the picture. Be nice to your people or be dead. It's not that hard to figure out.

I still say those people have a different mentality and were raised different than us. They kill someone in the name of some deity and they get 72 virgins. How can you stand and reason with someone with a gun who is about to get 72 virgins for killing you? They have been taught this from infancy.

Do you think that if our parents had known and taught us from infancy the truth about the federal reserve and the IRS we would still be living in the exact same country today? I don't. Instead of Obama or McCain as our President, we would have someone like Ron Paul. Problem is we are ignorant and don't know any better. The silver lining is that we are learning the truth, now we just have to spread and convey it to others.

[Crestone Tile]

I'm just not sure I see why we had to stick around and try to rebuild the place.

Read Naomi Klein's book, The Shock Doctrine

[Crestone Tile]

Rick,

It's funny you mention that. One Iraqi I heard being interviewed said that it was horrible under Hussein due to not being able to speak as you wish with fears of retaliation. Now, he states, he fears that he can't go anywhere due to instability and violence. "How is this better?" He added. The fact is that the previous administration invaded a region without having an understanding of the politics and culture of that region of the world. The fact that Hussein was a very bad person does not make previous policy decisions any less stupid.


"I thought they were all Muslim" - George W Bush

[sandbagger]

hey, gueuze - if you're going to post Saddam and Rummy, why not go back just a few years and dig up a pitcher of FDR and Stalin (aka, Uncle Joe).? I'm sure you can find one if you bother to look. How far do you want to carry this silly game?

Most alliances come and go to suit the situation. The French tried to turn the indians against the fledgling USA right after helping us against the Brits. They gave us the Statue of Liberty then fired on US ships in WWII - while we were tryiing to liberate them from Hitler.

The US/Britain relationship has been an exception to that until now. It appears that Obama is making a serious run at just plain pissing off our closest friend and ally- returning the bust of Churchill (a gift) and insulting the British PM. Way to go, Barry. :bang:

[java]

.

[Levi the Tile Guy]

The world is not a peaceful place! Barry won't be able to just sit down and talk to these guys and make everything better. Sometimes force is necessary to protect the freedoms we have and take for granted, and those freedoms are the reasons for a lot of the hatred toward us from other leaders.

[tilerite]

Rick, that's so delusional it's sad to think you really believe for a moment that it's true. EVERYTHING that has happened in that area of the world since 1930 as far Euro/American involvement there has been about oil. Period.


You mean that stuff you put in your gas tank? So, you're ok with the Middle East destabilizing and paying 10 bucks or more for a gallon of gas?

Reason for supporting Saddam, he was against Iran, who hated us for staging a coup to install the pro- U.S. Shah, a tyrant that treated his people pretty badly as well.

I don't dispute that but does that mean we should have allowed Saddam to attack Kuwait?

So back off of the "He's so evil we need to remove him because of a chemical attack" crap, we used that as an excuse as soon as it became convenient to do so.

I will never back off, because removing a murderous tyrant is ALWAYS a noble thing, regardless of the political reasons.

[sandbagger]

he was against Iran, who hated us for staging a coup to install the pro- U.S. Shah, a tyrant that treated his people pretty badly as well."who" hated us? Get real, gueuze - "Iran" didn't hate the US. The Islamic clerics hated us because the Shah was going secular and they were losing their grip on the country.

why do you keep apologizing for the bad guys? :shrug:

[sdaniels7114]

Its a Youtube video people.

You know how Apollo 13, the movie, made it look like Tom Hanks, Kevin Bacon and the other guy almost got to the moon?

You know how Jurassic park made it look like there were Dinosaurs roaming the earth today?

Well, nowadays any gomer with 1/2 way decent video editing software has no trouble riling up a bunch of people who should really know better.

[gueuzeman]

Thank you Steve. Goes back to my first post in this thread. Propaganda.


gueuze

[Shooter]

The main reason for our involvement in the Middle East is pretty apparent. That does not however mean that there are not other justified reasons for our actions. It is easy to sit in our nice homes and say we should stay the hell out of Arab business. I will go out on a limb and say that most people with half a conscious for humanity itself, would fully support the humanitarian reasons of what we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan if they had first hand experience in the region. There is a reason that there is overall support amongst the troops for being in the Middle East.

Seeing these things up close and personal day in and day out, is truly believing. The non-believers are generally those who see Iraq, Afghanistan, or any country whose population is in servitude to a brutal dictatorship, as only some place a million miles away. Some speck on a map, with a faceless population that we may glimpse on the evening news that we watch while digesting our nice evening meal, maybe drinking a nice alcoholic beverage of our choice.

Too bad for them. Kinda like a lottery for where they were born. Not their fault that they were born there, but hey too bad, I guess they are just the losers, and we should turn a blind eye to crimes against humanity. After all who made us the worlds police?

[StevieG]

I encourage all who would like to know more about the wars to checkout www.michaelyon-online.com He's been covering them for years and is in Afghanistan now. His march 11 dispatch seems to be directed at people with Gueuzeman syndrome

[gueuzeman]

Hey- I got my own syndrome. Pretty cool.

Read the link, he is entitled to his opinion as well.

from the link- Going into Iraq was a decision made by many.

Yup, Cheney, Wolfowitz, the american enterprise institute......

The fact remains, we were lied to to go there.


from the article- Back in 2003, it was understandable that many people would detest what they believed was an illegal war – despite that Hussein refused to abide by U.N. resolutions – but it was telling to see that many people apparently wished cruelty upon the Iraqis out of malice for the United States or George Bush. Those wishes were coming from cold, cruel hearts, pretending to care. Among these people were the cruel souls who would later stand outside military hospitals, mocking young men and women who had suffered amputations and other grievous injuries in Iraq and Afghanistan. Today there remain people who wish to precipitously disjoin from the growing success in Iraq, and who apparently ultimately wish to see Iraq fail out of sheer malice not toward Iraq, but toward certain politicians and governments. If President Obama fumbles the evacuation of combat forces, they may get their wish.

Gee, I don't recall anyone except Fred Phelps insane Westboro Baptist Church wishing ill against soldiers, don't try to push Fred and his followers to the left, he's all christian conservative, even if you don't want him.


Gotta go- time for my medicine- :cheers:


gueuze

[HS345]

Gee, I don't recall anyone except Fred Phelps insane Westboro Baptist Church wishing ill against soldiers, don't try to push Fred and his followers to the left, he's all christian conservative, even if you don't want him.
Perhaps you'd care to explain what exactly is Christian, or conservative, about the "God hates fags" church.

Nice try gueuze (not really), but about as accurate as when liberals try to paint Hitler as a conservative. Nazis were (are?) socialists.

[pitterpat]

I'm glad the rants against President Obama are still going on......:lol2: I guess you Obama dislikers forgot that it was a democratic vote that put him in office. yea, I know....he only won by a small margin (LOL) so he should not get any due for winning....

You guys seem to find something to complain about anything that he is involved in ...just can't wait until he throws out the 1st pitch as the President...you'll find something to gripe about in that..... At least then I will really know you're a bunch of........

[Levi the Tile Guy]

posted by pat,
You guys seem to find something to complain about anything that he is involved in

And you guys didn't complain about everything that Bush did? I can't count the times I heard people that had absolutely no clue what they were talking about, probably never cared or talked a minute in their lives about politics, complaining about Bush.

[Lazarus]

"Complain About BHO?" Look, I'm still waiting to see a lousy birth certificate that shows that he was actually qualified to run! (And he STILL hasn't released it)

[Levi the Tile Guy]

weird how that works huh laz. How is a president going to refuse to provide his birth certificate? Then demand he be allowed his blackberry in the white house for private communication, yet stand behind card check?

[HS345]

Pat,
:rolleyes: :yawn:

As I said before, I pledge to give President Obama every courtesy you gave President Bush. ;)

[gueuzeman]

Greg- post #40-
Quote:
Originally Posted by gueuze
Gee, I don't recall anyone except Fred Phelps insane Westboro Baptist Church wishing ill against soldiers, don't try to push Fred and his followers to the left, he's all christian conservative, even if you don't want him.
Perhaps you'd care to explain what exactly is Christian, or conservative, about the "God hates fags" church.

Nice try gueuze (not really), but about as accurate as when liberals try to paint Hitler as a conservative. Nazis were (are?) socialists.

:Look, you don't want Fred Phelps, fine, but don't try to pin him on our side. I was pointing out that the link provided this statement that I didn't agreee with, linking hurt soldiers to liberals. That is false. Very false.

Nazi's were not socialists, just because they called themselves such does not make it so. They were fascists. Go to Sweden- they're socialists. Austria too. Even the Schluter company with their 4 to 6 weeks paid vacation and day care for kids and national health care are socialists, so think of that the next time you buy a roll of ditramat. :neesie:

Laz- you still hung up on the birth certificate thing? EvenLimbaugh and Hannity have dropped that cold potatoe (Dan Quale spelling- :lol1:)




gueuze

[HS345]

:Look, you don't want Fred Phelps, fine, but don't try to pin him on our side. I was pointing out that the link provided this statement that I didn't agreee with, linking hurt soldiers to liberals. That is false. Very false.
I never tried to pin him on anyone. I believe that was you, and you still danced around any explanation of how Phelps is a Christian, or conservative.

To be honest, Westboro Baptist Church is probably not on anyone's side, except Satan. :devil:

Nazi's were not socialists, just because they called themselves such does not make it so. They were fascists.
What's the difference? :lol1:

[Shooter]

Those of you who voted for Obama should be the most pissed off. He duped you into voting for him, and has pretty much thrown out everything that he preached during his campaign. I am quite positive this trend will not only continue but get far worse. He is getting a taste of reality. Ya know "Change that doesn't come, just because he says so". Welcome to the real world Mr. President.

[ob1kanobee]

Shooter, I voted for Obama and I'm really not that pissed with him, after all he is a politician. I never voted in my life, so I decided I would participate. My mistake was I should of penciled in Ron Paul or just kept to my tradition of not voting.

I'm mad at Obama mainly for the earmarks which he swore on everything that is holy, he would not allow. The reality is, earmarks are never going away regardless who is in office. I was raised in a family that never once voted in a single election. My mother and I thought we would vote this last time since she never voted either in her 77 life years.

The reality is the saying holds true and now I am thoroughly convinced of it, "show me a politician and I'll show you a liar and a thief".

What does upset me, when I allow it to, is the money the government keeps giving to these companies or bailouts. It is doing nothing but extending the current crisis. The war in Iraq. I could go on and on. These things would of happened under either Democratic or Republican presidents. It is the way of the world, "greed".

[HS345]

If Obama would have been honest, he probably would never have been elected.

Here's an article (http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/15/maxing-out-a-crisis-card/) that gives a shot at what an honest Obama campaign speech woulda looked like. :eek:

[Shooter]

Ben, I understand what you are saying. A politician is a politician. However with McCain or perhaps R. Paul as you mention, you have a fairly good idea of what you are gonna get, even though they are still politicians. I always said, long before the election that Obama was nothing more than a used car salesman in a fancy suit, and a silver tongue.

What is really sad, as Greg has hinted at, is that Obama took that lying, cheating, stealing, politician attitude to an entirely different level. He would have had zero chance of winning if he didn't run his campaign the way in which he did. Basically being a lying, snake in the grass, selling snake oil to the masses candidate. He was able to sucker in just enough of the American voters to win the big one. Now that he is in, he is really showing his true colors. He is just another puppet in the white house.

I should add that I am not too upset in regards to his change in attitude towards our affairs in the Middle East. His current stance in regards to our involvement in the region is radically different from what he campaigned upon. In reality however, his new found attitude is a much more along the lines of a rationally thought thought out game plan of our military involvement or eventual military departure from the Middle East. If he actually did what he proposed, our actions in the Middle East would have had zero chance at becoming a success. At least now Iraq and Afghanistan have a fighting chance of someday standing on their own 2 feet.

[ob1kanobee]

Interesting article on whether an honest politician could be elected.

http://www.helium.com/debates/136775-can-an-honest-politician-get-elected/side_by_side

An honest politician? Never. Maybe an honest man, but once he steps into the political arena there is no way that honesty will prevail over the moralities of politics. That again is another misconception that the masses have. Politics has a morality of its own and your years of good morales and values do not stand a chance for this game. The 'good morales' that you portrayed during the campaign will not hold you through once you get your hands on the national treasury. This I have seen time and time again.

Will Rogers once said, "Any man that can get himself elected President doesn't deserve to be President." Truer words have never been spoken, because by the time you get to that level, you've mastered the art of spreading manure.

[Crestone Tile]

Is that the current strategy - tell liberals, the left, and whoever voted for Obama how disappointed and stupid they must feel. I'm confused at how this actually makes sense, and I feel sorry for people who actually believe that this is the current attitude of the majority voters.


Hey Gueuze,

I know it must be depressing to have found out you have a new found illness or syndrome or whatever. This should help lift your spirits:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0FoeHFDNso&feature=PlayList&p=8D119270EA1BD9B2&index=6

[sandbagger]

He would have had zero chance of winning if he didn't run his campaign the way in which he didau contraire, Mssr Shooter. The candidates are going to do what they think will get them elected, and I never fault them for that. He would never have won if the people who call themselves "journalists" had simply done their jobs. You've prolly seen this but I'll link it again because it really says everything you need to know about the problem. Charlie Rose and Tom Brokaw telling us "we really don't know this guy." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzMas1bVidw)

I don't know whether to :lol1: or :cry:

[sandbagger]

I'm mad at Obama mainly for the earmarks which he swore on everything that is holy, he would not allow.now, Ben, do I detect a flicker in the Obama glow? :rolleyes: Funny you should mention this but this evening I got into a conversation with a couple of pretty conservative folks at the place we're staying at in Palm Springs. One of the guys said flat out that as much as he was against Obama he would have gladly given him support if he had just vetoed that bill. In fact he believed - and I agreed - that Obama blew a golden opportunity to garner support from his detractors with one simple act. Really - what was so hard about this? :shrug: What does he do? Blame Bush, of course. :lol1:

[ob1kanobee]

If McCain didn't have that old grumpy look on his face most of the time he probably would of had a better chance. He looks pissed off all the time.

All I'm saying is, even when the guy was smiling he looked fake to me. Sarah Palin for VP, give me a break. I wonder what things would look like if he won, died, then Palin became the President?

I truly wouldn't know whether to laugh or cry.

[sandbagger]

I wonder what things would look like if he won, died, then Palin became the President?at least as good as if Biden had to take over, don't you think? Seriously, it's not all that far-fetched. For starters, what do we know about Obama's health? Nothing except what we see - he's refused to release medical records. McCain, OTOH, has released volumes and we know he's in pretty darn good shape. And it doesn't matter how healthy you are if a crazy gets close enough to do harm.

[ob1kanobee]

Here is Obama's health Art

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/05/obama_releases_health_informat.html

McCain has been battling repeated bouts of melanoma skin cancer.

[Shooter]

au contraire, Mssr Shooter. The candidates are going to do what they think will get them elected, and I never fault them for that. He would never have won if the people who call themselves "journalists" had simply done their jobs.Not really blaming him for doing what he needed to do to win the election. I am more upset that there are those naive enough to have bought into his crap. As for Journalists, the majority is usually on their knees bobbing their heads to the liberals anyway.

Is that the current strategy - tell liberals, the left, and whoever voted for Obama how disappointed and stupid they must feel. I'm confused at how this actually makes sense, and I feel sorry for people who actually believe that this is the current attitude of the majority voters.Current strategy? Don't really get that one? Obama is in office for the next 4 years whether we like it or not. Those who voted for Obama truly wanted to see great things happen for this nation. I appreciate their passion and support that they showed for their false prophet, err candidate. He is a very charismatic man, and offered far too much to be realistic. Hope is always a great thing, but reality is, if it sounds too good to be true, well.....it usually is. Having said that, I also don't believe that those who voted for Obama have enough reason to feel stupid about their decision. Not yet at least.

If McCain didn't have that old grumpy look on his face most of the time he probably would of had a better chance. He looks pissed off all the time.I gotta agree with you on that one Ben. McCain isn't the most charismatic person.

[HS345]

Sarah Palin for VP, give me a break. I wonder what things would look like if he won, died, then Palin became the President?
Looks like Ben is another "victim" of the media blitzkrieg of Sarah Palin. :shake:

Joe Biden as VP? Give me a break. For that matter, Obama as president, give me an even bigger break.

[sandbagger]

Here is Obama's health Art WHERE?? Did you read your own link, Ben? The writer references a "276 word summary" from his doctor, and no link to the the records that were supposedly released. McCain released over 1000 pages of records showing no signs of the skin cancer.

finally, do you believe in looking at the family? Which one still has a living parent - strong and healthy at 90+ no less?

[ob1kanobee]

Senator McCain's father (John McCain Jr.) died at the age of 71 of heart disease and his grandfather (John McCain Sr.) died of a heart attack at the age of 61. Factor in his living parent say at 95. Add all three together and divide by three and you have the average age of 75.

McCain is 71?

Looking at family history is definititly something to consider.

As far as the media twisting my view of Palin is hard for me to believe since I was watching mainly Fox news. I just don't like her.

I haven't allowed the media to twist my view on how this whole government is screwed up. I haven't allowed them to change my way of thinking regarding the Federal Reserve. Palin is no different and I'm sure she has no idea how the Fed works. If she does she hasn't said so.

Like I said before, I think they are ALL a bunch of crooks and liars.

[sandbagger]

Add all three together and divide by three and you have the average age of 75.HUH? What kind of acturarial science is that? Why did you not look at his maternal side?

From my own family experience you either take after one side or the other. My father's side is rife with heart disease; he had his first attack at age 53. Mom's parents, OTOH, lived into their mid-80s. She's a healthy 78 with a brother and sis in their 90s; virtually no heart disease.

My younger brother had a triple bypass at age 53. I'm 57, my BP was 118/64 when I had my physical last week, and I've passed two treadmills in the last two years with flying colors. Same parents, obviously different genes. Sounds a lot like McCain. :nod:
I just don't like her. well, now that we've established the most important criteria for electing our leaders......

[ob1kanobee]

Well Art then you go ahead and use your actuary expertise and factor all of McCains family history. You only mentioned his mother. Then figure out when he he going to die.

Let me ask you, if he was going to go buy a life insurance policy, don't you think he would pay more than Obama? Leaving the Presidency factor out of it.

Statistically and common sense even tells me Obama will outlive McCain.

I don't like Palin for many different reasons and I'm not going to list my criteria for it, it doesn't matter at this point.

[sandbagger]

Ben - you're avoiding the issue. Without Obama's medical records I have no idea what he'd pay. And for any significant policy the insurer would want detailed medical records regardless of age. You are the one who ignored the impact of McCain's maternal side. I don't claim to know that side's history, but you seem to infer that all we need to know is how the men on the "McCain" side fared. That's way too simplistic.

But you're right - it doesn't matter until 2012. By that time even you might be voting GOP.

[ob1kanobee]

I don't know whether or not you have life insurance but I do know on the application it does not ask you what side of the family you take after, so good luck with that.:lol1:

For a temporary life policy with no medical exam or even term, I'll bet you a dollar McCain would pay more in premiums, which is a simple fact you can't admit.

I'll vote GOP if Jindal promises to do exorcisms on live TV.

[Crestone Tile]

I'll vote GOP if Jindal promises to do exorcisms on live TV.


:lol1:

[Levi the Tile Guy]

For a temporary life policy with no medical exam or even term, I'll bet you a dollar McCain would pay more in premiums, which is a simple fact you can't admit.


Of course he would, but that is still avoiding the point. The point is Barry is hiding something, why else wouldn't he release his.

[sandbagger]

Ben is also skewing the discussion a little. The question was really on the likelihood that McCain could survive to complete a 4-year term, not his life expectancy. Those are two entirely different questions. Insurance policies are pretty much a numbers game and not a good reference.

[ob1kanobee]

I'm sure Obama is hiding something but I think it is more of a hazard than a real health problem such as cancer or heart problems. Something that would make the straight laced public leaving a bad taste in their mouth. Maybe he had a bout with depression? Smoked a little weed? Got the clap? Had crabs?
Maybe I'm wrong and he has nothing to hide. Fact is the guy won without having to throw all his cards on the table. Lots of Republicans voted for him.

I don't think he was the only president in history though who did not disclose his full medical file.

He did know how many houses and cars he owned which proved to me he was not senile yet, unlike McCain.

As far as being able to survive a 4 year term, I am more interested in someone who can go 8 years. The Republican party has made some bad mistakes and keeps making them. They have no leader. They picked a sour puss faced old man to run the country.

Now they have this Jindal character who apparently performs exorcisms. They got nobody.

[sandbagger]

I am more interested in someone who can go 8 years. then you should have voted for Hillary.

Obama is actually proceeding like someone who thinks he has to do everything now because he'll only get one term. Yes, a lot of Republicans voted for Obama. But will he get them a second time? :shake: I can guarantee you that if he doesn't quash this talk of taxing employer health care that issue alone will send him down in flames - and not just from Republicans.

[ob1kanobee]

I was going to vote for Hillary.

What health care tax are you referring to? Not that I don't believe you, I would just like to see a link so I can read about it.

[sandbagger]

at your service

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/11/AR2009031103827.html

[jgleason]

Here's a link from the NY Times just a few days ago...Taxing Healthcare Benefits (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/15/us/politics/15health.html)

Pretty sure I recall Obama railing against this on the campaign trail.

[sandbagger]

Obama went after McCain on the subject in the debates. But there's a big differerence. McCain was proposing a very comprehensive plan that would have included credits to offset any taxes.

The Democrats are talking about just taxes to fund their agenda. I hope they keep talking about it - the Dem wipeout in 2010 will have them calling '94 'the good old days.'

[ob1kanobee]

Sounds like some members from both parties are for this. Sounds like were in for a full wave of new taxes regardless of who is in office. We are all gonna get nailed (for lack of a better word) one way or another.

They are all crooks and thieves.

[Levi the Tile Guy]

The Democrats are talking about just taxes to fund their agenda. I hope they keep talking about it - the Dem wipeout in 2010 will have them calling '94 'the good old days.'

Dam I wish I had your optimism.

[HS345]

Ben said: "Lots of republicans voted for Obama".

I'll go out onna limb here, and say, with complete confidence, not a single republican voted for B.O. Whether registered as such, or not. :rolleyes:

Gimme a break.

Truth be told, it was most likely demoncrats registered as repubs what got McCain in. I don't know a single conservative who woulda chose McCain as our nominee.

[Levi the Tile Guy]

Regardless if dems. registered as repubs. or not. B.O. got people to go vote. Every dang major college campus out there was lika a democratic headquarters. The sad thing is, is that all these youngsters (who are going to be voting for a long time) are virtually mindless. It's all about P.C. and human rights and animal rights, and they take for granted our freedoms as Americans, and what so many people went through to make this country so great. They live in a make believe world thinking everybody can be peaceful, and that we can all get along, and don't realize that we, as a country, are hated by a lot of people in the world.

[ddmoit]

Truth be told, it was most likely demoncrats registered as repubs what got McCain in. I don't know a single conservative who woulda chose McCain as our nominee.And then you voted for him.:shake:

[sandbagger]

B.O. got people to go vote. yes, he did - this time, and yes, it was the very young and a lot of first-time voters. And that is why I'm so optimistic, to answer Levi's question. This is not a sustainable voting block unless you think history doesn't matter. Most of these people wanted to be a part of a "historical event." Fine. That event is now history and I'm absolutely convinced that the vast majority of these people will revert to their normal behavior - staying home on election day.

Seriously, do you think the college crowd even knows there is such a thing as an "off-year" election? Look at what happened in that runoff in SC - Chambliss blew away the Dem by a double-digit margin. The Obama voters stayed home. Watch for that trend to repeat in 2010. That coupled with a whole lot of pissed off real voters is what has me optimistic. Obama has gone even farther left - and faster - than most of us could have imagined. The man's arrogance apparently knows no bounds.

[HS345]

And then you voted for him.
Not in the primary election, I didn't. The primary is when you vote your heart, or cast a protest vote, not the main election. To do otherwise was to simply cast a proxy vote for B.O.

I'll see your :shake: and raise you :shake: :shake:





:D

[Levi the Tile Guy]

yes, he did - this time, and yes, it was the very young and a lot of first-time voters. And that is why I'm so optimistic, to answer Levi's question. This is not a sustainable voting block unless you think history doesn't matter. Most of these people wanted to be a part of a "historical event." Fine. That event is now history and I'm absolutely convinced that the vast majority of these people will revert to their normal behavior - staying home on election day.

I really wish I could share in your optimism, and god knows I hope you're right.

[ob1kanobee]

In my opinion all this bickering or discussion about who voted for who is a joke . Isn't the President just a puppet for the higher powers that be like the Federal Reserve?

We mine as well be talking about Bert and Ernie.

I don't get it?

[HS345]

You're correct Ben, these discussions can be rather pointless at times. But we can also learn from them at times, and as long as you don't take any of it personally, I find it entertaining.

It's all in good fun, eh? :)

[Levi the Tile Guy]

It was all in good fun until 11/04/08 it's not fun anymore.