Difference between Obama and McCain [Archive]

SDW2001

02-26-2008, 07:42 PM

This thread is for giving examples of the differences between Obama and McCain.

Obama: Respectful of the needs of the middle class over special interests.
McCain: Does not pay much attention to the economy.

Obama: Did not vote for this war in Iraq.
McCain: Why not 10,000 more years of the same killing, family disruption and bankrupting power of this war?

Your turn...

Fellows

"Respectful of the needs of the middle class." :lol: I love it. There's a nice "fact" for you.

"Does not pay much attention to the economy." :lol::lol: Another beauty. Why, because CNN doesn't cover him talking about it all that much?

Oh, and I notice that every time you reference the Iraq war, you call it "this war in Iraq." It's like you're reading from one of Obama's speeches. And let me tell you, your characterization of McCain's "position" was <sarcasm> SO INCREDIBLY FAIR AND BALANCED! :) </saracasm>

Obama Cult of Personality Members:

1. Daria Neely
2. Alice Eva
3. Keeleigh Monroe
4. Minnie Highlands
5. Elwin Alcocke
6. Ashlyn Sloan
7. Jeff Hunter
8. Major Gettemy
9. Brandie Bagley
10. Marlyn Peters
11. Desdemona Barnes
12. Scott Fox
13. Avis Flickinger
14. Lenore Arthur
15. Greig Gadow
16. Haydee Winton
17. Katelyn Greene
18. Violet Pickering
19. Donella Gottwine
20. Rue Focell
21. Jonty Coughenour
22. Angelina Cady
23. Mike Wheeler
24. Luella Steiner
25. Richie Woolery
26. Viola Baldwin
27. Ainslie Kemerer
28. Booker Jesse
29. Leon Weinstein
30. Kelvin Littlefield
31. Serena Ackerley
32. Rik Harris
33. Sandie Reed
34. Desmond Finck
35. Sheree Catlay
36. Jaime Raybould
37. Osmund Fuchs
38. Agnes Wildman
39. Jayden Bailey
40. Imogen Walker
41. Ina Agg
42. Tyler Carbaugh
43. Bridger Franks
44. Lise Wall
45. Gerrard Kepplinger
46. Storm Mull
47. Clay Keener
48. Pollie Wegley
49. Mollie Stafford
50. Titania Williams
51. Odelia Roadman
52. Kalysta Hice
53. Chase Reighner
54. Eugenia Bridger
55. Peony Loewentsein
56. Kirk Higgens
57. Cordelia Parrish
58. Shirlee Pyle
59. Roz Sauter
60. Amandine Barkley
61. Colten Raub
62. Maryvonne Light
63. Grover Saylor
64. Patsy Carter
65. Vickie Wible
66. Kelsey Ledgerwood
67. Earleen Gregory
68. Graeme Moon
69. Bill Sadley
70. Poldie Mary
71. Juliana Cason
72. Charis Hynes
73. Betsy Poorbaugh
74. Shelagh Bicknell
75. Jethro Rader
76. Deforest Hicks

....

896. Addie Zimmer
897. Leia Henry
898. Chonsie Eggbert
899. Pearl Powell
900. Barbara Romanoff
901. Fabian Richardson
902. Winnie Carr
903. Natille Wilo
904. Tammi Drabble
905. Marlena Blackburn
906. Laura Heyman
907. Amaranta Magor
908. Candi Billimek
909. Alysha Olphert
910. Sapphira Young
911. Marlon Day
912. Hylda Faast
913. Sid Laurence
914. Tyriq Cribbs
915. Edwyna Bode
916. Chaz Swink
917. Luke Altman
918. Ashlynn Ewing
919. Ione Fonblanque
920. Kailey Mcclymonds
921. Homer Fleming
922. Tamzen Southern
923. Cuthbert Williams
924. Moss Munshower
925. Arielle Catherina
926. Leanora Paul
927. Phillida Camp
928. Denholm Toke

....

999,999Lashonda Shea
1,000,000 Ramsey Elliott

1,000,001 Fellowship

macapplejack

02-26-2008, 08:01 PM

Classic mac vs pc.
Mcain vs ... well I can't figure out how to get Obama's name to sound like a pc.

trumptman

02-26-2008, 09:12 PM

Obama: very thin
McCain: quite stocky

If they were both 30, McCain could definitely take Obama in a fight.

McCain could never take Obama in a fight because if he did it would be labeled a hate crime.

hardeeharhar

02-26-2008, 09:18 PM

If he did it while wearing a hood, it would be...

trumptman

02-26-2008, 09:35 PM

If he did it while wearing a hood, it would be...

No... he would probably beat him while claiming he is clean and articulate which we all know means he is a racist.

hardeeharhar

02-26-2008, 09:43 PM

No... he would probably beat him while claiming he is clean and articulate which we all know means he is a racist.
No it just means he is an idiot.

trumptman

02-26-2008, 09:57 PM

No it just means he is an idiot.

Hey look, Obama just accepted the endorsement of an idiot. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080227/ap_on_el_pr/obama_dodd_12)

Fellowship

02-26-2008, 10:26 PM

Hey look, Obama just accepted the endorsement of an idiot. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080227/ap_on_el_pr/obama_dodd_12)

idiot?

I as a former Republican leaning guy have always found Christopher Dodd as a most well spoken gentleman from Connecticut. He has always been a very grounded gentleman who as a former Republican I always admired for his honest love of his country and how he respects those who elect him.

Why may I ask do you term him an idiot?

That is the last thing I think of him. I was talking to my grandmother just today as a matter of fact on my mother's side and I brought up Chris Dodd as a man of integrity which while I have normally been a republican have always admired.

My grandmother and grandfather on my mother's side voted early for Barack Obama.

I talked to my sister tonight and she and her husband are both voting for Barack Obama tomorrow.
What do we all have in common? We all used to vote Republican.

Don't talk trash about Christopher Dodd.

Fellows

Fellowship

02-26-2008, 10:34 PM

1,000,001 Fellowship

I don't care what number you put me down as as long as you put me down for Barack Obama.

I am a honored to have voted for Barack Obama in the Texas primary election. (early voting).

I did it for my son Oliver. I will not vote for a man who likes the idea of endless wars.(McCain)

I love my son and my country far too much to vote for such a mistake.

Sorry you don't see it the same way..

Fellows

trumptman

02-26-2008, 10:53 PM

idiot?

I as a former Republican leaning guy have always found Christopher Dodd as a most well spoken gentleman from Connecticut. He has always been a very grounded gentleman who as a former Republican I always admired for his honest love of his country and how he respects those who elect him.

Why may I ask do you term him an idiot?

I didn't. Hardy declared that anyone who would use the words clean and articulate to describe Obama is an idiot. I did make a mistake in that it was Biden and not Dodd. I'll have to retract the joke and save it for when Biden endorses.

Okay people... reset... get to your places... take 2.

hardeeharhar

02-26-2008, 11:09 PM

Idiots can endorse anyone they want.

Hassan i Sabbah

02-27-2008, 01:30 AM

Poor Trumptman. It's not looking good for white, male Americans this election is it?

The only one with a chance of winning's really, really old. :(

Poor white, male Americans. :(

Hassan i Sabbah

02-27-2008, 01:31 AM

And while I'm at it, poor white, male Americans.

I remember when white, male Americans use to run America.

:( :(

Hassan i Sabbah

02-27-2008, 01:53 AM

If Hillary is elected President, will Americans be required by law to coddle her?

addabox

02-27-2008, 03:41 AM

McCain could never take Obama in a fight because if he did it would be labeled a hate crime.

Your resentments have made you insane. Go to the light, Nick. Let the healing begin.

trumptman

02-27-2008, 08:07 AM

Your resentments have made you insane. Go to the light, Nick. Let the healing begin.

Clearly your own racial prejudices have shown your own precarious mental state. You declare light to be healing and being devoid of light to have a lack of healing power.

Here are some McCain and Obama differences.

Obama debates others and comes off looking badly compared to staring at a teleprompter and delivering a speech.

McCain is able to debate, speak off the cuff and even hang riffing jokes with John Stewart in equally well.

e1618978

02-27-2008, 08:26 AM

This thread used to be more fun, you guys are bringing me down.

McCain: Great White Hope
Obama: Black Power

McCain: a bit lumpy
Obama: needs to eat more, get some flesh on them bones

Outsider

02-27-2008, 09:34 AM

Poor Trumptman. It's not looking good for white, male Americans this election is it?

The only one with a chance of winning's really, really old. :(

Poor white, male Americans. :(

Oh I wouldn't go that far. I'm a white, male American and for the first time in a long time things are looking good. :)

mojo2

02-27-2008, 01:36 PM

Obama => Hot wife
McCain => Hot wife, hot Lobbyist "friend"
Clinton => Husband has not so hot wife and a lot of ugly mistresses

Michelle Obama is NOT hot.

I wouldn't do her.

e1618978

02-27-2008, 01:46 PM

Michelle Obama is NOT hot.

I wouldn't do her.

You so crazy...

http://www.obamaisgood.com/images/719_Barack_and_Michelle_Obama_-_Larger.jpg

mojo2

02-27-2008, 01:47 PM

I don't care what number you put me down as as long as you put me down for Barack Obama.

I am a honored to have voted for Barack Obama in the Texas primary election. (early voting).

I did it for my son Oliver. I will not vote for a man who likes the idea of endless wars.(McCain)

I love my son and my country far too much to vote for such a mistake.

Sorry you don't see it the same way..

Fellows

It's not a mistake.

And let's ask you how long you would continue to take anti-Cancer treatments if they were needed?

All your life?

Well, good. Because that is the message he was trying to send to the enemy. That if they thought they could wait us out and then attack Iraq after we left, McCain was saying that they had better not hold their breath because we were going to be there for 50 years if necessary.

You saw it another way.

"OMG MCCAIN WANTS TO STAY THERE AND WAGE WAR FOR 50 YEARS!!!" "We must do something to stop him."

Not accusing you of anything, but can you see how the enemy would have the exact same reaction as that???

mojo2

02-27-2008, 01:52 PM

You so crazy...

http://www.obamaisgood.com/images/719_Barack_and_Michelle_Obama_-_Larger.jpg

http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/2208/michelleobama2wj2.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

e1618978

02-27-2008, 01:54 PM

just one bad hair day, and bad lighting.

mojo2

02-27-2008, 01:55 PM

She had her pick of cream-of-the-crop lawyers and other professionals.

Why would she even consider you?

:devil: *Burn* :devil:

Calm down. Anything slightly offensive to the Magic Negro is now considered an "obamination."

You guys are in a religious frenzy over this guy.

Speak in tongues for us, won't you?

:smokey:

e1618978

02-27-2008, 01:56 PM

mojo2

02-27-2008, 01:57 PM

just one bad hair day, and bad lighting.

I guess you might find her acceptable if you like underbites. :rolleyes:

mojo2

02-27-2008, 02:01 PM

Well, the term "Magic Negro" seems pretty offensive, anyway.

It's a legendary mythical figure known by blacks and many whites. The magic benign negro will come along and save the day.

Not offensive at all except for the fact that so many whites buy into it so deeply.

Writing about Barack Obama on March 19, 2007, Los Angeles Times columnist David Ehrenstein wrote:

"But it's clear that Obama also is running for an equally important unelected office, in the province of the popular imagination—the 'Magic Negro.' ... The senator's famously stem-winding stump speeches have been drawing huge crowds to hear him talk of uniting rather than dividing. A praiseworthy goal. Consequently, even the mild criticisms thrown his way have been waved away, "magically." He used to smoke, but now he doesn't; he racked up a bunch of delinquent parking tickets, but he paid them all back with an apology. And hey, is looking good in a bathing suit a bad thing? ... Like a comic-book superhero, Obama is there to help, out of the sheer goodness of a heart we need not know or understand. For as with all Magic Negroes, the less real he seems, the more desirable he becomes. If he were real, white America couldn't project all its fantasies of curative black benevolence on him."[14]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_Negro

franksargent

02-27-2008, 02:38 PM

... the ...
Crazed Cracker

http://artfiles.art.com/images/-/Jack-Nicholson---The-Shining-Photograph-C10101822.jpeghttp://www.nrc.nl/multimedia/archive/00144/thejoker_144070e.jpghttp://i.imdb.com/Photos/Mptv/1330/8991_0007.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/98/Fredkruegermoviefirst.png/250px-Fredkruegermoviefirst.pnghttp://www.solarnavigator.net/images/anthony_hopkins_hannibal_lecter.jpghttp://i244.photobucket.com/albums/gg37/Mpassy/Joker.jpg

http://www.best-horror-movies.com/images/Jasonunmask.jpghttp://www.newsarama.com/SDCC06/DC/Wildstorm/TexasChainsaw_1.jpghttp://www.ideagrove.com/blog/uploaded_images/bardem-720795.jpg

http://emulsioncompulsion.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/there-will-be-blood.jpg
I'm Finished.

e1618978

02-27-2008, 02:48 PM

I guess you might find her acceptable if you like underbites. :rolleyes:

I think that is the only thing that keeps her from being a 10, but 8/10 is still hot.

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/20070215ebony.jpg

You can do the good pic/bad pic thing with anyone:

Cindy McCain on a bad day:

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/08/17/mccain.cancer/story.cindy.mccain.jpg
http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/images/2007/06/11/image2911665g.jpg
http://www.tuanvietnam.net/Library/Images/53/2007/09/6_cindy_mccain.jpg

and on a good day

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/pics/1213cindy1212-autosized258.jpg
http://blog.spokanetogo.com/blogs/soundoff/cindy%20mccain.jpg

mojo2

02-27-2008, 03:24 PM

I think that is the only thing that keeps her from being a 10, but 8/10 is still hot.

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/20070215ebony.jpg

You can do the good pic/bad pic thing with anyone:

Cindy McCain on a bad day:

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/08/17/mccain.cancer/story.cindy.mccain.jpg
http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/images/2007/06/11/image2911665g.jpg
http://www.tuanvietnam.net/Library/Images/53/2007/09/6_cindy_mccain.jpg

and on a good day

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/pics/1213cindy1212-autosized258.jpg
http://blog.spokanetogo.com/blogs/soundoff/cindy%20mccain.jpg

Some women's looks just don't appeal to me. There are some attractive TV & film celebs who I find unattractive.

Julia Roberts comes to mind.

Rachel Ray.

Paris Hilton.

Bancho

02-27-2008, 03:35 PM

Say what you will about the others, but you leave my Rachel Ray out of this :p :D

mojo2

02-27-2008, 03:39 PM

Say what you will about the others, but you leave my Rachel Ray out of this :p :D

She has her fans. I don't begrudge her or them. I just pay her no mind. :\

Glad you like her, though. :)

e1618978

02-27-2008, 07:00 PM

Some women's looks just don't appeal to me. There are some attractive TV & film celebs who I find unattractive.

Julia Roberts comes to mind.

Rachel Ray.

Paris Hilton.

Those three I agree with you about, they don't do anything for me either.

Bancho

02-27-2008, 07:24 PM

I'm a big Giada fan.

Say what you want about her: (Her head is too big, smile is disturbingly large, she looks like a bird in flight (http://bricksandstonesgossip.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/giadalaurentiis.jpg), etc.) I like her.

Yeah, Giada's cool. She and Rachel are my honeys.

Fellowship

02-27-2008, 07:58 PM

The way Limbaugh uses it is pretty disgusting in fact.

Limbaugh is no role model. For sure..

Fellows

addabox

02-27-2008, 08:26 PM

Calm down. Anything slightly offensive to the Magic Negro is now considered an "obamination."

You guys are in a religious frenzy over this guy.

Speak in tongues for us, won't you?

:smokey:

See also my post in another thread about the scary Obama cult meme. Mojo isn't coming up with this stuff by himself.

You can always tell what's going down on the right blog-o-sphere, because certain ideas seem to occur to all of our conservative posters at once.

mojo2

02-27-2008, 10:31 PM

Those three I agree with you about, they don't do anything for me either.

You are a man of great discernment! :)

mojo2

02-27-2008, 10:33 PM

mojo2

02-27-2008, 10:45 PM

Limbaugh is no role model. For sure..

Fellows

Rush and Ann Coulter and Krauthammer and a few others are the ones who hold up the Conservative torch so that it doesn't get obscured by the overwhelmingly liberal media and culture.

mojo2

02-27-2008, 10:49 PM

See also my post in another thread about the scary Obama cult meme. Mojo isn't coming up with this stuff by himself.

You can always tell what's going down on the right blog-o-sphere, because certain ideas seem to occur to all of our conservative posters at once.

Sometimes I follow their example. Sometimes I create the campaign. Sometimes great minds think alike and we arrive at the same strategy or tactic independently.

Unfortunately for you originality isn't important in this regard.

franksargent

02-27-2008, 11:01 PM

There once was a man named McCain.
Who had the whole White House to gain.
But he was quite a hobbyist.
Of boning his lobbyist.
So much for his '08 campaign.

mojo2

02-27-2008, 11:44 PM

There once was a man named McCain.
Who had the whole White House to gain.
But he was quite a hobbyist.
Of boning his lobbyist.
So much for his '08 campaign.

http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/7218/1sinclair1sn3.png (http://imageshack.us)

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56626

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

SINCLAIR AFFADAVITS

http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/5005/1sinclairdc1.png (http://imageshack.us)
http://img108.imageshack.us/img108/672/2sinclairrq5.png (http://imageshack.us)
http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/6666/3sinclairxk4.png (http://imageshack.us)

mojo2

02-28-2008, 12:59 AM

What's great is that you have no credibility to lose, you know, just being the angelic, saintly, innocent messenger.

Or not.

Just a reminder of what prompted the NYT to launch the hit piece on McCain.

tonton

02-28-2008, 01:05 AM

McCain is able to debate, speak off the cuff and even hang riffing jokes with John Stewart in equally well.

Yeah, McCain has a great sense of humor! "Bomb Iran" by the Beach Boys... what a clever guy! He's a real card!!!

And he never ever misspeaks or says anything totally dumb like "The people in America oppose this war in Iraq". Everyone knows it takes real intelligence to say Americans shouldn't care if we stay in Iraq ten thousand years.

Clearly a better public speaker than the "hopemonger".

tonton

02-28-2008, 01:10 AM

It's a legendary mythical figure known by blacks and many whites. The magic benign negro will come along and save the day.

Not offensive at all except for the fact that so many whites buy into it so deeply.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_Negro

No... this is the original Magical Negro:

http://www.clivebarker.info/pieohpah.JPG

mojo2

02-28-2008, 01:16 AM

Yeah, McCain has a great sense of humor! "Bomb Iran" by the Beach Boys... what a clever guy! He's a real card!!!

And he never ever misspeaks or says anything totally dumb like "The people in America oppose this war in Iraq". Everyone knows it takes real intelligence to say Americans shouldn't care if we stay in Iraq ten thousand years.

Clearly a better public speaker than the "hopemonger".

His point is that the American people's objection to our involvement in Iraq is most deeply felt because of American troop casualties.

If our troops are not being killed we don't generally protest their deployment overseas.

How many times have you heard of anyone protesting our troops in Bosnia or Korea or Okinawa or Panama?

mojo2

02-28-2008, 01:17 AM

No... this is the original Magical Negro:

http://www.clivebarker.info/pieohpah.JPG

Hmmmm, ok. Michelle Obama looks better than her.

franksargent

02-28-2008, 01:31 AM

McCain is a Crazed Cracker!

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/d/L/mccain_shining.jpghttp://punchup.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/john_mccain.jpg

http://homepage.mac.com/aurich/ars/locks/feed_trolls.gif

tonton

02-28-2008, 04:42 AM

Hmmmm, ok. Michelle Obama looks better than her.Actually it's not a "her".

@_@ Artman

02-28-2008, 09:34 AM

http://famouspoetsandpoems.com/pictures/jupiter_hammon.jpg

http://famouspoetsandpoems.com/pictures/phillis_wheatley.jpg

http://docsouth.unc.edu/church/woodson/woods32.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1c/Frederick_Douglass_portrait.jpg/250px-Frederick_Douglass_portrait.jpg

http://z.about.com/d/womenshistory/1/0/j/7/tubman2_large.jpg

More, more and more "Magic Negroes" (http://www.africanamericans.com/FirstsMore.htm)...:rolleyes:

e1618978

02-28-2008, 09:44 AM

McCain: burdened by Bush
Clinton: burdened by Bill
Obama: free, free like a bird!

jamac

02-28-2008, 11:49 AM

Election Results revealed (http://www.theonion.com/content/video/diebold_accidentally_leaks)

mojo2

02-28-2008, 01:08 PM

Actually it's not a "her".

He's got an impressive looking boob there.

mojo2

02-28-2008, 01:11 PM

[IMG]http://famouspoetsandpoems.com/pictures/jupiter_hammon.jpg[/IMG

[IMG]http://famouspoetsandpoems.com/pictures/phillis_wheatley.jpg[/IMG

[IMG]http://docsouth.unc.edu/church/woodson/woods32.jpg[/IMG

[IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1c/Frederick_Douglass_portrait.jpg/250px-Frederick_Douglass_portrait.jpg[/IMG

[IMG]http://z.about.com/d/womenshistory/1/0/j/7/tubman2_large.jpg[/IMG

More, more and more "Magic Negroes" (http://www.africanamericans.com/FirstsMore.htm)...:rolleyes:

I don't think they have that same 'black magic' that Obama has.

@_@ Artman

02-28-2008, 01:45 PM

I don't think they have that same 'black magic' that Obama has.

Ah sayz they do massah, ah says they do (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/02/28/hagee/index.html?view=print). http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:d-T8rjI5tx8PbM:http://www.allemoticons.com/People/african.gif

SDW2001

02-28-2008, 02:39 PM

I don't care what number you put me down as as long as you put me down for Barack Obama.

:lol: I almost can't believe you just said that.

I am a honored to have voted for Barack Obama in the Texas primary election. (early voting).

Wait..."honored?" :???:

I did it for my son Oliver. I will not vote for a man who likes the idea of endless wars.(McCain)

So McCain is a fan of "endless wars" because he supports this war? That's a bit extreme.

I love my son and my country far too much to vote for such a mistake.

You know, once in a while, someone posts something here that actually makes me truly angry. This is one of those times. the clear implication of your statement is that anyone who loves is family and country will agree with you. How dare you, you sanctimonious hack.

Sorry you don't see it the same way..

Fellows

Let me tell you what I see. I see that the alternative's lone claim to fame is that he "didn't vote for this war." Well that's great, Obama. Great. Except we're fucking there now. Doing a dance in the end zone about how you didn't vote for it, wouldn't have voted for it, no way, now how so help you GAWD may sound great, but it's meaningless crap.

The only question is what you want to do NOW. And here's what you want: What you want is to pull out of Iraq just as we have finally gotten the upper hand. You want to leave so AQI can reestablish itself, undoing everything we and the Iraqi people have sacrificed for over the past 5 years. You say the war was a mistake, based on lies by GEORGE BUSH and JOHN MCCAIN, there was no AQI before the war, etc. Fan-fucking-tastic, but even if so, it simply doesn't matter at this point. Perhaps you could apply some of your talk of the future to you Iraq position?

Of course, perhaps you have a magic time machine where we can make all the intelligence mistakes and management mistakes of the war disappear. In fact, yes that will come in handy when you need to go back and undo the mistake of sending troops back into Iraq to die after pulling them out prematurely.

That's what I see.

Fellowship

02-28-2008, 02:48 PM

You know, once in a while, someone posts something here that actually makes me truly angry. This is one of those times. the clear implication of your statement is that anyone who loves is family and country will agree with you. How dare you, you sanctimonious hack.

Ohhh shut up and collect yourself. I only spoke on my behalf. Not that of any other person..

Let me tell you what I see. I see that the alternative's lone claim to fame is that he "didn't vote for this war." Well that's great, Obama. Great. Except we're fucking there now. Doing a dance in the end zone about how you didn't vote for it, wouldn't have voted for it, no way, now how so help you GAWD may sound great, but it's meaningless crap.

It is well known the bus is in the ditch.... Now we all know "even the democrats" that it is time to get the bus out of the ditch.

Fellows

jamac

02-28-2008, 02:49 PM

mojo2

02-28-2008, 05:55 PM

Ah sayz they do massah, ah says they do (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/02/28/hagee/index.html?view=print). http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:d-T8rjI5tx8PbM:http://www.allemoticons.com/People/african.gif

You are wrong.

@_@ Artman

02-28-2008, 06:06 PM

You are wrong.

http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f312/Tonito44/ThatsRacist.gif

mojo2

02-28-2008, 06:13 PM

McCain: Post traumatic stress from 5 years smoking bad Vietnamese tobacco in the Hanoi Hilton and getting better healthcare there than many US citizen get in the US right now. Is unable to imagine a world without war. Comes from several generations of soldiers.
Obama: Smoked pot. Thinks peace is OK.

Smoking as a POW in captivity?

Better healthcare than many US citizens here get?

Please substantiate those claims.

And as for war, the ones who most dread war are the soldiers.

But humankind is unable to live without war for any extended periods of time.

Which makes me wonder if you think that the proper role for the USA, the leader of the free world, is to do nothing and allow those who are committed to Islamist domination of the world to proceed unopposed?

mojo2

02-28-2008, 06:14 PM

http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f312/Tonito44/ThatsRacist.gif

What is racist?

e1618978

02-28-2008, 06:31 PM

McCain: "Yesterday Senator Obama said, 'Well we shouldn't have gone in in the first place. If we hadn't gone in the first place we wouldn’t be facing this problem.' " McCain said at a town hall event in Houston, Texas. "Well that's history. That's the past. That's talking about what happened before. What we should be talking about is what we're going to do now."

I think that McCain is right, and talking like this is a serious mis-step for Obama. Obama is making the same mistake that a bunch of you all make - forgetting that the past is unchangable. When you make plans for the future, you have to weigh the pros and cons and pick the best course, not just un-do your predecessors actions without regard to cost.

Really, I think that Obama was speaking without thinking, and then made it worse by not admitting that he was wrong.

jamac

02-28-2008, 06:47 PM

Smoking as a POW in captivity?

Better healthcare than many US citizens here get?

Please substantiate those claims.

And as for war, the ones who most dread war are the soldiers.

But humankind is unable to live without war for any extended periods of time.

Which makes me wonder if you think that the proper role for the USA, the leader of the free world, is to do nothing and allow those who are committed to Islamist domination of the world to proceed unopposed?

Current TV movie on TV about McCain's life. Look at your TV guide.

He had 1 arm and both legs broken multiple times from falling out of the sky. They put him in a full body cast. (Free of charge) He had one hand free for smoking while giving interviews and plenty of rest to heal. His meals were served to him and someone wiped his ass while in the cast. Bu ffing hu.

A citizen without insurance may loose everything over an accident like this.

The army is the safest place to be in any war you dufus. I was in it. 4000 dead soldiers 165,000 civilians can you get this into your brain???
A soldier is extremely valuably in a war. They are the most protected individuals. Please pull the lid over you hole in the ground.

Yes. The Islamists will go to Vegas and loose all their money. Western liberalism will overwhelm their senses and they will get into adjustable rate mortgages. Some of them may even become your friends and drive you around in their Hummer. They always have good opium.

jamac

02-28-2008, 07:15 PM

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

@_@ Artman

02-28-2008, 07:17 PM

What is racist?

I don't know anymore, I'm through arguing with a delusional madman. :no:

@_@ Artman

02-28-2008, 07:19 PM

Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don’t oppose all wars.

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton’s army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain. I don’t oppose all wars.

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again. I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income - to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the President today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings. You want a fight, President Bush?

Let’s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe. You want a fight, President Bush?

Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn’t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil. Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not — we will not — travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.

Get it? Got it? Good. :smokey:

mojo2

02-28-2008, 07:41 PM

Current TV movie on TV about McCain's life. Look at your TV guide.

He had 1 arm and both legs broken multiple times from falling out of the sky. They put him in a full body cast. (Free of charge) He had one hand free for smoking while giving interviews and plenty of rest to heal. His meals were served to him and someone wiped his ass while in the cast. Bu ffing hu.

A citizen without insurance may loose everything over an accident like this.

The army is the safest place to be in any war you dufus. I was in it. 4000 dead soldiers 165,000 civilians can you get this into your brain???
A soldier is extremely valuably in a war. They are the most protected individuals. Please pull the lid over you hole in the ground.

Yes. The Islamists will go to Vegas and loose all their money. Western liberalism will overwhelm their senses and they will get into adjustable rate mortgages. Some of them may even become your friends and drive you around in their Hummer. They always have good opium.

Thanks. I'll look for the TV movie. Although I already knew of his being injured after ejecting and landing in the lake in the center of Hanoi.

Boo ffing hoo, you mean?

No one is trying to milk any sympathy from his war experience, but they are acknowledging it. It IS something. It IS a significant experience.

You say that being in the army is the safest place to be in a war and that you were in it. I assume you mean you were in war, not that you were in the army. That is the context in which the statement makes most sense.

Of course death is bad. But if you are unable to see the more important elements, the more obscure elements behind this war then you have a serious intellectual disconnect between cause and effect. I would liken it to being unaware of the connection between cattle being slaughtered and your love of Big Macs.

The Iranians can not be allowed to expand their Islamist revolution.

Period.

Peace in the face of Ahmadinejad's and the Mullah's agenda of expansion means more cost, more death and more destruction later. We would be buying a greater war on the installment plan.

jamac

02-28-2008, 08:11 PM

Period.

My wife uses OB.

mojo2

02-28-2008, 08:12 PM

Get it? Got it? Good. :smokey:

The Senator was wrong in at least a couple of important points.

He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors,

He couldn't know there was no threat to his neighbors. If there was no perceived threat to his neighbors why didn't they, specifically Iraq's mortal enemy, Iran, attack?

"He told me that most of the WMD had been destroyed by the U.N. inspectors in the '90s. And those that hadn't been destroyed by the inspectors were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq," Piro says.

"So why keep the secret? Why put your nation at risk, why put your own life at risk to maintain this charade?" Pelley asks.

"It was very important for him to project that because that was what kept him, in his mind, in power. That capability kept the Iranians away. It kept them from reinvading Iraq," Piro says.

Before his wars with America, Saddam had fought a ruinous eight year war with Iran and it was Iran he still feared the most.

"He believed that he couldn't survive without the perception that he had weapons of mass destruction?" Pelley asks.

"Absolutely," Piro says.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/24/60minutes/main3749494.shtml

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again. I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.

If he is unable to recognize the threat posed to global peace and freedom by Iran, the world's leader in exporting terrorism, then he is unqualified to be president or he is lying and pandering to you because he thinks you are stupid.

Are you going to prove he's right?

jamac

02-28-2008, 08:15 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNBpe87yEqg&feature=related

tonton

02-29-2008, 03:36 AM

He's got an impressive looking boob there.

It's not a "him".

@_@ Artman

02-29-2008, 08:16 AM

The Senator was wrong in at least a couple of important points.

Nobody's perfect. But wait...

He couldn't know there was no threat to his neighbors. If there was no perceived threat to his neighbors why didn't they, specifically Iraq's mortal enemy, Iran, attack?

Iran hasn’t invaded anyone since the nineteenth century.

If he is unable to recognize the threat posed to global peace and freedom by Iran, the world's leader in exporting terrorism, then he is unqualified to be president or he is lying and pandering to you because he thinks you are stupid. Are you going to prove he's right?

Well then. Yes, Iran likely does fund some “terrorist extremists,” so does Israel and the US and just about every other player in the region, this is news? Again, Israel and the west have done as much or more than Iran to undermine peace in Lebanon, in fact Iran’s influence in Lebanon is rather minor.

The whole "terrorist" thing is annoying anyhow. There's no such thing as a terrorist ideology, terrorism is the tactic of attacking civilians for political purposes. And as such, it is practiced far more by governments than anyone else. If babies die as a direct and foreseeable result of sanctions or bombing a nation’s civilian infrastructure, is that not terrorism?

Iran is a modest regional power with limited ability to project force outside of their borders. Again, Iran hasn’t invaded anyone since the nineteenth century, and is in no position to do so today. The only way Iran threatens world security is if the US and Iran go to war, and it’s the US that keeps threatening war, not Iran.

Yes, a big regional war would not be a good thing, it even could lead to a world war, but again, it’s the US that has been invading and attacking nations in the region, not Iran.

mojo2

02-29-2008, 12:54 PM

Nobody's perfect. But wait...

Iran hasn’t invaded anyone since the nineteenth century.

Well then. Yes, Iran likely does fund some “terrorist extremists,” so does Israel and the US and just about every other player in the region, this is news? Again, Israel and the west have done as much or more than Iran to undermine peace in Lebanon, in fact Iran’s influence in Lebanon is rather minor.

The whole "terrorist" thing is annoying anyhow. There's no such thing as a terrorist ideology, terrorism is the tactic of attacking civilians for political purposes. And as such, it is practiced far more by governments than anyone else. If babies die as a direct and foreseeable result of sanctions or bombing a nation’s civilian infrastructure, is that not terrorism?

Iran is a modest regional power with limited ability to project force outside of their borders. Again, Iran hasn’t invaded anyone since the nineteenth century, and is in no position to do so today. The only way Iran threatens world security is if the US and Iran go to war, and it’s the US that keeps threatening war, not Iran.

Yes, a big regional war would not be a good thing, it even could lead to a world war, but again, it’s the US that has been invading and attacking nations in the region, not Iran.

Apparently your leader disagrees.

Ahmadinejad Calls Iran World's 'Number One' Power, Attacks Domestic Critics

Thursday, February 28, 2008

The world's greatest superpower is not the United States ... or Russia ... or China, says Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. It's Iran.

"Iran is the number one power in the world," Ahmadinejad said Thursday in a speech to the families of those killed in his country's war with Iraq more than 20 years ago.

"Today the name of Iran means a firm punch in the teeth of the powerful and it puts them in their place," the president said in an address broadcast live on state television, AFP reported.

He also launched a new assault on critics within his country who he says are siding with the enemy.

On Wednesday, Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Hassan Rowhani, attacked Ahmadinejad's foreign policy, accusing him of using "course slogans and grandstanding."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,333532,00.html

For the past three years, tens of thousands of students have demonstrated throughout Iran demanding "Democracy, Now!"

Last week Iran's newly elected President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gave his reply: Democracy? Never!

The answer is spelled out in a 7000-word document that Ahmadinejad presented as his government's "short- and long-term programs" to the Islamic Majlis (Parliament) on Tuesday.

In it he categorically states that Western "ideas and concepts of government" have no place in Islam. Without using the word democracy, the document states that the new administration "bravely rejects all alien political ideas" as incompatible with Islam.

http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/17909

The Americans may "mock the divine system" in Iran. But Islamic Iran is the model for the future of mankind.

Ahmadinejad envisages a "multipolar" world in which the United States would have a place as long as its process of "fading away" is not completed. Other poles, according the documents, would include "sunrise" powers such as China and India, and "sunset" ones such as the European Union. But the most dynamic of the new poles would be the Islamic one with Iran as a "core power" around which all Muslim nations will coalesce.

The document flatly states: "Leadership is the indisputable right of the Iranian nation."

The creation of an "Islamic pole" is the key objective of what the document refers to as "the 20-year strategy" of the Islamic Republic. It is not clear who developed that strategy and whether or not Ahmadinejad, who is elected for a four-year term, hopes to remain in power for two decades.

The goal of the "Islamic pole" would be to unite the world under the banner of Islam, as the "final Divine message" and "the only True Faith." But it is not clear whether this is to be achieved during the 20-year period of the strategy or within a broader timeframe.

It is not only in foreign policy that Ahmadinejad opposes "American ideas".

His economic, social, and cultural programs, too, are designed in defiance of Western capitalist models.

He wants the state to play a central role in all aspects of a people's life and emphasizes the importance of central planning. The state would follow the citizens from birth to death, ensuring their health, education, well-being and leisure. It will guide them as to what to read and write and what "cultural products" to consume so as not to be contaminated by Western ideas. In fact, the Islamic Republic intends to compete with the US on the global stage as a producer of culture. Ahmadinejad promises to help Iranian music drive American music out of the world markets, starting with Muslim countries. In hyperbolic tones he claims that Persian music exports could earn Iran more than oil.

What kind of fools do you take us to be?

Bancho

02-29-2008, 01:01 PM

Apparently your leader disagrees.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,333532,00.html

http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/17909

What kind of fools do you take us to be?

Well, it's a long way till the elections in November. You can always root for Bush to pump a volley of nukes there to assuage your fears of a muslim world. He could turn all the sand into glass and then maybe nuke the glass into plasma.

To be honest I fear a christian world every bit as much but maybe that's just me.

franksargent

02-29-2008, 01:12 PM

What kind of fools do you take us to be?

http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2004/12/13/next_pers3_dec14,0.jpg
Boo!

mojo2

02-29-2008, 01:34 PM

Well, it's a long way till the elections in November. You can always root for Bush to pump a volley of nukes there to assuage your fears of a muslim world. He could turn all the sand into glass and then maybe nuke the glass into plasma.

To be honest I fear a christian world every bit as much but maybe that's just me.

He wants the state to play a central role in all aspects of a people's life and emphasizes the importance of central planning. The state would follow the citizens from birth to death, ensuring their health, education, well-being and leisure. It will guide them as to what to read and write and what "cultural products" to consume so as not to be contaminated by Western ideas. In fact, the Islamic Republic intends to compete with the US on the global stage as a producer of culture. Ahmadinejad promises to help Iranian music drive American music out of the world markets, starting with Muslim countries. In hyperbolic tones he claims that Persian music exports could earn Iran more than oil.

The new government will even help arrange marriages for young men who might find it difficulty to do so on their own. (No such assistance is offered to young women.) The Islamic Republic rejects what the West calls "alternative lifestyles" as "abominations" and would not tolerate any form of sexual deviation or immorality.

http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/17909

So, you like this kind of lifestyle that Ahmadinejad has in mind for us all?

Or you think Christianity is just as bad?

And let's keep in mind, NO ONE is talking about imposing Christianity on anyone. Remember the separation between Church and State?

If you choose to live as a Muslim, even a devout Muslim, no one in the Bush Administration wants to stop you from doing so, just as long as you don't break the law.

e1618978

02-29-2008, 01:43 PM

And let's keep in mind, NO ONE is talking about imposing Christianity on anyone.

George Bush, Sr - "I don't think that Atheists should be considered citizens or patriots"

Bancho

02-29-2008, 01:50 PM

So, you like this kind of lifestyle that Ahmadinejad has in mind for us all?

Or you think Christianity is just as bad?

And let's keep in mind, NO ONE is talking about imposing Christianity on anyone. Remember the separation between Church and State?

If you choose to live as a Muslim, even a devout Muslim, no one in the Bush Administration wants to stop you from doing so, just as long as you don't break the law.

I'm not a huge fan of Ahmadinejad, but his rhetoric is on par with what Bush spouts so I take it as a typical politician pandering to his audience.

Let me be clear, I absolutely think that christianity is "just as bad". It has a history just as rich with violence and bloodshed and has more overall experience with doling it out than Islam has (though they're pretty handy at it too).

@_@ Artman

02-29-2008, 02:27 PM

Bush on Rwanda: "A clear lesson that I learned... was that outside forces that tend to divide people up inside their country are unbelievably counterproductive." (http://www.theseminal.com/2008/02/28/the-learning-curve/)

Defense Secretary Robert Gates tells Turkey to withdraw from Iraq because their military is violating Iraqi sovereignty. (http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/washington/politics-turkey-iraq-gates.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=gates+turkey&st=nyt&oref=slogin)

"It's very important that the Turks make this operation as short as possible and then leave, and to be mindful of Iraqi sovereignty," Gates told reporters in New Delhi on Wednesday before leaving for Ankara.

"I measure quick in terms of days, a week or two, something like that. Not months," he said.

Welcome to the outcome of the Project for a New American Century.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Meanwhile...

At least Israel finally starting to call it what it is: "Israel threatens to unleash 'holocaust' in Gaza" (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article3459144.ece)

“The more Qassam fire intensifies and the rockets reach a longer range, they will bring upon themselves a bigger holocaust because we will use all our might to defend ourselves,” Matan Vilnai, the Deputy Defence Minister said.

ALL ABOARD THE CRAZY TRAIN! HAHAHAHAHA! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRbPWcLode0) With Mojo2 the fuckin' conductor.

e1618978

02-29-2008, 03:48 PM

Bill Clinton: Reincarnation of Elvis
Hillary Clinton: not so much

http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/politicalblog/wp-content/thumb-mcgovern.jpg
http://images.usatoday.com/news/_photos/2007/01/22/clinton.jpg
http://www.dianamarahenry.com/images/bill_clinton_signed.jpg

mojo2

02-29-2008, 05:51 PM

George Bush, Sr - "I don't think that Atheists should be considered citizens or patriots"

Funny line from the former president. 8-)

mojo2

02-29-2008, 05:57 PM

I'm not a huge fan of Ahmadinejad, but his rhetoric is on par with what Bush spouts so I take it as a typical politician pandering to his audience.

Let me be clear, I absolutely think that christianity is "just as bad". It has a history just as rich with violence and bloodshed and has more overall experience with doling it out than Islam has (though they're pretty handy at it too).

By the way, contrary to what many Islamic clerics or Mullahs or political leaders might say, this isn't a war of Islam vs Christianity.

But as for the differences between Islam and Christianity in terms of violence:

Fifth, the vicious violence intrinsic to Islamic jihad is not an aberration. Unlike Christ’s repudiation of faith-propagating violence - “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would fight” (John 18: 36), Muhammad urges his followers to slay the enemies of Allah - “slay the idolaters wherever you find them” (Sura 9: 5). While medieval so-called Christian violence [in reality Roman Catholic e.g. the Crusades] was a lapse from Christ’s methods and thus condemned by the New Testament, Islamic violence is in perfect accord with Muhammad’s hostile directives.

http://www.takeheed.net/CliffordConservativelecture.htm

mojo2

02-29-2008, 06:08 PM

Bush on Rwanda: "A clear lesson that I learned... was that outside forces that tend to divide people up inside their country are unbelievably counterproductive." (http://www.theseminal.com/2008/02/28/the-learning-curve/)

Defense Secretary Robert Gates tells Turkey to withdraw from Iraq because their military is violating Iraqi sovereignty. (http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/washington/politics-turkey-iraq-gates.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=gates+turkey&st=nyt&oref=slogin)

Welcome to the outcome of the Project for a New American Century.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Meanwhile...

At least Israel finally starting to call it what it is: "Israel threatens to unleash 'holocaust' in Gaza" (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article3459144.ece)

ALL ABOARD THE CRAZY TRAIN! HAHAHAHAHA! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRbPWcLode0) With Mojo2 the fuckin' conductor.

All of your dancing around is confusing. Here is the bottom line.

The Islamist agenda seeks to conquer the entire Earth and assert strict austere Islamic law on everyone.

The US believes in freedom, moderation, tolerance, prosperity and democracy.

If the US is victorious Muslims will still be able to live and worship as they please.

If the Islamists win we will all live according to Islamic law and only Muslims will have full rights of citizenship.

franksargent

02-29-2008, 06:17 PM

All of your dancing around is confusing. Here is the bottom line.

The Islamist agenda seeks to conquer the entire Earth and assert strict austere Islamic law on everyone.

The US believes in freedom, moderation, tolerance, prosperity and democracy.

If the US is victorious Muslims will still be able to live and worship as they please.

If the Islamists win we will all live according to Islamic law and only Muslims will have full rights of citizenship.

http://thequince.org/graphics/screens/invasionMain.png

@_@ Artman

02-29-2008, 06:22 PM

All of your dancing around is confusing. Here is the bottom line.

The Islamist (7%) agenda seeks to conquer the entire Earth and assert strict austere Islamic law on everyone.

The US believes in freedom, moderation, tolerance, prosperity and democracy.

If the US is victorious Muslims (93%) will still be able to live and worship as they please.

If the (7%) Islamists win we will all live according to Islamic law and only (93%) Muslims will have full rights of citizenship.

Major survey challenges Western perceptions of Islam (http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iZlsZRgzHmgwj6sKpA7PR5F5Ecsw)

A huge survey of the world's Muslims released Tuesday challenges Western notions that equate Islam with radicalism and violence.

The survey, conducted by the Gallup polling agency over six years and three continents, seeks to dispel the belief held by some in the West that Islam itself is the driving force of radicalism.

It shows that the overwhelming majority of Muslims condemned the attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001 and other subsequent terrorist attacks, the authors of the study said in Washington.

"Samuel Harris said in the Washington Times (in 2004): 'It is time we admitted that we are not at war with terrorism. We are at war with Islam'," Dalia Mogadeh, co-author of the book "Who Speaks for Islam" which grew out of the study, told a news conference here.

"The argument Mr Harris makes is that religion in the primary driver" of radicalism and violence, she said.

"Religion is an important part of life for the overwhelming majority of Muslims, and if it were indeed the driver for radicalisation, this would be a serious issue."

But the study, which Gallup says surveyed a sample equivalent to 90 percent of the world's Muslims, showed that widespread religiosity "does not translate into widespread support for terrorism," said Mogadeh, director of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies.

About 93 percent of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims are moderates and only seven percent are politically radical, according to the poll, based on more than 50,000 interviews.

In majority Muslim countries, overwhelming majorities said religion was a very important part of their lives -- 99 percent in Indonesia, 98 percent in Egypt, 95 percent in Pakistan.

But only seven percent of the billion Muslims surveyed -- the radicals -- condoned the attacks on the United States in 2001, the poll showed.

But keep being delusional and hateful, that's what fuels that 7%. :rolleyes:

SDW2001

02-29-2008, 07:19 PM

Get it? Got it? Good. :smokey:

No one is arguing the consistency of his position. Hello?

mojo2

02-29-2008, 07:26 PM

[IMG]http://thequince.org/graphics/screens/invasionMain.png

Let's see the cutesy little graphic you and the Nazis would have produced to indict Chamberlain had he stood up to Hitler instead of giving him Czechoslovakia.

mojo2

02-29-2008, 07:40 PM

Major survey challenges Western perceptions of Islam (http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iZlsZRgzHmgwj6sKpA7PR5F5Ecsw)

But keep being delusional and hateful, that's what fuels that 7%. :rolleyes:

Are you testing us?

There is nothing more insidious than Muslims intentionally implying that our policies and actions fuel the Islamist agenda. It is sui generis in that the followers of the religion are directed to follow this agenda and as many as 15% actively do, as we speak. And they will continue to do so, no matter what we do or don't do.

@_@ Artman

02-29-2008, 07:55 PM

No one is arguing the consistency of his position. Hello?

Unfortunately, you don't have a president or a candidate of your choice in your party that can stick on their positions either. Of course though, you can bring their quantity (not quality) of "experience" into your argument, right?

Now, what the fuck was your point? :???:

Don't bother, I have a date tonight myself. :smokey:

@_@ Artman

02-29-2008, 08:04 PM

Are you testing us?

There is nothing more insidious than Muslims intentionally implying that our policies and actions fuel the Islamist agenda. It is sui generis in that the followers of the religion are directed to follow this agenda and as many as 15% actively do, as we speak. And they will continue to do so, no matter what we do or don't do.

I believe that even as the US has pandered, deceived and squandered them for so many years, the majority seem to carry on with the hope of peace and understanding (all 93 fucking % of them). And they have children and they teach them the same values. The other 7% are a minority. A angry and stubborn bunch indeed but don't mix them up into the majority.

It just makes you more of a bigot and ignorant fool.

Go out and get laid or something, maybe that'll help. That's what I'm doing. :smokey:

mojo2

02-29-2008, 08:19 PM

I believe that even as the US has pandered, deceived and squandered them for so many years, the majority seem to carry on with the hope of peace and understanding (all 93 fucking % of them). And they have children and they teach them the same values. The other 7% are a minority. A angry and stubborn bunch indeed but don't mix them up into the majority.

It just makes you more of a bigot and ignorant fool.

Go out and get laid or something, maybe that'll help. That's what I'm doing. :smokey:

The 85% who may not support violent Jihad WOULD, however, support having a separate system of Islamic justice to adjudicate particularly Islamic issues.

That would mean the perfectly law abiding and peaceful 85% would help create the wedge needed to create parallel societies within the USA just as there seem to be in the UK, where it is illegal for Brits to fly their own national flags in Islamic neighborhoods for fear of upsetting the Muslims.

Now. Screw THAT.

franksargent

02-29-2008, 08:21 PM

Let's see the cutesy little graphic you and the Nazis would have produced to indict Chamberlain had he stood up to Hitler instead of giving him Czechoslovakia.
http://enigma.dune.net/~eric/Do-not-feed-the-troll.PNG

mojo2

02-29-2008, 10:42 PM

[IMG]http://enigma.dune.net/~eric/Do-not-feed-the-troll.PNG

Adolph and Mahmoud would approve, I think.

dmz

03-01-2008, 09:22 AM

McCain: Economic Pragmatist
Obama: Cargo-Cult Economist

Hassan i Sabbah

03-01-2008, 10:00 AM

dmz: Creationist.

dmz

03-01-2008, 10:42 AM

Now that was just weird, Hassan i Sabbah.

Fellowship

03-01-2008, 12:23 PM

McCain: Economic Pragmatist
Obama: Cargo-Cult Economist

You mean

McCain: Economic agnostic
Obama: Concerned about the economy and outsourcing of US jobs.

I think that is what you were going to say...

Fellows

Fellowship

03-01-2008, 12:27 PM

Now that was just weird, Hassan i Sabbah.

I have to lend you my support there.

As if there is something wrong with being a creationist.

Not all of us are cult following evolutionists and such is "ok" as far as I am concerned.

I believe in creation as the Bible teaches and I am not ashamed by it no matter who thinks it is mud to label people creationists.

Now are all creationists created equal? Hell no.

I think to label all creationists in a bad light is just as ignorant as to lable all arabs terrorists. It simply is not true.

Are some "creationists" silly / nuts / just stupid? Yes
Are some arabs terrorists? yes

But to write off an entire group in a negative way is hateful and hurtful.

Fellows

dmz

03-01-2008, 12:42 PM

You mean

McCain: Economic agnostic
Obama: Concerned about the economy and outsourcing of US jobs.

I think that is what you were going to say...

Fellows

I dunno Fellowship, I don't think there's any way to win on this one. McCain will simply step into the same cancerous tax-and-spend policy that Bush and the Congress are following. It's just not sustainable.

Obama seems to want to help the common man, but -- for one example -- what he is saying about NAFTA is naive at best. Whoever his economist advisors are, they'd never dream of standing in front of an economics class and repeat what he's saying.

I think he'll win in November, and that might be the best thing for the debate -- that grain of sand in the proverbial oyster. At least the press wouldn't be all over him like a cheap suit, I think we could all use a break from the Great Satan coverage of the last 8 years. That and maybe the "conservatives" might have to rethink themselves.

dmz

03-01-2008, 12:46 PM

As if there is something wrong with being a creationist.

Ha! Hassan i Sabbah would like to turn back the clock -- have us raving the praises of Spinoza and Leibniz. (if you are willing to take bets as to whether he has actually sat down and thought it through)

Lame.

Fellowship

03-01-2008, 12:50 PM

I dunno Fellowship, I don't think there's any way to win on this one. McCain will simply step into the same cancerous tax-and-spend policy that Bush and the Congress are following. It's just not sustainable.

Obama seems to want to help the common man, but -- for one example -- what he is saying about NAFTA is naive at best. Whoever his economist advisors are, they'd never dream of standing in front of an economics class and repeat what he's saying.

I think he'll win in November, and that might be the best thing for the debate -- that grain of sand in the proverbial oyster. At least the press wouldn't be all over him like a cheap suit, I think we could all use a break from the Great Satan coverage of the last 8 years. That and maybe the "conservatives" might have to rethink themselves.

I think Obama is only citing rhetoric RE:NAFTA when it resonates with those in Ohio etc. who have seen jobs evaporate in their community. It is my take considering what he has said that he wants to tweak some the details in our trade agreements so that there is not wrong sided incentives like tax windfalls for those who relocate their business outside of the US etc.

I pretty much agree with the rest of what you said...

I think the republicans really need to take a breather and gather themselves once again. The republicans need to once again realize what it is that makes them a majority party and stick to it instead of spending like drunken sailers and eroding civil liberties on Americans all in the name of "Nanny state" sounding "mommy and daddy government will protect you even if we bankrupt you" rhetoric They have betrayed the trust of their base, they have not acted conservative in any way because just because you deliver on tax cuts does not give you a license to spend worse than the most liberal liberals..

Fellows

mojo2

03-01-2008, 01:22 PM

I dunno Fellowship, I don't think there's any way to win on this one. McCain will simply step into the same cancerous tax-and-spend policy that Bush and the Congress are following. It's just not sustainable.

Obama seems to want to help the common man, but -- for one example -- what he is saying about NAFTA is naive at best. Whoever his economist advisors are, they'd never dream of standing in front of an economics class and repeat what he's saying.

I think he'll win in November, and that might be the best thing for the debate -- that grain of sand in the proverbial oyster. At least the press wouldn't be all over him like a cheap suit, I think we could all use a break from the Great Satan coverage of the last 8 years. That and maybe the "conservatives" might have to rethink themselves.

If you are afflicted with cancer, it will always be an issue of interest to you. And the idea of taking a break from thinking about it after 8 years of fighting may be a relief, but that doesn't mean the problem has been taken care of.

I don't understand the seeming assumption by many that we will automatically have a quick fix to this problem or that this is an elective condition.

The conservatives are not inventing this. And if we continue thinking it is something we don't have to concern ourselves with we will be giving the bad guys an advantage they will use against us.

And McCain will win or lose the election based on his ability to accurately define the threat of Islamism.

It shouldn't be hard to do.

dmz

03-01-2008, 01:54 PM

If you are afflicted with cancer, it will always be an issue of interest to you. And the idea of taking a break from thinking about it after 8 years of fighting may be a relief, but that doesn't mean the problem has been taken care of.

I don't understand the seeming assumption by many that we will automatically have a quick fix to this problem or that this is an elective condition.

The conservatives are not inventing this. And if we continue thinking it is something we don't have to concern ourselves with we will be giving the bad guys an advantage they will use against us.

And McCain will win or lose the election based on his ability to accurately define the threat of Islamism.

It shouldn't be hard to do.
I don't think McCain will be able to sell the Islamic thing -- I think Bush made it clear that the U.S. is willing to cut its nose off to spite its face with regards to making attacks on America counterproductive.

Besides, American avarice is going to get us long before the terrorists do. Americans are filling both their minds and bodies with garbage -- and literally looking for a "free" magic pill to cure it all. I don't think the economy can absorb another Enron, or Mortgage fiasco. The transaction costs of runaway greed will ruin us all -- and there's nothing any politician can do to stop it.

Neither candidate has the courage to tell the American people that.

@_@ Artman

03-01-2008, 02:04 PM

The 85% who may not support violent Jihad WOULD, however, support having a separate system of Islamic justice to adjudicate particularly Islamic issues.

That would mean the perfectly law abiding and peaceful 85% would help create the wedge needed to create parallel societies within the USA just as there seem to be in the UK, where it is illegal for Brits to fly their own national flags in Islamic neighborhoods for fear of upsetting the Muslims.

Now. Screw THAT.

Ah. You touched on a subject that's very much in agreement with me. I do not feel that any culture should try to enforce their own laws or beliefs into another. Laws and beliefs that are contrary to the others or may cause harm to another. That's just common sense. Yet here in America we've had Muslim immigrants that do abide by our laws and refrain from practicing their more extreme forms of laws and practices. Maybe because that they see within our culture, we have tried (not to successfully, but the majority have) to go beyond the dogmas and superstitions of the past.

What do you say? 'Nice jihad. Like the dogma. Way to go with the bigotry and the hate? (http://www.dotsub.com/films/moredemands/index.php?autostart=true&language_setting=en_1618)

"...my freedom is more important than your faith. Much, much more important. And besides, I have this natural aversion to being bullied around by bigoted misogynistic ignoramuses. And I say that with all due respect."

This bloke rules. But take careful attention as to whom he believes are the catalyst to this trend (hint: Saudi Arabia) (another hint: Our allies for freedom and against terrorism?).

More hints:

http://www.new-enlightenment.com/bushcarlyle.jpg

http://www.new-enlightenment.com/tower12.jpg

http://www.cbsnews.com/images/2005/04/25/image690875x.jpg

Another hint:

All the suspected hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Lebanon or Egypt. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizers_of_the_September_11,_2001_attacks#Suspe cted_hijackers)

Who's our enemy now?

hardeeharhar

03-01-2008, 07:23 PM

As if there is something wrong with being a creationist.

Fellows

Ah.. The logical fallacy here is that Hassan, and indeed myself and countless others, don't have a problem with Creationist because they are Creationists (though it certainly doesn't help their cause that they have chosen to base their entire world-view on something that confronts physical reality). You see, the reason why there is something wrong with being a creationist is the same reason why there is something wrong with being a fundamentalist Muslim or a dyed-in-the-wool Zionist or... When you check your brain at the door as any of these fundamentalist movements require, you automatically lose whatever advantage our species has over, say, red ants... In other words, there IS something wrong with being a creationist -- it is the explicit requirement that you DENY your biological given ability to critically think about the world around you.

dmz

03-01-2008, 07:42 PM

Ah.. The logical fallacy here is that Hassan, and indeed myself and countless others, don't have a problem with Creationist because they are Creationists (though it certainly doesn't help their cause that they have chosen to base their entire world-view on something that confronts physical reality). You see, the reason why there is something wrong with being a creationist is the same reason why there is something wrong with being a fundamentalist Muslim or a dyed-in-the-wool Zionist or... When you check your brain at the door as any of these fundamentalist movements require, you automatically lose whatever advantage our species has over, say, red ants... In other words, there IS something wrong with being a creationist -- it is the explicit requirement that you DENY your biological given ability to critically think about the world around you.
Not at all -- there's very little accurate in that statement.

hardeeharhar

03-01-2008, 07:51 PM

Not at all -- there's very little accurate in that statement.
So you don't believe that Genesis is the literal truth?

dmz

03-01-2008, 08:03 PM

So you don't believe that Genesis is the literal truth?
Do you believe that Kant's noumenal world exists?

soulcrusher

03-02-2008, 12:18 AM

As if there is something wrong with being a creationist.

There is something wrong with being ignorant.

But in most cases the ignorant person is not the one who is at fault for being ignorant but (s)he is simply a victim of the failure of society to educate its people.

The best that we can do is try to educate those who are not fortunate enough to have been taught how to reason and judge appropriately.

Creationism is an example of how the United States public school system has failed at teaching its people the basics of scientific thought and enquiry.

soulcrusher

03-02-2008, 12:21 AM

With regard to the main topic.

Obama can get an erection, McCain can't.

talksense101

03-02-2008, 01:08 AM

With regard to the main topic.

Obama can get an erection, McCain can't.

:lol:

mojo2

03-02-2008, 02:41 AM

I don't think McCain will be able to sell the Islamic thing -- I think Bush made it clear that the U.S. is willing to cut its nose off to spite its face with regards to making attacks on America counterproductive.

Just as a different strategy was used to turn the tide in Iraq, a different strategy needs to be used to explain the reality of Islamism. You probably discounted the possibility of progress in Iraq just as you doubt the possibility of successfully selling "the Islamic thing" to the American public. And let's be clear, the thing to be sold should be the threat of Islamism. Not Islam.

Besides, American avarice is going to get us long before the terrorists do. Americans are filling both their minds and bodies with garbage -- and literally looking for a "free" magic pill to cure it all. I don't think the economy can absorb another Enron, or Mortgage fiasco. The transaction costs of runaway greed will ruin us all -- and there's nothing any politician can do to stop it.

Neither candidate has the courage to tell the American people that.

Hey, I know what I'll do. I will do an imitation of most of the anti-America, anti-Bush, anti-Iraq war posters by speaking from what I want to believe, not from what I know and I'll throw a teeny bit of truth in there to make it sound good.

The economy isn't that bad. Enron was years ago, Ken Lay is dead. It can't happen again. And when this administration tried to give poor folks a chance to own their own homes they weren't able to figure out how to keep themselves from getting into trouble. See what happens when you try to treat people with respect?

And all you are doing is fear mongering.

mojo2

03-02-2008, 03:11 AM

Ah. You touched on a subject that's very much in agreement with me. I do not feel that any culture should try to enforce their own laws or beliefs into another. Laws and beliefs that are contrary to the others or may cause harm to another. That's just common sense. Yet here in America we've had Muslim immigrants that do abide by our laws and refrain from practicing their more extreme forms of laws and practices. Maybe because that they see within our culture, we have tried (not to successfully, but the majority have) to go beyond the dogmas and superstitions of the past.

What do you say? 'Nice jihad. Like the dogma. Way to go with the bigotry and the hate? (http://www.dotsub.com/films/moredemands/index.php?autostart=true&language_setting=en_1618)

This bloke rules. But take careful attention as to whom he believes are the catalyst to this trend (hint: Saudi Arabia) (another hint: Our allies for freedom and against terrorism?).

More hints:

http://www.new-enlightenment.com/bushcarlyle.jpg

http://www.new-enlightenment.com/tower12.jpg

http://www.cbsnews.com/images/2005/04/25/image690875x.jpg

Another hint:

All the suspected hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Lebanon or Egypt. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizers_of_the_September_11,_2001_attacks#Suspe cted_hijackers)

Who's our enemy now?

Quit trying to manipulate us.

We know you are smarter than that.

The "suspected hijackers" were as interested in overturning the Saudi government as they are in overturning our government.

Al Qaeda Organization in the Arabian Peninsula

Al-Qaeda Organization in the Arabian Peninsula leader Abdulaziz Al-Muqrin issued calls for the Saudi royal family to be overthrown. Conquering Saudi Arabia would be the first step towards establishing a Caliphate that would liberate the third holy place [Jerusalem] and unite all the Muslims of the world. The nightmare scenario for the West in one in which Saudi oil production (10% of world output) is taken out by terrorist attacks or by regime change. The Saudi ruling family is stuck between two contradictory policies: appeasement of puritanical Islam and alliance with America.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/al-qaida-arabia.htm

Hassan i Sabbah

03-02-2008, 03:45 AM

Sorry for warping the direction of the thread with a cheap shot at dmz. Let's keep the thread on topic.

Seriously.

OK. I can tell you, from personal experience, that John McCain is perfectly capable of achieving and maintaining a very proud erection, and I think that addabox will back me up on this gobbets of aerated lube and beetroot juice.

e1618978

03-02-2008, 08:15 AM

As if there is something wrong with being a creationist.

Of course there is nothing wrong with being a creationist, but I wouldn't want my daughter to marry one. 8-)

@_@ Artman

03-02-2008, 08:34 AM

Quit trying to manipulate us. We know you are smarter than that.

The "suspected hijackers" were as interested in overturning the Saudi government as they are in overturning our government.

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0743253396.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

The Bush ruling family is stuck between two contradictory policies: appeasement of Israeli occupation and dependence to Saudi Arabian oil.

The perilous ramifications of the September 11 attacks on the United States are only now beginning to unfold. They will undoubtedly be felt for generations to come. This is one of many sad conclusions readers will draw from Craig Unger's exceptional book House of Bush House of Saud: The Secret Relationship Between the World's Two Most Powerful Dynasties (http://www.amazon.com/House-Bush-Saud-Relationship-Dynasties/dp/074325337X). As Unger claims in this incisive study, the seeds for the "Age of Terrorism" and September 11 were planted nearly 30 years ago in what, at the time, appeared to be savvy business transactions that subsequently translated into political currency and the union between the Saudi royal family and the extended political family of George H. W. Bush.

On the surface, the claim may appear to be politically driven, but as Unger (a respected investigative journalist and editor) probes--with scores of documents and sources--the political tenor of the U.S. over the last 30 years, the Iran-Iraq War, the war in Afghanistan, the birth of Al Qaeda, the dubious connection between members of the Saudi Royal family and the exportation of terror, and the personal fortunes amassed by the Bush family from companies such as Harken Energy and the Carlyle Group, he exposes the "brilliantly hidden agendas and purposefully murky corporate relationships" between these astonishingly powerful families.

His evidence is persuasive and reveals a devastating story of Orwellian proportions, replete with political deception, shifting allegiances, and lethal global consequences. Unger begins his book with the remarkable story of the repatriation of 140 Saudis directly following the September 11 attacks. He ends where Richard A. Clarke begins, questioning the efficacy of the war in Iraq in the battle against terrorism. We are unquestionably facing a global security crisis unlike any before. President Bush insists that we will prevail, yet as Unger so effectively concludes, "Never before has an American president been so closely tied to a foreign power that harbors and supports our country's mortal enemies."

Manipulation indeed. :smokey:

mojo2

03-02-2008, 09:35 AM

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0743253396.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

The Bush ruling family is stuck between two contradictory policies: appeasement of Israeli occupation and dependence to Saudi Arabian oil.

Manipulation indeed. :smokey:

Sounds like a case of Shiite envy to me. :lol:

Oh, and with an endorsement by Michael Moore you know it's got to be a great book.

dmz

03-02-2008, 10:51 AM

Just as a different strategy was used to turn the tide in Iraq, a different strategy needs to be used to explain the reality of Islamism. You probably discounted the possibility of progress in Iraq just as you doubt the possibility of successfully selling "the Islamic thing" to the American public. And let's be clear, the thing to be sold should be the threat of Islamism. Not Islam.

Hey, I know what I'll do. I will do an imitation of most of the anti-America, anti-Bush, anti-Iraq war posters by speaking from what I want to believe, not from what I know and I'll throw a teeny bit of truth in there to make it sound good.

The economy isn't that bad. Enron was years ago, Ken Lay is dead. It can't happen again. And when this administration tried to give poor folks a chance to own their own homes they weren't able to figure out how to keep themselves from getting into trouble. See what happens when you try to treat people with respect?

And all you are doing is fear mongering.
Not at all, the current State Department has proven conclusively that it does not understand the Muslim ethos. It is playing politics against principle -- for the nth time -- it's LBJ versus Ho Chi Minh all over again.

(The only difference between Clinton and Bush is that Clinton knew a tar baby when he saw one.)

As to Enron not happening agian, yes they threw up Sarbanes-Oxley, but that didn't stop the entire financial market apparatus -- from S&P ratings down to the prospective homeowner -- from cratering the related markets. There is no end to the permutations of how greed can hobble a free market -- and there's nothing any political entity can do to stop it.

Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains on their own appetites. Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more there is without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.
-Edmund Burke.

Fellowship

03-09-2008, 10:41 AM

Obama: no anger problem
McCain: ANGER!!!!! ANGER!!!! HOW DARE YOU ASK ME QUESTIONS YOU LITTLE JERK!!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2D_mhqDRBY

and

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

This guy is too pissed off and self-rightious to be President. Too pissed off to be in control of our military let alone anything else.

Fellows

groverat

03-09-2008, 12:01 PM

I don't think he went off the handle there, but he was definitely working to keep that legendary temper in check.

@_@ Artman

03-09-2008, 12:48 PM

http://www.toryhobson.com/new/image/0/0/1/fff/upload/bush-endorses-mccain.jpg

groverat

03-09-2008, 02:03 PM

my friends

Splinemodel

03-09-2008, 04:28 PM

The best thing for the middle class is actually a repeal of AMT legislation and ss/medicare reform. The american middle class doesn't really benefit from government programs, nor does anyone in the skilled working class: the wages for skilled labor are good, and many of these people do independent contract work as well, often subject to heavy taxes. The only class that the government helps is the lower class.

The point is that, in our present economy with a large middle class and a largely skilled working class, Obama's "new new deal" would not help many americans. Obama is also unlikely to repeal the AMT. I'm not saying that McCain would, either, but to say that Obama's platform benefits the middle class is just plain wrong. The types of services he wants to nationalize do nothing except remove choice and create new bureaucracies, both of which are harmful to the middle class as we know it.

jimmac

03-09-2008, 08:07 PM

The difference between these two is that one has a good chance at the presidency this time and one doesn't.;)

A hint : that one doesn't have white hair!

dmz

03-09-2008, 09:25 PM

I can't wait until November -- I'll get to decide between "tax and spend" and "borrow and spend."

Yipppee!

Fellowship

03-09-2008, 10:41 PM

I can't wait until November -- I'll get to decide between "tax and spend" and "borrow and spend."

Yipppee!

That needs to be a bumper sticker. It is right on the money.

Fellows

tonton

03-09-2008, 11:44 PM

That needs to be a bumper sticker. It is right on the money.

Fellows

Well at least tax and spend doesn't lead to bankruptcy. Sounds like a better plan to me.

Even though the fact is that Democrats spend less.

Fellowship

03-09-2008, 11:51 PM

Well at least tax and spend doesn't lead to bankruptcy. Sounds like a better plan to me.

Even though the fact is that Democrats spend less.

tonton I would rather leave my son and future generations a legacy of leaders who did not shove the tax burdens to them.

I will not be voting for Republicans this fall.

The republicans in power or looking to be in a position of power don't get it.

They have failed in a huge way...

Fellows

Splinemodel

03-10-2008, 03:17 AM

Even though the fact is that Democrats spend less.

Unfortunately, there is no way to gauge what the government budget would be in 2008 had Gore or Kerry been elected. It's no mystery that Bush-the-younger is not a fiscal conservative, but it's hard to fathom that an administration pushing the expansion of government-run services would also be able to reduce government spending. If you think cuts in defense spending will make up the difference, that's unfortunately too impractical for the foreseeable future. Two-thirds of the world relies on the fact that the US military tends to intervene: Serbia is a better example than the present Iraq conflict, because it shows how incapable the EU is of solving its own problems. Even if by some act of God our allies decided to ramp up their militaries and be vigilant, it would be many years before the US could reduce its deployment in these countries. Even if we withdraw from Iraq, there's still a lot of very-necessary defense budget.

The main point I continue to raise, however, is that it's not the middle class at all that stands to benefit from the plans that the Democratic candidates are harboring. The middle class do not generally need universal healthcare (or very much at all) from the federal government. The lower classes -- not including the skilled working class -- are the beneficiaries here. This may be just as well by your reasoning, and I'm not trying to tell you that you're opinion is a bad one. It's just not the middle class that stand to benefit.

I am not going to vote for him unless I am really blown away in the next few months, but I can't say that McCain appears to be more fiscally irresponsible than Bush is. Frankly, I'm not sure if it's possible to be more fiscally irresponsible than Bush is. One thing for sure is that the tax refunds are going to go away, and McCain will have to make cut-backs if he intends to hold to his promise of "no new taxes."

Anyway, I've thought about it, and if the democrats have their way and introduce new federal programs, I'm moving to central Europe. If I'm going to be paying a lot in taxes in the USA, I may as well pay a lot in taxes somewhere else, get free defense courtesy of the USA, and live in a place that's square km for square km more interesting that the USA is.

@_@ Artman

03-10-2008, 08:25 AM

John McCain on The Daily Show (http://www.indecision2008.com/blog.jhtml?c=vc&videoId=91726) (Aug 17, 2007):

"Well, lemme just tell ya, I'd close Guantanamo Bay and I'd declare we'd never torture another person in American custody." "Life is not 24"

Gee, what happened? It's downright inhuman to expect a near-doddering old man to be consistent or to hold him to this word. After 65 you respond more to your bladder than to being sensible. Flip? Meet flop...

McCain and Clinton have had more reinventions than Madonna. :\

jamac

03-12-2008, 05:39 PM

Rod Parsley / McCain (http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2008/03/john-mccain-rod-parsley-spiritual-guide.html)

Looks like we are in for a war against all of Islam.
Hurray!

Fellowship

03-12-2008, 10:44 PM

Rod Parsley / McCain (http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2008/03/john-mccain-rod-parsley-spiritual-guide.html)

Looks like we are in for a war against all of Islam.
Hurray!

Another reason this Christian will not vote for McWar.

There is a kind of madness in these nutjobs who preach war and destruction. They are not Christian in my book.

But McCain just loves these folks it seems.... They love war just like McCain does.

Here is a response to the original linked story on the page of the linked original story which I agree with:

Parsley is not a christian! He is just using christianity as a front for his extremist ideas. A christian is suppose to represent Christ in the truest sense of the word. They have to love their enemies. Can you imagine Christ speaking the way Parsley does? I can't. Whatever happen to compassion, peace, love, gentleness, kindness, and humbleness? This guy lacks humility and behaves as though his words are God's words. Wrong! He appears to a hate monger and there is no room in christianity for such individuals. Parsley does not speak for christian. He need the conversion he tells other about.
Posted by:Eustace Sheppard

Somebody needs to educate this "experienced" McCain guy about what real Christianity is as opposed to "looney toons" who speak as Christians but who act and preach in any way BUT Christian.

Just my opinion... I mean if he is so experienced and all.... I am a little surprised he does not know this basic fact.

Fellows

jamac

03-13-2008, 10:10 AM

Another reason this Christian will not vote for McWar.

There is a kind of madness in these nutjobs who preach war and destruction. They are not Christian in my book.

But McCain just loves these folks it seems.... They love war just like McCain does.

Here is a response to the original linked story on the page of the linked original story which I agree with:

Somebody needs to educate this "experienced" McCain guy about what real Christianity is as opposed to "looney toons" who speak as Christians but who act and preach in any way BUT Christian.

Just my opinion... I mean if he is so experienced and all.... I am a little surprised he does not know this basic fact.

Fellows

Oddly,
Jesus became known (in the bible story) during a time of occupation. Indeed, war is the main reason the bible was composed. It contains messages to the oppressed and plenty of fear.
A new prophet might be coming out of Iraq. People are drawn to the ones that preach against the oppressors and promise them liberty and a better future. We now call them terrorists.
Al Sadr, Jesus and the likes owe their popularity to imperialist invaders. Without brutal slaughter of the innocent, rape and plundering todays religions would not exist.

@_@ Artman

03-13-2008, 10:32 AM

http://cache.eb.com/eb/image?id=83443&rendTypeId=4

"I do not reject your Christ, I love your Christ. It is just that so many of you Christians are so unlike your Christ."

Fellowship

03-13-2008, 10:59 AM

Artman,

I agree that there are those who call themselves Christians who make true Christians look really really bad.

Ephesians 6:12

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

See that last part.... "against spiritual wickedness in high places"

Sometimes this is in circles that call themselves Christians.

But don't confuse this wickedness with those of us who do not twist and pervert the teachings of Jesus.

If you have a pastor of a church and the style and substance of his messages don't dovetail with the following RUN LIKE HELL and find a real church.

Galations 5:22-23 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

1 Corinthians 13 4-7, 13:

4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. 13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

Fellows

@_@ Artman

03-13-2008, 12:26 PM

Very good points Fellows, but I had heard from a co-worker that on ABC's Morning Show today they showed Obama's pastor preaching at his church...

Obama's Pastor: God Damn America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11 (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4443788&page=1)

An ABC News review of dozens of Rev. Wright's sermons, offered for sale by the church, found repeated denunciations of the U.S. based on what he described as his reading of the Gospels and the treatment of black Americans.

"The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people," he said in a 2003 sermon. "God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme."

In addition to damning America, he told his congregation on the Sunday after Sept. 11, 2001 that the United States had brought on al Qaeda's attacks because of its own terrorism.

"We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye," Rev. Wright said in a sermon on Sept. 16, 2001.

"We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost," he told his congregation.

Meanwhile, John McCain has received endorsements from Televangelist John Hagee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hagee), the founder of Christians United for Israel* and the senior pastor of Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Texas.

“Most readers will be shocked by the clear record of history linking Adolf Hitler and the Roman Catholic Church in a conspiracy to exterminate the Jews.” - Jerusalem Countdown (revised edition, 2007, p. 114)

"Anyone who makes the life of Jewish people difficult or grievous, as did the Pharaoh, as did Hitler, will be cursed by God." - keynote address to AIPAC, (March 12, 2007)

"You will either offend the world and please God, or please the world and offend God." -Faith under Fire broadcast, (September 12, 2005)

"What is the point of having free speech if you have nothing to say?" - "How Free Is Freedom?" (July 2, 2006) [1]

"Jesus did not come to the Earth to start 285 squabbling denominations fighting over the Bible. How like the devil to divide Christians over the Bible." - "How Free Is Freedom?" (July 2, 2006) [2]

"If you live your life and don't confess your sins to God Almighty through the authority of Christ and His blood, I'm going to say this very plainly, you're going straight to hell with a nonstop ticket." October, 2006[3]

"All hurricanes are acts of God because God controls the heavens. I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God and they were recipients of the judgment of God for that." [29].

"Why would you want to be politically correct when you can be right?" -The Revelation Church broadcast, (February 2007)

"The most important thing to the Christian community is not the environment but evangelism." "The Fish Gate" 9/2/07

"Christians don't steal or lie, they don't get divorced or have abortions. If the Ten Commandments were followed by everyone we would be able to fire half the police force and in six months the prisons would be all half empty." "The Fish Gate" 9/2/07

*Rapture Ready: The Christians United for Israel Tour (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjMRgT5o-Ig)

and Televangelist Rod Parsley...

McCain's Spiritual Guide: Destroy Islam (http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2008/03/john-mccain-rod-parsley-spiritual-guide.html)

Senator John McCain hailed as a spiritual adviser an Ohio megachurch pastor who has called upon Christians to wage a "war" against the "false religion" of Islam with the aim of destroying it.

...

The leader of a 12,000-member congregation, Parsley has written several books outlining his fundamentalist religious outlook, including the 2005 Silent No More. In this work, Parsley decries the "spiritual desperation" of the United States, and he blasts away at the usual suspects: activist judges, civil libertarians who advocate the separation of church and state, the homosexual "culture" ("homosexuals are anything but happy and carefree"), the "abortion industry," and the crass and profane entertainment industry. And Parsley targets another profound threat to the United States: the religion of Islam.

In a chapter titled "Islam: The Deception of Allah," Parsley warns there is a "war between Islam and Christian civilization." He continues:

I cannot tell you how important it is that we understand the true nature of Islam, that we see it for what it really is. In fact, I will tell you this: I do not believe our country can truly fulfill its divine purpose until we understand our historical conflict with Islam. I know that this statement sounds extreme, but I do not shrink from its implications. The fact is that America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed, and I believe September 11, 2001, was a generational call to arms that we can no longer ignore.

Parsley is not shy about his desire to obliterate Islam. In Silent No More, he notes—approvingly—that Christopher Columbus shared the same goal: "It was to defeat Islam, among other dreams, that Christopher Columbus sailed to the New World in 1492…Columbus dreamed of defeating the armies of Islam with the armies of Europe made mighty by the wealth of the New World. It was this dream that, in part, began America." He urges his readers to realize that a confrontation between Christianity and Islam is unavoidable: "We find now we have no choice. The time has come." And he has bad news: "We may already be losing the battle. As I scan the world, I find that Islam is responsible for more pain, more bloodshed, and more devastation than nearly any other force on earth at this moment."

I notice something...neither Hagee or Parsley have been reported on the MSM (correct me if I'm wrong, I don't watch much MSM), but it seems Wright has been attacked on almost all of them, including Fox News.

Why hasn't the MSM focused on especially these two either? Certainly not because Obama is ahead and leading his party, McCain WON his party nomination. So why isn't the MSM railing him on his endorsements to these nut-jobs?