Where Does the GOP Find These People?

[midwinter]

TPM is reporting (http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/04/louisiana_mississippi_post.php) that the NRCC is backing two candidates in MS and LA that have had relations with White Supremacist Groups:


The Mississippi case is fairly straightforward -- the GOP candidate is a mayor who had once agreed to accept a gift to his city from a white supremacist group, then backed off. The Louisiana example is a lot more complicated, involving attempts to cover up payments connected to the infamous Klansman/Neo-Nazi David Duke.

...

In Mississippi's Second District, Southaven Mayor Greg Davis agreed in 2001 to accept a plaque as a gift from the Council of Conservative Citizens, thanking the town for flying the state flag in the midst of a controversy over the flag's Confederate emblems, according to press reports at the time.

...

In Louisiana's Sixth District, the situation is a whole lot muckier. Former state Rep. Woody Jenkins' 1996 campaign for U.S. Senate paid $82,500 to a phone-banking firm that was tied to none other than Klansman/Neo-Nazi David Duke for the right to use Duke's voter list.

This is absolutely ridiculous. The GOP is officially funding candidates with clear ties to racist organizations. How far is the NRCC willing to stoop to find candidates? Why is this not national news?

[addabox]

Of course it's national news. The liberal media has immediately run with the liberal talking points, in a desperate effort to damage Republican candidates.

Oh, wait.

[Flat Stanley]

We have very few true journalists in this country. Sell them what they want to hear.....

[SDW2001]

I don't know, maybe the same place Obama found this guy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ayers)

[midwinter]

I don't know, maybe the same place Obama found this guy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ayers)

That guy is being supported by the DCCC?!? Oh, wait. He's not and it's a non sequitur.

[SDW2001]

That guy is being supported by the DCCC?!? Oh, wait. He's not and it's a non sequitur.

"That guy" has a "friendly relationship" with Obama (or rather Obama with him). "That guy" is an avowed terrorist...not a terrorist sympathizer mind you...an actual bona fide terrorist. And Bara---ehh...Change™ hasn't had to answer a single question about him.

[midwinter]

"That guy" has a "friendly relationship" with Obama (or rather Obama with him). "That guy" is an avowed terrorist...not a terrorist sympathizer mind you...an actual bona fide terrorist. And Bara---ehh...Change™ hasn't had to answer a single question about him.

Mmmm. Bait.

Anyway.

The larger question is this: how many other people with ties to racist organizations is the NRCC funding?

[Jubelum]

The larger question is this: how many other people with ties to racist organizations is the NRCC funding?

How many other people with ties to people like Rev Wright is the DNC funding? ;)
(just playing with you, middy)

[spindler]

Actually I don't think it is a big deal that these candidates have some vague "ties" to white supremacist groups.

Look at it this way. The reason why Obama went to a church with Reverend Wright saying the stuff he did is because you probably can't find any black church where that stuff is not said, and he wanted to be in a black church.

Similarly, if you are an important person in LA or MS, you probably have done some business somewhere along the lines with someone who is a white supremacist, or someone who condones white supremacy. Just by the law of averages, it would be hard to avoid.

So just like I don't think Obama believes what Reverend Wright said, I don't think that a southern politician believes in white supremacy just because somewhere along the line they had to make a deal with or go along with someone of that ilk. It just isn't practical to avoid based on numbers.

[addabox]

How many other people with ties to people like Rev Wright is the DNC funding? ;)
(just playing with you, middy)

By all means, start a thread. We can all start doing research. How many straight up white supremacist racists are coddled by the RNC vs. how many black clergymen who speak angrily from the pulpit about the racism in America are in cahoots with the Dems.

Sounds like a fun game to me.

[addabox]

Actually I don't think it is a big deal that these candidates have some vague "ties" to white supremacist groups.

Look at it this way. The reason why Obama went to a church with Reverend Wright saying the stuff he did is because you probably can't find any black church where that stuff is not said, and he wanted to be in a black church.

Similarly, if you are an important person in LA or MS, you probably have done some business somewhere along the lines with someone who is a white supremacist, or someone who condones white supremacy. Just by the law of averages, it would be hard to avoid.

So just like I don't think Obama believes what Reverend Wright said, I don't think that a southern politician believes in white supremacy just because somewhere along the line they had to make a deal with or go along with someone of that ilk. It just isn't practical to avoid based on numbers.

Are you saying that we should find equivalency between angry denunciations of racism, even if impolitic, and racism itself, of the most virulent kind?

[midwinter]

Actually I don't think it is a big deal that these candidates have some vague "ties" to white supremacist groups.

Look at it this way. The reason why Obama went to a church with Reverend Wright saying the stuff he did is because you probably can't find any black church where that stuff is not said, and he wanted to be in a black church.

Similarly, if you are an important person in LA or MS, you probably have done some business somewhere along the lines with someone who is a white supremacist, or someone who condones white supremacy. Just by the law of averages, it would be hard to avoid.

So just like I don't think Obama believes what Reverend Wright said, I don't think that a southern politician believes in white supremacy just because somewhere along the line they had to make a deal with or go along with someone of that ilk. It just isn't practical to avoid based on numbers.

That's not what this is. One of these jokers was all set to accept money from the CCC (the modern iteration of the white citizen's council) in appreciation for flying a state flag that had the stars and bars in it in spite of a dustup over it and then someone knocked him on the head and told him it was a bad idea.

The other guy was funneling money to skinhead groups and then tried to hide it.

[Jubelum]

denunciations of racism

Spindler must be a Garlic Nose.

[midwinter]

Oh no...not again

It seems that Bruce Barclay, Republican Commissioner of Cumberland Counth, PA, got himself accused of rape by a 20-year-old man. But fear not! He's been vindicated....because when the police investigated


They didn't find evidence of rape. But they did find videotapes of hundreds of sexual encounters with men that Barclay had filmed on high-tech surveillance cameras. The cameras were hidden inside AM/FM radios, motion detectors and intercom speaker systems, among other places. There was also one at his business office. (link (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/04/all_muck_is_local.php))

Seriously. Where does the GOP find these people?

[Outsider]

That is fucking rich.

[vinea]

"That guy" has a "friendly relationship" with Obama (or rather Obama with him). "That guy" is an avowed terrorist...not a terrorist sympathizer mind you...an actual bona fide terrorist. And Bara---ehh...Change™ hasn't had to answer a single question about him.

The linkage is minimal...but it won't be good for Obama anyway.

[JupiterOne]

Oh no...not again

It seems that Bruce Barclay, Republican Commissioner of Cumberland Counth, PA, got himself accused of rape by a 20-year-old man. But fear not! He's been vindicated....because when the police investigated

(link (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/04/all_muck_is_local.php))

Seriously. Where does the GOP find these people?

The guy totally looks like Drew Carey. :lol:

[Jubelum]

Seriously. Where does the GOP find these people?

Maybe the same place these folks were found:

Gerry Studds.
Buz Lukens.
Brock Adams.
Jim West.
Wayne Hays.
Richard Curtis.
Gary Hart.
Thomas Evans.
Mel Reynolds.
Ken Calvert.
Barney Frank.
Gary Condit.
Ed Schrock.
Fred Richmond.

Seriously, let's get off the partisan faux-outrage for a moment, shall we? Both of these parties have within them people who are morally decrepit. Many of them do not care much about their duties to the American people, but use their power to live whatever life they think they can get away with.

[midwinter]

WTF is up with these clowns from Alaska (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/04/todays_must_read_318.php)?

[midwinter]

Seriously, let's get off the partisan faux-outrage for a moment, shall we?

Faux-outrage? FAUX-OUTRAGE?! Why is my outrage "faux" and others' not? HATH NOW A JEW EYES? HATH NOT A JEW HANDS?!

[Jubelum]

Faux-outrage? FAUX-OUTRAGE?! Why is my outrage "faux" and others' not? HATH NOW A JEW EYES? HATH NOT A JEW HANDS?!

Because, midwinter, I know you have significant skills when it comes to making intellectually honest arguments. The last few days have been filled with "where do they get these people" and "how far are they willing to sink" and "how many racists are they funding" ... etc. You have not responded to my post regarding Kennedy's Obam-osama, nor do you seem to see political scandals as a problem with our system and the kinds of people we elect. And then how they "grow in the job" as it were.

As I said before, many politicians, from BOTH PARTIES, are pretty far detached from their own personal and professional ethics. It is one reason why so many people are moving beyond the concept of "party." They are sick of earmarks, sick of sex scandals, sick of duplicitous bullshit from both ends of the political spectrum. Newt's six year affair... and Gary Hart, who lost his little challenge. Democrat gun control fanatics who have their own concealed carry permits and armed bodyguards. Al Gore and his fleet of SUVs. Bush talking about helping American workers, then advocating the largest amnesty to date.

I know you have the intellectual capacity to see the systemic problem, not just when it serves a partisan purpose.

[addabox]

Because, midwinter, I know you have significant skills when it comes to making intellectually honest arguments. The last few days have been filled with "where do they get these people" and "how far are they willing to sink" and "how many racists are they funding" ... etc. You have not responded to my post regarding Kennedy's Obam-osama, nor do you seem to see political scandals as a problem with our system and the kinds of people we elect. And then how they "grow in the job" as it were.

As I said before, many politicians, from BOTH PARTIES, are pretty far detached from their own personal and professional ethics. It is one reason why so many people are moving beyond the concept of "party." They are sick of earmarks, sick of sex scandals, sick of duplicitous bullshit from both ends of the political spectrum. Newt's six year affair... and Gary Hart, who lost his little challenge. Democrat gun control fanatics who have their own concealed carry permits and armed bodyguards. Al Gore and his fleet of SUVs. Bush talking about helping American workers, then advocating the largest amnesty to date.

I know you have the intellectual capacity to see the systemic problem, not just when it serves a partisan purpose.

And yet, I can't help but notice, when we are beset with the usual "here's how horrible the liberals are" threads, you are not much inclined to immediately remind us of the analogous behaviors of figures on the right.

It seems to be a pretty standard stance among "independent" types that the outrages of the left are sort of unique and typical to the breed, whereas anything the right does is just evidence of a generalized notion of how the gummit sucks, now and always, no matter who holds the reins.

This is actually a problem with the small gummit world view-- it's not a small gummit, and when you put people in charge who claim to champion same, they use "gummit sucks" as an excuse to do a really shitty job. After all, why make the very thing that is the problem more efficient or better at delivering services? That just makes government look good.

So liberal crimes are always proactive and invasive; conservative crimes are more of the "lie down with dogs" variety. Which is, I think, a very dishonest way of parsing malfeasance.

[Jubelum]

And yet, I can't help but notice, when we are beset with the usual "here's how horrible the liberals are" threads, you are not much inclined to immediately remind us of the analogous behaviors of figures on the right.

... and you say that with all seriousness after the earlier discussions and things I referenced regarding Ashcroft, Gannon, Craig, et al. You're quite simply... wrong.

It seems to be a pretty standard stance among "independent" types that the outrages of the left are sort of unique and typical to the breed, whereas anything the right does is just evidence of a generalized notion of how the gummit sucks, now and always, no matter who holds the reins.
I have stated twice now about how it is typical of the breed... the breed being "politician." Do you disagree with that? And gummit sucks a lot of the time, and has arguably sucked more in many areas under Bush than it did with the previous split government arrangement.

After all, why make the very thing that is the problem more efficient or better at delivering services? That just makes government look good.

Because their constituents respond to messages of, and demonstrations of, a willingness to reduce the size and power of government. Come to Tejas sometime during election season. More efficient running of the government, and reducing bloat and waste is a staple of campaigns.

So liberal crimes are always proactive and invasive; conservative crimes are more of the "lie down with dogs" variety. Which is, I think, a very dishonest way of parsing malfeasance.
How exactly did you get that from what I said? :???:

[jimmac]

"That guy" has a "friendly relationship" with Obama (or rather Obama with him). "That guy" is an avowed terrorist...not a terrorist sympathizer mind you...an actual bona fide terrorist. And Bara---ehh...Change™ hasn't had to answer a single question about him.

Maybe because it's kind of a nonissue.:rolleyes:

[jimmac]

And yet, I can't help but notice, when we are beset with the usual "here's how horrible the liberals are" threads, you are not much inclined to immediately remind us of the analogous behaviors of figures on the right.

It seems to be a pretty standard stance among "independent" types that the outrages of the left are sort of unique and typical to the breed, whereas anything the right does is just evidence of a generalized notion of how the gummit sucks, now and always, no matter who holds the reins.

This is actually a problem with the small gummit world view-- it's not a small gummit, and when you put people in charge who claim to champion same, they use "gummit sucks" as an excuse to do a really shitty job. After all, why make the very thing that is the problem more efficient or better at delivering services? That just makes government look good.

So liberal crimes are always proactive and invasive; conservative crimes are more of the "lie down with dogs" variety. Which is, I think, a very dishonest way of parsing malfeasance.


Good post concerning this issue.

And yes I've noticed that some who claim to not be attached to one side or the other ( " 2 D " ) tend to only see in one direction.;)

[Jubelum]

Stand back, troll, we're trying to have a real exchange of perspectives here. Would not want you to be injured in your futile attempt.
Interesting that, for someone who brags about not reading my posts, you don't seem to have a problem finding your opinion on them. :D

[jimmac]

Stand back, troll, we're trying to have a real exchange of perspectives here. Would not want you to be injured in your futile attempt.
Interesting that, for someone who brags about not reading my posts, you don't seem to have a problem finding your opinion on them. :D

Awwww! You missed me how sweet!

I was only making an observation about your tendancy toward duality.

It might help if you sounded a little more like a real libertarian. Also bluster isn't your strong suit but maybe that was the " Real exchange " you were talking about.

My " bragging " was just offering anyone a helpful tool in dealing with you in case they needed it. Besides you seem to have no qualms about commenting on my posts directed at you or otherwise.

Anyway making a meaningful connection between Obama and this guy seems lame at best.

Sorry I guess I hit a tender spot.

Oops!:D

[Jubelum]

Awwww! You missed me how sweet!
Both our lives have been better since you discovered your "ignore" list.

I was only making an observation about your tendancy toward duality.

As someone who doesn't miss a chance to tell everyone that you don't read my posts, you are either a liar or have no basis to make that case.

It might help if you sounded a little more like a real libertarian.
How very 2D of you, Constable. It's hard to find anyone who buys an entire ideology, lockstep, in 100% of cases. And thank God for that.

Also bluster isn't your strong suit but maybe that was the " Real exchange " you were talking about.
No, it was an exchange with adda, who can hold his own on a level 5-10 times higher than yours. Your "exchange" is the usual... personal snarks that contribute no insights or edification whatsoever.

My " bragging " was just offering anyone a helpful tool in dealing with you in case they needed it.
I'm sure capable people like midwinter, BRussel, adda, and Fellows look to you all the time for "help," O Great One.

Besides you seem to have no qualms about commenting on my posts directed at you or otherwise.
But, you see, I'm not the one who is excited about the "ignore list discovery."

Anyway making a meaningful connection between Obama and this guy seems lame at best. Sorry I guess I hit a tender spot. Oops!:D
Here's an "oops" for you... Not that it matters to you, but I never said anything about "Obama and this guy." I think you're looking for SDW. That was his post. It's OK, honest mistake.

Now, do you have anything to add to the discussion that does not relate to me?

[jimmac]

Both our lives have been better since you discovered your "ignore" list.


As someone who doesn't miss a chance to tell everyone that you don't read my posts, you are either a liar or have no basis to make that case.


How very 2D of you, Constable. It's hard to find anyone who buys an entire ideology, lockstep, in 100% of cases. And thank God for that.


No, it was an exchange with adda, who can hold his own on a level 5-10 times higher than yours. Your "exchange" is the usual... personal snarks that contribute no insights or edification whatsoever.


I'm sure capable people like midwinter, BRussel, adda, and Fellows look to you all the time for "help," O Great One.

But, you see, I'm not the one who is excited about the "ignore list discovery."


Here's an "oops" for you... Not that it matters to you, but I never said anything about "Obama and this guy." I think you're looking for SDW. That was his post. It's OK, honest mistake.

Now, do you have anything to add to the discussion that does not relate to me?

You are an absolute master at saying absolutely nothing.

You said nothing directly about Willam Ayers however in a reply to midwinter you indicate that you think both parties are unethical but continue to make observations about only one.

Sorry about fanning your bluster generator.;)

[Jubelum]

You said nothing directly about Willam Ayers
Nothing indirectly, either. It's OK. A simple mistake.

but continue to make observations about only one.


Um... did you look up any of these names?


Gerry Studds.
Buz Lukens.
Brock Adams.
Jim West.
Wayne Hays.
Richard Curtis.
Gary Hart.
Thomas Evans.
Mel Reynolds.
Ken Calvert.
Barney Frank.
Gary Condit.
Ed Schrock.
Fred Richmond.


I didn't think so.

[Jubelum]

midwinter... I have reconsidered my FAUX OUTRAGE comment. I'd like to withdraw "FAUX" from that statement.

[midwinter]

midwinter... I have reconsidered my FAUX OUTRAGE comment. I'd like to withdraw "FAUX" from that statement.

Very good, sirrah.

[Jubelum]

sirrah.

Wow. I have not seen that used in awhile. See if I correct myself again... ;)

[midwinter]

Wow. I have not seen that used in awhile. See if I correct myself again... ;)

I told you. I'm OUTRAGED! You can't expect someone who's OUTRAGED to be gracious.

[Jubelum]

I told you. I'm OUTRAGED! You can't expect someone who's OUTRAGED to be gracious.

That is an excellent point. :lol:

[Jubelum]

Where does the DNC Find these People?

We now have a Texan, in federal prison in Idaho, running as a Democrat (http://www.spokesmanreview.com/breaking/story.asp?ID=14557) for president.

We already know that Hillary wants the felon vote (http://clinton.senate.gov/~clinton/news/2005/2005217501.html)... how far is the DNC willing to sink to get an electoral advantage? Why are they accepting candidates from prisons? Does this represent a return to the criminality of the first Clinton administration? Will Howard Dean eat a live baby on television? How far will this be allowed to go?

;)

[midwinter]

GOP staffer freaks out, attacks Dem candidate and reporter (http://www.thestarpress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080409/NEWS06/80409025). I imagine it was probably because someone pointed out that you can't be both smug and oppressed.

[midwinter]

Meet Derek Walker (http://www.centredaily.com/news/local/story/532514.html), who's the GOP front-runner in a race to replace the outgoing John Peterson (R):


Fifth Congressional District front-runner Derek Walker was charged Thursday with two felonies and four misdemeanors in connection with an incident last August at his former girl friend’s house in Clearfield.

...

The criminal complaint, filed in District Judge Richard Ireland’s Clearfield office, charges Walker with burglary and criminal trespass, both felonies, and the misdemeanors criminal attempt, invasion of privacy, disorderly conduct and stalking.

[midwinter]

Can't they find anyone besides criminals?

Apparently not.

[SDW2001]

The linkage is minimal...but it won't be good for Obama anyway.

Minimal? He's admitted having a friendly relationship with him. He served ona board with him. He's spoken at events with him.

[QUOTE=jimmac;1241280]Maybe because it's kind of a nonissue.:rolleyes:

Holy Christ! A man running for President is friends with an actual terrorist (who says he wishes he committed more terror in his day) and it's a non-issue!??!?!

[addabox]

The fever swamps must be pounding away at this. It's got his dander up.

[jimmac]

Minimal? He's admitted having a friendly relationship with him. He served ona board with him. He's spoken at events with him. [quote]



Holy Christ! A man running for President is friends with an actual terrorist (who says he wishes he committed more terror in his day) and it's a non-issue!??!?!

Jesus! Put things in perspective!

You have heard the phrase : " Making something out of nothing "

So like you think he and Obama are going to blow something up tomorrow?:lol:

Our fearless leader is still friends with the family of the guy who plotted 911! I'd be more worried about that!

And he IS president! That didn't seem to bother you.

[SDW2001]

[QUOTE=SDW2001;1243631]Minimal? He's admitted having a friendly relationship with him. He served ona board with him. He's spoken at events with him.

Jesus! Put things in perspective!

I don't think I'm the one having the issue there, champ.



You have heard the phrase : " Making something out of nothing "

So just so I have this right: It's "nothing" that Obama is friendly with an avowed terrorist, one who bombed the Pentagon and NYC Police headquarters, etc?



So like you think he and Obama are going to blow something up tomorrow?:lol:

Strawman. Of course I don't think that. No one thinks that. What I do think is that it's perfectly appropriate to question the man's judgment for being friendly with a TERRORIST.



Our fearless leader is still friends with the family of the guy who plotted 911! I'd be more worried about that!

And he IS president! That didn't seem to bother you.

That is a lie.

[@_@ Artman]

Holy Christ! A man running for President is friends with an actual terrorist (who says he wishes he committed more terror in his day) and it's a non-issue!??!?!

Click these links, don't worry SDW, your house won't explode.

William Ayers explains how and why his quotations in the reputed NYT article (and other media outlets) were taken out of context and were distorted.

Episodic Notoriety–Fact and Fantasy (http://billayers.wordpress.com/2008/04/06/episodic-notoriety-fact-and-fantasy/)

Day in and day out I go about my business, I hang out with my kids and my grandchildren, take care of the elders, I go to work, I teach and I write, I organize and I participate in the never-ending effort to build a powerful movement for peace and social justice; now and then (and unpredictably) I appear in the newspapers or on TV with a reference to my book Fugitive Days, a memoir of the revolutionary action and militant resistance to the Viet Nam War—the years of miracle and wonder—and some fantastic assertions about what I did, what I said, and what I believe. The other night, for example, I heard Sean Hannity tell Senator John McCain that I was an unrepentant terrorist who had written an article on September 11, 2001 extolling bombings against the U.S., and even advocating more terrorist bombs. Senator McCain couldn’t believe it, and neither could I.

I’M SORRY!!!! i think…. (http://billayers.wordpress.com/2008/03/03/im-sorry-i-think/)

“We did the right thing” was taken again and again to be evidence of an obtuse refusal to apologize, proof that my various wrong-doings had not been adequately recognized. I’ve failed to fess up, I’m told, and my transgressions, then, are enduring, on-going. Without a full-throated confession, whole-hearted and complete, uncomplicated by fact or detail or even by my own interpretations, and then, without the crucial detail, saying the words, “I’m sorry,” something vital is missing.

Also, being an old fart like me I vaguely recall the Weathermen and their nasty deeds. There was a documentary on it that explains their purpose and their acts of domestic terror. Of which in most cases caused only property damage. The only time lives were regrettably (luckily, depending on one's view of them) lost were their own when they blew themselves up constructing bombs. After that incident, the group quickly became disarrayed and split up, disavowed and gone from time.

The Weather Underground, 2002 documentary. (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1847524043861152897&q=The+Weather+Underground&ei=PP4RSJDtH5O-rQLJ14msAg)

Whether the federal authorities overstepped their legal boundaries in pursuing the Weathermen doesn't matter, because I believe the charges against them were not unfounded. Neither do I condone their actions. But time heals emotional wounds and property damage. Ayers has no more ties with domestic terrorism and has become a Distinguished Professor of Education at the University of Illinois at Chicago, and a board of directors of the Woods Fund of Chicago, an anti-poverty, philanthropic foundation.

Get over your hate (or ignorance) and move on to more relevant topics.

[screener]

That is a lie.
A quick Google brought up a lot of hits,
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en-us&q=Bin+Laden+Family+Ties+To+Bush+Family&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
This one has a lot of accusations, but a lot of the links are broken or page requested no longer exists.
http://tvnewslies.org/html/bin_laden_ties.html

This one is interesting,
http://www.rediff.com/us/2001/nov/07ny5.htm
The programme also revealed that Bush and his father received fees from Carlyle Corporation -- a little known company that became one of America's largest defence contractors -- in which the bin Ladens held a stake, which was sold off after the September 11 terror attacks.
The programme said it had obtained evidence that the FBI was on the trail of bin Laden family members living in United States before, as well as after, the terrorist attacks.
That last quote makes you wonder what this is about,
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/
For six years, John O'Neill was the FBI's leading expert on Al Qaeda. He warned of it's reach.
He warned of it's threat to the U.S. But to the people at FBI headquarters, O'Neill was to much of a maverick, and they stopped listening to him.
He left the FBI in the summer of 2001 and took a new job as head of security at the World Trade Center.
Ironic?

[@_@ Artman]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/13/Hob_hos.jpg/230px-Hob_hos.jpg

House of Bush, House of Saud (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Bush,_House_of_Saud) by Craig Unger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Unger)

But in fact, the Bush-Carlyle relationship began eight years earlier when the Carlyle Group put George W. Bush on the board of one of its subsidiaries, Caterair, in 1990. In 1993, after the Bush-Quayle administration left office and George H. W. Bush and James Baker were free to join the private sector, the Bush family's relationship with the Carlyle Group began to become substantive. By the end of that year, key figures at the Carlyle Group included such powerful Bush colleagues as James Baker, Frank Carlucci, and Richard Darman. Because George W. Bush's role at Carlyle had been marginal, the $1.4 billion figure includes no contracts that predated the arrival of Baker, Carlucci and Darman at Carlyle. With former Secretary of Defense Carlucci guiding the acquisition of defense companies, Carlyle finally began making real money from the Saudis, both through investments from the royal family, the bin Ladens and other members of the Saudi elite, and through lucrative defense investments.[4]

Detailing the Bush Saudi Connection (http://web.archive.org/web/20040708051711/http://www.houseofbush.com/)

[screener]

And don't forget this,
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york091102.asp
The bin Ladens’ Great Escape
How the U.S. helped Osama's family leave the country after 9/11.

[@_@ Artman]

Unger argued this with Michael Isikoff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Unger#Biography_and_articles) also later in 2004. It was verified in 2004.

Michael Isikoff also argued there was nothing extraordinary about the evacuation of the Saudis because the Tampa airport had reopened. Unger disagreed, noting, "Commercial aviation slowly resumed on September 13, but at 10:57 am that day, the Federal Aviation Administration issued a Notice to Airmen stating that private aviation was still banned. Three planes violated that order and were forced down by American military aircraft that day. Yet the Saudis were allowed to fly on the ten passenger Learjet. … The Tampa to Lexington flight is vital because it required permission from the highest levels of our government. If it were just another normal flight, why would anyone go to a crisis-stricken White House to get permission for the Saudis to fly?"

TIA now verifies flight of Saudis (http://www.saintpetersburgtimes.com/2004/06/09/Tampabay/TIA_now_verifies_flig.shtml)

How many times has this been posted here, and how many times SDW and others ignore it is beyond my scope on my world...:rolleyes:

[jimmac]

[QUOTE=jimmac;1244226]

I don't think I'm the one having the issue there, champ.



So just so I have this right: It's "nothing" that Obama is friendly with an avowed terrorist, one who bombed the Pentagon and NYC Police headquarters, etc?



Strawman. Of course I don't think that. No one thinks that. What I do think is that it's perfectly appropriate to question the man's judgment for being friendly with a TERRORIST.



That is a lie.

No it's not. He had one of them at the Whitehouse for dinner shortly before the event. Also. Why did he fly the Bin Lauden family out of the U.S. shortly after 911 when no one could get any flights out?

I'm just asking. The Bin Laudens were also partners when " W " was head of an oil company.

Check it out for yourself. I know you porbably don't want to believe it but this was even in the movie " Fahrenheight 9 /11 ". Now you might not agree with Moore's conclusions but the facts are there.

Sorry if you don't like it but you started this.

[addabox]

Hey look, it's Tony Zirkle, Republican candidate for Congress, addressing a meeting of Nazis who had convened to wish Hitler a happy birthday! (http://www.wsbt.com/news/local/17972444.html)

Not to worry, he was just being inclusive and bringing the gospel of Jesus to all comers.

Still, he's the same Tony Zirkle who suggested that we should be having a "serious" debate about the efficacy of giving Negros their own states, so all this clearly disastrous race mingling could be dealt with once and for all.

But at the end of the day, we can note that the Nazis in question have "socialist" in their party name, so they're actually all liberals.

[SDW2001]

Click these links, don't worry SDW, your house won't explode.

William Ayers explains how and why his quotations in the reputed NYT article (and other media outlets) were taken out of context and were distorted.

Episodic Notoriety–Fact and Fantasy (http://billayers.wordpress.com/2008/04/06/episodic-notoriety-fact-and-fantasy/)



I’M SORRY!!!! i think…. (http://billayers.wordpress.com/2008/03/03/im-sorry-i-think/)



Also, being an old fart like me I vaguely recall the Weathermen and their nasty deeds. There was a documentary on it that explains their purpose and their acts of domestic terror. Of which in most cases caused only property damage. The only time lives were regrettably (luckily, depending on one's view of them) lost were their own when they blew themselves up constructing bombs. After that incident, the group quickly became disarrayed and split up, disavowed and gone from time.

The Weather Underground, 2002 documentary. (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1847524043861152897&q=The+Weather+Underground&ei=PP4RSJDtH5O-rQLJ14msAg)

Whether the federal authorities overstepped their legal boundaries in pursuing the Weathermen doesn't matter, because I believe the charges against them were not unfounded. Neither do I condone their actions. But time heals emotional wounds and property damage. Ayers has no more ties with domestic terrorism and has become a Distinguished Professor of Education at the University of Illinois at Chicago, and a board of directors of the Woods Fund of Chicago, an anti-poverty, philanthropic foundation.

Get over your hate (or ignorance) and move on to more relevant topics.

Pardon me, but you're effing kidding me, right? HE STILL THINKS THEY DID THE RIGHT THING. He thinks using terrorism to end the war was regrettable and not something he is proud of...but he STILL THINKS IT WAS RIGHT. The man is a terrorist. And you think because he's a "distinguished professor" and doesn't bomb crap anymore, it's A-OK.

Mother of God.

[SDW2001]

No it's not. He had one of them at the Whitehouse for dinner shortly before the event. Also. Why did he fly the Bin Lauden family out of the U.S. shortly after 911 when no one could get any flights out?

BIN L-A-D-E-N.



I'm just asking. The Bin Laudens were also partners when " W " was head of an oil company.

Check it out for yourself. I know you porbably don't want to believe it but this was even in the movie " Fahrenheight 9 /11 ". Now you might not agree with Moore's conclusions but the facts are there.

Sorry if you don't like it but you started this.

"I know you porbably don't want to believe it but this was even in the movie " Fahrenheight 9 /11 "

:lol::lol: In the interval between Moore's triumph at Cannes and the release of the film in the United States, the 9/11 commission has found nothing to complain of in the timing or arrangement of the flights. And Richard Clarke, Bush's former chief of counterterrorism, has come forward to say that he, and he alone, took the responsibility for authorizing those Saudi departures. This might not matter so much to the ethos of Fahrenheit 9/11, except that—as you might expect—Clarke is presented throughout as the brow-furrowed ethical hero of the entire post-9/11 moment. And it does not seem very likely that, in his open admission about the Bin Laden family evacuation, Clarke is taking a fall, or a spear in the chest, for the Bush administration. So, that's another bust for this windy and bloated cinematic "key to all mythologies."


http://www.slate.com/id/2102723/ Linky.

You know, I almost can't believe you're actually still repeating the tired "Bush and bin Laden's family" thing, then trying to claim it's the same as Obama personally being friends with an actual terrorist. Wait...yes I can. It's you.

[jimmac]

"I know you porbably don't want to believe it but this was even in the movie " Fahrenheight 9 /11 "

:lol::lol:


http://www.slate.com/id/2102723/ Linky.

You know, I almost can't believe you're actually still repeating the tired "Bush and bin Laden's family" thing, then trying to claim it's the same as Obama personally being friends with an actual terrorist. Wait...yes I can. It's you.

Nice opinion piece from Slate.

Like I said the facts are there no matter what conclusions you draw.

Well then you admit that he had dealings with the Bin ladens?

I have many links in case you don't.;)

And there's nothing tired about it. Well nothing older than say the Obama Ayers thing. You seem to thing if there's wrong doing it fades with age. Kind of like the satute of limitations.:lol:

And about the Bin Laudens I'm sure they're all just a bunch of down home people much different than that one infamous family member right?

All I'm saying is the kind of connection you're trying to make between Obama and Ayers is just as questionable. As a matter of fact there are a lot of other questionable things one could bring up about our president's dealings but I'll refrain for now.

Like I said you're the one who started this.

[@_@ Artman]

Pardon me, but you're effing kidding me, right? HE STILL THINKS THEY DID THE RIGHT THING. He thinks using terrorism to end the war was regrettable and not something he is proud of...but he STILL THINKS IT WAS RIGHT. The man is a terrorist. And you think because he's a "distinguished professor" and doesn't bomb crap anymore, it's A-OK.

Mother of God.

"WAS"

The sad fact is that you are the only one here who believes that and will not show anything he said (not out of context, mind you) he still supports domestic terrorism.

The only one here is you SDW and other people who believe this crap. Out of thirty odd people on this PO forum you're all alone. You stand alone on only a few and this one has no more legs to stand on.

Like I said, move on, this doesn't concern me anymore and neither it should you.

Sweet Holy Spaghetti Monster.

<rant>One other thing, Where Does the GOP Find These People? From the ones who support McCain. The same way the DNC stand up to a conniving bitch Hilary Clinton. Also to blame are the misinformed and misguided people who vote or support the corrupt inept clowncar of politicians we've had through the years. We have to stop being ignorant of the facts and aware of the lies. If we don't the whole political system will continue into this cycle. It has to stop.</rant>

[Jubelum]

It has to stop.

Now, Artman, you're being a little nuts here.
We could just surrender what is left of the republic... :\

[@_@ Artman]

Now, Artman, you're being a little nuts here.
We could just surrender what is left of the republic... :\

:lol: Screw the World! Riot in Denver! :lol: (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_042308/content/01125112.guest.html)

[@_@ Artman]

http://lumiere.sopheava.com/2005/0722_clownInCar.jpg

Goodnight!

[addabox]

Hey look, now Zirckle's (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/25/zirkle-rails-against-the-great-porn-dragon-and-its-influence-over-jews/) responding to criticism over his appearence with the Nazis by railing against, uh, "the great porn dragon" and how, um, the great porn dragon is ......like.....hypnotizing...... jews......?

So why hasn't the Republican Party gone on the TeeVee to explain how much they hate this guy? Do they not hate this guy? He's running as a Republican candidate for Congress, after all, which practically makes him John McCain's boyfriend.

Why doesn't John McCain denounce his boyfriend? Is it because John McCain fears the great porn dragon? Or the jews? Or both?

John McCain is covering up for white people!

[Flounder]

:lol: Screw the World! Riot in Denver! :lol: (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_042308/content/01125112.guest.html)

This was my favorite part:

We don't burn our cars. We don't burn down our houses. We don't kill our children. We don't do half the things the American left does.

[SDW2001]

Nice opinion piece from Slate.

Like I said the facts are there no matter what conclusions you draw.

I think you mean Truthy Facts, like "Bush flew the bin Ladens out of the country." Of course, this is nonsense.



Well then you admit that he had dealings with the Bin ladens?

Loose and convoluted dealings...none with bin Laden himself. In fact, he has no real dealing with the family anymore. It's an extremely weak case. His family happens be prominent and own a large construction company. It's not surprising they may have been involved in business dealing with any number of US firms.


I have many links in case you don't.;)

Your links aren't factual. They are Truthy.



And there's nothing tired about it. Well nothing older than say the Obama Ayers thing. You seem to thing if there's wrong doing it fades with age. Kind of like the satute of limitations.:lol:

And Obama has still not answered questions on it. How can that be? We're not talking about some loose associations. We're talking about a friendly relationship over a period of years...with the terrorist HIMSELF. I can't believe you'd think the two situations are comparable.



And about the Bin Laudens I'm sure they're all just a bunch of down home people much different than that one infamous family member right?

I'm not aware of the others having terrorist ties...are you?



All I'm saying is the kind of connection you're trying to make between Obama and Ayers is just as questionable.

No, it's not. It's clear as day. He has a friendly relationship with a terrorist...one who to this day thinks he did the right thing. Not the same at all. It would be like Bush being friendly with Osama bin Laden himself...or Timothy McVeigh, or whomever.

As a matter of fact there are a lot of other questionable things one could bring up about our president's dealings but I'll refrain for now.

Like I said you're the one who started this.

Actually, I'm not the one who started anything. You seem to believe that the indefensible can now be defended. It doesn't matter that he sat in the pew of a church with an anti-American, racist pastor for 20 year. It doesn't matter that the man baptized his children. It doesn't matter that he went to the million man march. It doesn't matter that his wife said "In 2008 America is a mean country." It doesn't matter that he's friends with a terrorist. It doesn't matter that he runs a campaign based on Change™ and Hope™ and then runs attack ads in PA. None of it matters, "because Americans are tired of this kind of politics."

If he means Americans are tired of questioning the associations and judgment of a potential POTUS, he's got another thing coming.

[@_@ Artman]

Bill Moyers interviews the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. (http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04252008/watch.html?)

I don't know how anyone with a soul could watch this interview and not think Jeremiah Wright is a great man.

Still waiting for S(o) D(amn) W(hat)™ to post some factual basis that Ayers is still a bomb toting terrorist sympathizer.

While we wait, I suggest others watch this interview.

Have a nice day. :)

[SDW2001]

Bill Moyers interviews the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. (http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04252008/watch.html?)

I don't know how anyone with a soul could watch this interview and not think Jeremiah Wright is a great man.

Still waiting for S(o) D(amn) W(hat)™ to post some factual basis that Ayers is still a bomb toting terrorist sympathizer.

While we wait, I suggest others watch this interview.

Have a nice day. :)


I've never claimed he is currently engaging in terrorist activity. However, he admitted doing so and still thinks he did the right thing. Oh, and how is that you get to decide how long ago "being a terrorist" counts or doesn't count?

But yeah....that was such a long time ago. We should just forget about it now. Of course, that standard doesn't apply to Bush. Or Trent Lott for his comments about Thurmond. Or pretty much any Republican. But for Obama...don't dare question his associations. It's time for Change™.

[SDW2001]

"WAS"

The sad fact is that you are the only one here who believes that and will not show anything he said (not out of context, mind you) he still supports domestic terrorism.

Who cares if he does or not? He still says they did the right thing.



The only one here is you SDW and other people who believe this crap. Out of thirty odd people on this PO forum you're all alone. You stand alone on only a few and this one has no more legs to stand on.

If I'm the only one that cares whether or not a possible POTUS has a friendly relationship with a guy who practiced domestic terrorism, so be it. And If that's the case, you're all fucking deluded.



Like I said, move on, this doesn't concern me anymore and neither it should you.

That's because you're in the tank for Obama. Nothing can touch him. Anything that comes to light about him his just another attack from McCain or Hillary, and is therefore invalid. He could be caught having a gay affair with Osama bin Laden while pissing on the flag--and you'd still make an excuse. Because he's stands for Change™


Sweet Holy Spaghetti Monster.

<rant>One other thing, Where Does the GOP Find These People? From the ones who support McCain. The same way the DNC stand up to a conniving bitch Hilary Clinton. Also to blame are the misinformed and misguided people who vote or support the corrupt inept clowncar of politicians we've had through the years. We have to stop being ignorant of the facts and aware of the lies. If we don't the whole political system will continue into this cycle. It has to stop.</rant>

Yeah, and Obama Christ will solve all of that. See, he's different. He understands us! He wants Change™ OMG I'm going to cum!

[screener]

I think you mean Truthy Facts, like "Bush flew the bin Ladens out of the country." Of course, this is nonsense.
Then why the denials?
http://web.archive.org/web/20011108145853/http://www.tampatrib.com/MGA3F78EFSC.html
Phantom Flight From Florida
The hastily arranged flight out of Raytheon Airport Services, a private hangar on the outskirts of Tampa International Airport, was anything but ordinary. It lifted off the tarmac at a time when every private plane in the nation was grounded due to safety concerns after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Local and federal authorities will say little about the flight.

``It's not in our logs ... it didn't occur,'' said Chris White, spokesman for the Federal Aviation Administration's regional office in Atlanta.
This while there was a ban on private aircraft flying.
In less than two hours, the Lear landed at the Blue Grass airport, where the passengers were met by Saudi security officials, Grossi said. He and Perez saw several private 747s parked on the tarmac with foreign flags on the tails and Arabic lettering on the sides.
From here,
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_18_55/ai_109411350
"Three private planes violated the ban that day, and in each case a pair of jet fighters quickly forced the aircraft down," writes Unger. Yet the Saudi flight, he says, was allowed to travel undisturbed.

Vanity Fair suggests that that was the result of some sort of intervention by the Bush White House. But administration sources tell National Review they have looked into the matter and found no record of such a flight receiving any special permission to fly. The sources also say that charter aviation was allowed to resume on the morning of September 13, several hours before the Tampa-to-Lexington flight is said to have departed, which would mean that the plane, which Vanity Fair says was chartered, did not need any clearance to fly.
But here, from a letter to Ashcroft from Waxman,
For example, a former FBI agent and a former member of the Tampa Police Department reportedly told Vanity Fair and the Tampa Tribune that they accompanied three Saudi men as bodyguards from Tampa, Florida, to Lexington, Kentucky, on a private jet on September 13.The FAA's ban on private aviation was not lifted until September 16,2001
Truthiness indeed.
I'm not aware of the others having terrorist ties...are you?
From Waxman's letter to Ashcroft,
At least several members of the bin Laden family who had been in the United States may have been under examination by U.S. and other investigators.Vanity Fair reported that "secret FBI documents" describe a 1996 investigation of Abdullah and Omar bin Laden, who were associated with the American branch of the World Assembly of Muslim Youth, a charity that allegedly was involved in supporting terrorism.

These documents also reportedly show that the file on Abdullah and Omar was reopened on September 19,2001 ."I In addition, Vanity Fair reported that Khalil bin Laden had come to the attention of Brazilian authorities for "possible terrorist connections" and that he was on one of the post-September 11 evacuation flights out of the U.S.

[midwinter]

I've never claimed he is currently engaging in terrorist activity.

Impressive bit of hair-splitting there. He's a terrorist! I mean, not now, but he was! So he is! Does this logic mean that you're still a Santorum supporter?

However, he admitted doing so and still thinks he did the right thing. Oh, and how is that you get to decide how long ago "being a terrorist" counts or doesn't count?

Well, you gotta love a terrorist who sends a nice note telling everyone when and where the act of terrorism will occur How terrifying!

But yeah....that was such a long time ago. We should just forget about it now.

Agreed. He's out of jail. He's a contributing member of society. He doesn't blow things up.

Of course, that standard doesn't apply to Bush.

Maybe you haven't noticed, but Bush is still wreaking havoc on the world.

Or Trent Lott for his comments about Thurmond.

That would be YOUR PARTY that did that. And Lott seems fairly ascendant these days.

Or pretty much any Republican.

Don't forget that horrible Republican Robert "KKK" Byrd!

[jimmac]

I think you mean Truthy Facts, like "Bush flew the bin Ladens out of the country." Of course, this is nonsense.



Loose and convoluted dealings...none with bin Laden himself. In fact, he has no real dealing with the family anymore. It's an extremely weak case. His family happens be prominent and own a large construction company. It's not surprising they may have been involved in business dealing with any number of US firms.


Your links aren't factual. They are Truthy.



And Obama has still not answered questions on it. How can that be? We're not talking about some loose associations. We're talking about a friendly relationship over a period of years...with the terrorist HIMSELF. I can't believe you'd think the two situations are comparable.



I'm not aware of the others having terrorist ties...are you?



No, it's not. It's clear as day. He has a friendly relationship with a terrorist...one who to this day thinks he did the right thing. Not the same at all. It would be like Bush being friendly with Osama bin Laden himself...or Timothy McVeigh, or whomever.



Actually, I'm not the one who started anything. You seem to believe that the indefensible can now be defended. It doesn't matter that he sat in the pew of a church with an anti-American, racist pastor for 20 year. It doesn't matter that the man baptized his children. It doesn't matter that he went to the million man march. It doesn't matter that his wife said "In 2008 America is a mean country." It doesn't matter that he's friends with a terrorist. It doesn't matter that he runs a campaign based on Change™ and Hope™ and then runs attack ads in PA. None of it matters, "because Americans are tired of this kind of politics."

If he means Americans are tired of questioning the associations and judgment of a potential POTUS, he's got another thing coming.

" Your links aren't factual. They are Truthy. "

Then what are yours? An opinion piece from a guy that doesn't like Moore?:lol:

You have an excuse for everything Bush! However the same rules don't apply to people you're trying to discredit.

Gotcha!;)

Well one thing this tells me is that if your side is dredging the bottom for crap like this you must be worried.

I would be to. Your fearless leader has screwed his own party.

I was talking to a longtime friend who lives in L.A. yesterday. He used to be a Bush supporter ( like many ). He agreed with me that Bush has almost run this country into the ground. In our lifetime we've never seen a worse combination of mismangement.

And about McCain. Well we also agreed that this country can't take another 4 years of the same garbage or worse.

We need real change.

But as for yourself you'll never change. You'll still be saying the same old thing when there's someone else in the Whitehouse ( not a republican ) and things are slowly starting to improve. Of course you'll blame it on something else or give the republicans credit somehow.:no:

Oh! And by the way : " It doesn't matter that he sat in the pew of a church with an anti-American, racist pastor for 20 year. "

You forgot the " S " in Years! Plural not singular.:lol:

[@_@ Artman]

Yeah, and Obama Christ will solve all of that. See, he's different. He understands us! He wants Change™ OMG I'm going to cum!

Sorry, it's not my fault you weren't invited to the orgy. :err:

[addabox]

Originally Posted by SDW2001
Yeah, and Obama Christ will solve all of that. See, he's different. He understands us! He wants Change™ OMG I'm going to cum!

I'm always struck by how this (pathetic strawman) closely mirrors that which is used to dismiss Apple products, particularly the iPhone.

The idea, of course, is to deprecate any salient reasons for preferring one thing over another as the product of mindless, irrational devotion.

That being the inverse of attributing the dislike of something to a witless, primitive animus that precedes thought or discrimination (i.e. "Bush derangement syndrome").

Hey, SDW, how great for you: everyone that disagrees with you is in the thrall of a compulsion! No discourse necessary! You just have to habitually point out how robotic and knee-jerk everyone is! Over and over and over again!

[jimmac]

I'm always struck by how this (pathetic strawman) closely mirrors that which is used to dismiss Apple products, particularly the iPhone.

The idea, of course, is to deprecate any salient reasons for preferring one thing over another as the product of mindless, irrational devotion.

That being the inverse of attributing the dislike of something to a witless, primitive animus that precedes thought or discrimination (i.e. "Bush derangement syndrome").

Hey, SDW, how great for you: everyone that disagrees with you is in the thrall of a compulsion! No discourse necessary! You just have to habitually point out how robotic and knee-jerk everyone is! Over and over and over again!

Which of course is a robotic knee jerk in itself!:lol:

SDW Sez : " I disagree with you so you must be crazy ".;)

Suddenly I......I.........feel........compelled to vote..........for Obama.........and not the right choice McCain!


The power of Obama compels me. The power of Obama compels me!

See I'm possessed by Obama!:lol:

[SDW2001]

" Your links aren't factual. They are Truthy. "

Then what are yours? An opinion piece from a guy that doesn't like Moore?:lol:

Michael Moore is a demonstrable liar. Do you really want to get into this?



You have an excuse for everything Bush! However the same rules don't apply to people you're trying to discredit.

Gotcha!;)[quote]

Actually, I disagree with Bush in many areas. I'm just not going to blame him for things that he has nothing to do with.

[quote]

Well one thing this tells me is that if your side is dredging the bottom for crap like this you must be worried.

:lol: Actually...and I want you to read carefully: I'm not worried at all. Obama will not win.



I would be to. Your fearless leader has screwed his own party.

I think you meant "too."



I was talking to a longtime friend who lives in L.A. yesterday. He used to be a Bush supporter ( like many ). He agreed with me that Bush has almost run this country into the ground. In our lifetime we've never seen a worse combination of mismangement.

And about McCain. Well we also agreed that this country can't take another 4 years of the same garbage or worse.

Color me shocked: Another jimmac personal anecdote that is supposed to mean something, but doesn't.



We need real change.

I think you mean CHANGE™!!! And what change, specifically, will Barack Jesus Christ Obama bring? Ending This War™? Giving People Hope™? Oh...I'll take Universal Healthcare™ for $500, Alex!



But as for yourself you'll never change.

Now that's just silly.

You'll still be saying the same old thing when there's someone else in the Whitehouse ( not a republican ) and things are slowly starting to improve. Of course you'll blame it on something else or give the republicans credit somehow.:no:

I'll give credit where it's due. And tell me, what policy does Obama favor that will "turn things around?" I'm curious.



Oh! And by the way : " It doesn't matter that he sat in the pew of a church with an anti-American, racist pastor for 20 year. "

You forgot the " S " in Years! Plural not singular.:lol:

See, that's what we call an ACTUAL TYPO. Posting "site" instead of "cite" is not a typo. Posting bin Lauden instead of "bin Laden" is not a typo.

[SDW2001]

Impressive bit of hair-splitting there. He's a terrorist! I mean, not now, but he was! So he is! Does this logic mean that you're still a Santorum supporter?

Wait...so it doesn't matter then? Is that really what you're saying? Does that mean if someone commits murder, that 30 years later it doesn't matter because he only USED TO BE a murderer?



Well, you gotta love a terrorist who sends a nice note telling everyone when and where the act of terrorism will occur How terrifying!

And you're using the term "hair-splitting?" Wow.



Agreed. He's out of jail. He's a contributing member of society. He doesn't blow things up.

And he still thinks what he did was right.



Maybe you haven't noticed, but Bush is still wreaking havoc on the world.

Oh lord. "wreaking havoc." No wonder you like Kucinich.



That would be YOUR PARTY that did that. And Lott seems fairly ascendant these days.

:lol::lol::lol: It was "my party" that asked him to step down. I'm glad there was no pressure from yours. Phew.



Don't forget that horrible Republican Robert "KKK" Byrd!

You mean the former majority leader who has served almost 50 years? The one who filibustered the Civil Rights Act, and then served as majority leader twice afterwards? Man they really strung up that white nig***! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd)

[midwinter]

Wait...so it doesn't matter then? Is that really what you're saying? Does that mean if someone commits murder, that 30 years later it doesn't matter because he only USED TO BE a murderer?

Hey, it was your logic, not mine. But you might begin splitting those hairs a little better by asking what the difference is between a terrorism and murder.

And he still thinks what he did was right.

And you still think invading Iraq was teh Awesome™. People can do that, you know. I mean, you're completely, utterly, wrong to think so, but hey. Thems the brakes.

Oh lord. "wreaking havoc." No wonder you like Kucinich.

You think Bush has been spreading love and rose-petals around the globe since 2003?

:lol::lol::lol: It was "my party" that asked him to step down. I'm glad there was no pressure from yours. Phew.

Pardon? The GOP turned on his ass like a pack of rabid dogs. Jesus. You'll argue anything, won't you?

You mean the former majority leader who has served almost 50 years? The one who filibustered the Civil Rights Act, and then served as majority leader twice afterwards? Man they really strung up that white nig***! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd)

Yup. That one.

[SDW2001]

Hey, it was your logic, not mine. But you might begin splitting those hairs a little better by asking what the difference is between a terrorism and murder.

Oh boy.



And you still think invading Iraq was teh Awesome™. People can do that, you know. I mean, you're completely, utterly, wrong to think so, but hey. Thems the brakes.

I think invading Iraq was the right thing to do at the time.



You think Bush has been spreading love and rose-petals around the globe since 2003?

Really, what does that mean exactly? People don't like him? Iraq? "Wreaking havoc" is absolutely over the top.



Pardon? The GOP turned on his ass like a pack of rabid dogs. Jesus. You'll argue anything, won't you?

Yeah, because they HAD to. Please tell me you can follow here.



Yup. That one.

[jimmac]

Michael Moore is a demonstrable liar. Do you really want to get into this?

[quote]

You have an excuse for everything Bush! However the same rules don't apply to people you're trying to discredit.

Gotcha!;)[quote]

Actually, I disagree with Bush in many areas. I'm just not going to blame him for things that he has nothing to do with.



:lol: Actually...and I want you to read carefully: I'm not worried at all. Obama will not win.



I think you meant "too."



Color me shocked: Another jimmac personal anecdote that is supposed to mean something, but doesn't.



I think you mean CHANGE™!!! And what change, specifically, will Barack Jesus Christ Obama bring? Ending This War™? Giving People Hope™? Oh...I'll take Universal Healthcare™ for $500, Alex!



Now that's just silly.



I'll give credit where it's due. And tell me, what policy does Obama favor that will "turn things around?" I'm curious.



See, that's what we call an ACTUAL TYPO. Posting "site" instead of "cite" is not a typo. Posting bin Lauden instead of "bin Laden" is not a typo.


Hey SDW! You sound just like you did before the 2006 election!

Remember what happened then?

The people are tired of this crap! Get over it!

Really almost any policy as an alternative to Bush's would be better. Getting out of Iraq would be a good start! That country has become an albatross around our necks!

I really like the latest from Bush : Send everyone some money and that will fix the economy!:lol:

It probably cost more than it's worth to print all those checks.

SDW it's out in the open now. Bush is a Fu@& up! Big time!

Why you keep trying to support him is beyond me!

However like I've said before I've learned that trying to point out to you what's wrong with this administration is a waste of my time. You'll have an excuse for everything. And as I said in the beginning. The president is one place that should not be excused as in " The buck stops here ". Harry Truman got it why can't you?


" Obama will not win. ":lol:

Obama, Clinton, it won't matter who. It's not going to be McCain.

[tonton]

I think invading Iraq was the right thing to do at the time.

I guess what you're saying is that given the same circumstances, you'd make the same decision. That's despite there being numerous persons "at the time" who had better foresight than you had.

There's a word for that kind of devotion to a bad decision. Irresponsibility. And that's exactly Bushlike in behavior, and exactly what's wrong with this embarrassment of a presidency.

[screener]

I agree. Except it's not just from Bush...it's a bi-partisan effort. I happen to think it's stupid too. Don't get me wrong, the SDW iPhone fund loves it! ;)
Good example for those that get a tax cut that don't really need it.
Take addabox's response to this thread,
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?t=86547
You get an iPhone, a lot get the basics.

[screener]

What's with the misplaced replies?
SDW:
I agree. Except it's not just from Bush...it's a bi-partisan effort. I happen to think it's stupid too. Don't get me wrong, the SDW iPhone fund loves it!

Good example for those that get a tax cut that don't really need it.
Take addabox's response to this thread,
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?t=86547
You get an iPhone, a lot get the basics.

[SDW2001]

jimmac:



You have an excuse for everything Bush! However the same rules don't apply to people you're trying to discredit.

Gotcha!;)


Hey SDW! You sound just like you did before the 2006 election!

Remember what happened then?

The people are tired of this crap! Get over it!

It would be nice if your words had any meaning whatsoever. It was clear that GOP was probably going to lose in 2006. I didn't want them to, because I thought that while they screwed up, the Dems would be worse. Oh look, I was right.



Really almost any policy as an alternative to Bush's would be better.

That's simply not logical.

Getting out of Iraq would be a good start! That country has become an albatross around our necks!

I realize that's a position you hold. But how we leave is very important.



I really like the latest from Bush : Send everyone some money and that will fix the economy!:lol:

I agree. Except it's not just from Bush...it's a bi-partisan effort. I happen to think it's stupid too. Don't get me wrong, the SDW iPhone fund loves it! ;)



It probably cost more than it's worth to print all those checks.

I absolutely agree. It will cost millions more by the time we pay back the $600-900 the government borrowed on our behalf.



SDW it's out in the open now. Bush is a Fu@& up! Big time!

I don't agree with that. In fact, going that far is unfair in my opinion. It's fine to disagree with someone, even vehemently so. But a Fuck Up? [/quote]



Why you keep trying to support him is beyond me!

I have been clear in what I disagree with him on. I have also been clear that I have not been happy with his second term in general. Not sure why that's "beyond you" exactly, unless of course you're just that myopic.



However like I've said before I've learned that trying to point out to you what's wrong with this administration is a waste of my time.

And it's a waste of mine. You don't make factual arguments. You don't take and defend positions. You simply make statements like "Bush is a fuck up" and "Obama will probably try to implement programs for the disadvantaged." It's all based on emotion with you. Shit, you were the one that was claiming the economy was in dire straits from 2002 to early 2008. You are totally incapable of being objective. And it literally blows your mind that someone might disagree with you.




You'll have an excuse for everything. And as I said in the beginning. The president is one place that should not be excused as in " The buck stops here ". Harry Truman got it why can't you?

That axiom can be taken to extremes, as anything can. It's funny too...you don't apply the same standard to Bill Clinton. It's only Bush that's at fault. Moreover, you'll go ape shit that I even mentioned his name.


" Obama will not win. ":lol:

Obama, Clinton, it won't matter who. It's not going to be McCain.

Then you're frankly are disconnected from reality. What do you base this prediction on...the vague feeling that "people have had enough of this crap?" The data says your wrong. Logic says you're wrong. Do the electoral math. Then tell me how Obama is going to win the election while losing PA, MI, FL, NJ, NY and the vast majority of the South, Midwest and Southwest. Hell, he might even lose CA. Hillary has a much better chance in all those areas.

The Democrats are really in a pickle here. If they nominate Obama, they screw themselves for this election. If they swipe it from him and give it to Hillary, they screw themselves for 20 years.

Have a nice day.

[jimmac]

jimmac:



It would be nice if your words had any meaning whatsoever. It was clear that GOP was probably going to lose in 2006. I didn't want them to, because I thought that while they screwed up, the Dems would be worse. Oh look, I was right.



That's simply not logical.



I realize that's a position you hold. But how we leave is very important.



I agree. Except it's not just from Bush...it's a bi-partisan effort. I happen to think it's stupid too. Don't get me wrong, the SDW iPhone fund loves it! ;)



I absolutely agree. It will cost millions more by the time we pay back the $600-900 the government borrowed on our behalf.



I don't agree with that. In fact, going that far is unfair in my opinion. It's fine to disagree with someone, even vehemently so. But a Fuck Up?



I have been clear in what I disagree with him on. I have also been clear that I have not been happy with his second term in general. Not sure why that's "beyond you" exactly, unless of course you're just that myopic.



And it's a waste of mine. You don't make factual arguments. You don't take and defend positions. You simply make statements like "Bush is a fuck up" and "Obama will probably try to implement programs for the disadvantaged." It's all based on emotion with you. Shit, you were the one that was claiming the economy was in dire straits from 2002 to early 2008. You are totally incapable of being objective. And it literally blows your mind that someone might disagree with you.



That axiom can be taken to extremes, as anything can. It's funny too...you don't apply the same standard to Bill Clinton. It's only Bush that's at fault. Moreover, you'll go ape shit that I even mentioned his name.



Then you're frankly are disconnected from reality. What do you base this prediction on...the vague feeling that "people have had enough of this crap?" The data says your wrong. Logic says you're wrong. Do the electoral math. Then tell me how Obama is going to win the election while losing PA, MI, FL, NJ, NY and the vast majority of the South, Midwest and Southwest. Hell, he might even lose CA. Hillary has a much better chance in all those areas.

The Democrats are really in a pickle here. If they nominate Obama, they screw themselves for this election. If they swipe it from him and give it to Hillary, they screw themselves for 20 years.

Have a nice day.[/QUOTE]

You said the same sort of things when the democrats were about to take the senate.:smokey:


You have a nice day also ( not too many left I suppose with a republican in the Whitehouse )! ;)

Oh! This just in : http://www.comcast.net/news/articles/general/2008/04/28/Presidential.Race.AP.Poll/


As I said have a nice day!

[SDW2001]

jimmac:


You said the same sort of things when the democrats were about to take the senate.:smokey:

Uhh...no I didn't.




You have a nice day also ( not too many left I suppose with a republican in the Whitehouse )! ;)

Yup, it's all the GOP's fault. All of it.



Oh! This just in : http://www.comcast.net/news/articles/general/2008/04/28/Presidential.Race.AP.Poll/


As I said have a nice day!

Wow. Perhaps you haven't noticed that I've said CLINTON HAS A BETTER CHANCE THAN OBAMA?

Regardless, the poll doesn't mean anything, because it's a national poll. National polls are only good for showing trends...if that. It's the electoral math that matters. In this respect, Hillary has a better shot. She'll do better in the Northeast and Midwest, and will take traditionally liberal states. The problem with her is moderates and white males. McCain is going to kill her in those demos. That puts PA, FL, OH and other swing states in question. Her negatives also remain quite high. Then there is the whole issue with her becoming the nominee to begin with. I love how dems like yourself just pretend that whomever "wins" the dem contest will emerge unscathed and unite the party. But that's not going to happen, especially if she "acquires" the nomination at a brokered convention. There will be a freaking war within the party.

So Obama can't win. Hillary can win, but can't become the nominee. Wow. You guys really know how to....eh...party. :lol:

[tonton]

Briefly caught a question on syndicated "Power of 10" last night...

What percentage of Americans think we should stay in Iraq and "finish the job"?

The answer: 11%.

McCain can't win. Against Obama. Against Hillary. Even Gore or Kerry would beat him this time around.

The "100 years is fine by me!" quote that Dean and the Dems are going to repeat, and repeat, and repeat, is going to kill him.

[Jubelum]

The "100 years is fine by me!" quote that Dean and the Dems are going to repeat, and repeat, and repeat, is going to kill him.

Apparently Rev Wright and McCain got a two-fer on "out of context (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080428/ap_on_el_pr/mccain100_years)," eh?

McCain said: "Maybe 100. As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, that'd be fine with me, and I hope it would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al-Qaida is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day."

[tonton]

Apparently Rev Wright and McCain got a two-fer on "out of context (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080428/ap_on_el_pr/mccain100_years)," eh?

Define harm. I believe the economic impact is harming Americans every day.

And would that be the Al Qaeda that's being trained by Iran? :lol:

Al Qaeda is not motivating people to fight Americans... America is.

[screener]

Seeing as Americans would be the target, just by being in Iraq,
a very volatile part of the world where al-Qaida is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day."
Doesn't make sense when he first says,
As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, that'd be fine with me,
Hunkered down in the Green Zone, never to venture out to hit the local establishments, see the sights, maybe meet a girl.

Deluded comes to mind.

[jimmac]

jimmac:



Uhh...no I didn't.



Yup, it's all the GOP's fault. All of it.



Wow. Perhaps you haven't noticed that I've said CLINTON HAS A BETTER CHANCE THAN OBAMA?

Regardless, the poll doesn't mean anything, because it's a national poll. National polls are only good for showing trends...if that. It's the electoral math that matters. In this respect, Hillary has a better shot. She'll do better in the Northeast and Midwest, and will take traditionally liberal states. The problem with her is moderates and white males. McCain is going to kill her in those demos. That puts PA, FL, OH and other swing states in question. Her negatives also remain quite high. Then there is the whole issue with her becoming the nominee to begin with. I love how dems like yourself just pretend that whomever "wins" the dem contest will emerge unscathed and unite the party. But that's not going to happen, especially if she "acquires" the nomination at a brokered convention. There will be a freaking war within the party.

So Obama can't win. Hillary can win, but can't become the nominee. Wow. You guys really know how to....eh...party. :lol:

Wow! I love your wishful thinking! You see I really don't care if it's Obama or Clinton. Both can beat McCain.

You just don't get it do you? This is the endgame. My feeling about people being fed up isn't vague at all.

Also there's not going to be any war within the party. As soon as the nomination takes place all support will go to that person. Because they will see the alternative.

Yes I can see you've got it all mapped out ( the way you'd like it to go ). And yes you were saying these kinds of things during the 2006 election. You also said the democrats would never take the senate. Well........

Keep it up SDW until the end. I know you will.

[SDW2001]

Briefly caught a question on syndicated "Power of 10" last night...

What percentage of Americans think we should stay in Iraq and "finish the job"?

The answer: 11%.

It depends on how the question is asked. Ask Americans if we should retreat and let the country be taken over by extremists, or whether should stay as long as needed...you'll get a much different answer.



McCain can't win. Against Obama. Against Hillary. Even Gore or Kerry would beat him this time around.

The "100 years is fine by me!" quote that Dean and the Dems are going to repeat, and repeat, and repeat, is going to kill him.

Again, just not based on the electoral math. It's all based on a feeling of "people don't like Bush, this war," etc. I encourage you to do an objective analysis of how the election would play out in terms of Obama-McCain, and even Hillary-McCain. McCain is likely to win not so much because of who he is, but because of who his opponents are.



Define harm. I believe the economic impact is harming Americans every day.

The economic impact of Iraq? Please explain.



And would that be the Al Qaeda that's being trained by Iran? :lol:

Oh boy. Here we go with that again. Call them AQ, freedom fighters, extremists, insurgents, whatever. Iran IS arming troops. That is the point.



Al Qaeda is not motivating people to fight Americans... America is.

That's silly. The belief that if we just pack up and go home--then hey, they'll leave us alone is exactly what got us to where we are now in the first place. We did that...for years. And we got attacked anyway...long before Iraq, Afghanistan....anything. They declared war on us and started fighting it. We just didn't pay attention.

Wow! I love your wishful thinking! You see I really don't care if it's Obama or Clinton. Both can beat McCain.

Unsupported.



You just don't get it do you? This is the endgame. My feeling about people being fed up isn't vague at all.

Then please support your position with some data. The electoral math says Obama cannot win. It favors Hillary over him. However, Hillary's high negatives and problems with white males is a serious disadvantage. That doesn't begin to take into account the next point....



Also there's not going to be any war within the party.

I actually think you're right, because Obama will win. If he doesn't, just watch.

As soon as the nomination takes place all support will go to that person.

Patently false. There will be a statistically significant number of people that will not vote for Clinton or Obama. It will be worse if she wins, but if he does there will still be some Hillary voters who don't vote...or vote for McCain.


Because they will see the alternative.

That's where I really have to laugh. The alternative is John McCain. John McCain is SEEN as moderate and mainstream. He's seen as experienced and trustworthy by the general public, whether you personally feel that's accurate or not. McCain will take Regan Democrats/moderates and the vast majority of conservatives. Game over.



Yes I can see you've got it all mapped out ( the way you'd like it to go ).

If you disagree, please post some convincing arguments to the contrary.

And yes you were saying these kinds of things during the 2006 election. You also said the democrats would never take the senate. Well........

Keep it up SDW until the end. I know you will.

Please post my statements then.

[jimmac]

It depends on how the question is asked. Ask Americans if we should retreat and let the country be taken over by extremists, or whether should stay as long as needed...you'll get a much different answer.



Again, just not based on the electoral math. It's all based on a feeling of "people don't like Bush, this war," etc. I encourage you to do an objective analysis of how the election would play out in terms of Obama-McCain, and even Hillary-McCain. McCain is likely to win not so much because of who he is, but because of who his opponents are.





The economic impact of Iraq? Please explain.



Oh boy. Here we go with that again. Call them AQ, freedom fighters, extremists, insurgents, whatever. Iran IS arming troops. That is the point.



That's silly. The belief that if we just pack up and go home--then hey, they'll leave us alone is exactly what got us to where we are now in the first place. We did that...for years. And we got attacked anyway...long before Iraq, Afghanistan....anything. They declared war on us and started fighting it. We just didn't pay attention.



Unsupported.



Then please support your position with some data. The electoral math says Obama cannot win. It favors Hillary over him. However, Hillary's high negatives and problems with white males is a serious disadvantage. That doesn't begin to take into account the next point....



I actually think you're right, because Obama will win. If he doesn't, just watch.



Patently false. There will be a statistically significant number of people that will not vote for Clinton or Obama. It will be worse if she wins, but if he does there will still be some Hillary voters who don't vote...or vote for McCain.



That's where I really have to laugh. The alternative is John McCain. John McCain is SEEN as moderate and mainstream. He's seen as experienced and trustworthy by the general public, whether you personally feel that's accurate or not. McCain will take Regan Democrats/moderates and the vast majority of conservatives. Game over.



If you disagree, please post some convincing arguments to the contrary.



Please post my statements then.

You and I both know it doesn't matter what anyone else posts to the contrary. You''l dismiss it. You'll keep on dismissing it until election day.

The republicans are dead in the water. Sure they'll get some votes. Will the next president be a republican? Nope!

Ah yeah those Hillary voters will vote for McCain!:lol:

Even the most stupid of democrats understands this is too good to past up! All 3 arms of the government democrat! No one to veto their agenda! Do you really think I'm the only one who can see this? And after the government we just had ( which I know you would give high marks for ) there's just no way they'd past this up. It's the only way to start the healing process in a big way ( yes I know you're going " Healing process? I just don't understand. " ). Trust me they won't pass up this opportunity.

But you keep the faith ( the way you did with finding the WMD ).;)

[tonton]

The economic impact of Iraq? Please explain.

Oh my GOD. It's like explaining the concept of money to a three year-old.

Yeah, SDW. Yeah. The Iraq war is paying for itself... no.. maybe you're still claiming it will pay for itself... right...

That's the ticket!

[SDW2001]

You and I both know it doesn't matter what anyone else posts to the contrary. You''l dismiss it. You'll keep on dismissing it until election day.

The republicans are dead in the water. Sure they'll get some votes. Will the next president be a republican? Nope!

Ah yeah those Hillary voters will vote for McCain!:lol:

Even the most stupid of democrats understands this is too good to past up! All 3 arms of the government democrat! No one to veto their agenda! Do you really think I'm the only one who can see this? And after the government we just had ( which I know you would give high marks for ) there's just no way they'd past this up. It's the only way to start the healing process in a big way ( yes I know you're going " Healing process? I just don't understand. " ). Trust me they won't pass up this opportunity.

But you keep the faith ( the way you did with finding the WMD ).;)


I have to say your post has crossed the line between illogical and straight up baffling.

You have not supported your position at all. I'm not even asking for polling data...I'm just asking you to make an argument in support of your position that McCain will lose. I've laid how, according to the electoral map, Obama will have a tough time. Yet you're ignoring all of it. I would be HAPPY to see you post something that makes sense.

The republicans are dead in the water. Sure they'll get some votes. Will the next president be a republican? Nope!

Again, please support that. "People are mad" is not an argument.



Ah yeah those Hillary voters will vote for McCain!:lol:

It depends on what voters we're talking about. I don't believe a good portion of Obama's base will vote for Hillary. However, Hillary's more educated, more well-to-do liberal voters would certainly support Obama if she didn't get the nom.


That said, a significant percentage of Hillary's support comes from working class Democrats, like we have here in PA. Those people, who are primarily boomers and even "greatest generation" types, are not going to vote for Obama. That means a significant portion of Hillary's supporters will vote for McCain. Do you honestly disagree with that assessment. If so, why?

[jamac]

"People are mad" is not an argument.


It is an argument to vote Republinsane. Indeed the only chance Republinsanes have to win.

[SDW2001]

Oh my GOD. It's like explaining the concept of money to a three year-old.

Yeah, SDW. Yeah. The Iraq war is paying for itself... no.. maybe you're still claiming it will pay for itself... right...

That's the ticket!

What's the word I'm looking for here? Umm...eh...oh, yes.....


STRAWMAN.

I never claimed the war paid for itself. I never claimed it didn't cost vast sums of money. But what, exactly, is the "economic impact?" Really, please tell us. The issue here is that like most liberals, you're either being intellectually dishonest about the issue...or you simply cannot differentiate between the fiscal health of the government vs. the overall national economy. Are they tied together? Absolutely. Are they the same? No.

So really..I'm waiting. Please explain how the Iraq War has caused the current economic situation. I'll even accept an answer as to what the economic impact is in general. Hint: There is at least a debatable case for both. I just don't think you know what it is.



[QUOTE=jamac;1246245]It is an argument to vote Republinsane. Indeed the only chance Republinsanes have to win.

You realize you sound like you're about 12 when you post that.

[@_@ Artman]

That said, a significant percentage of Hillary's support comes from working class Democrats, like we have here in PA. Those people, who are primarily boomers and even "greatest generation" types, are not going to vote for Obama. That means a significant portion of Hillary's supporters will vote for McCain. Do you honestly disagree with that assessment. If so, why?


Play of the Day: Clinton visits gas station for cameras (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080430/ap_on_el_pr/political_play_of_the_day;_ylt=AohA_CAVrbsEVIfoeg9 XPFqyFz4D)

Hillary Rodham Clinton, a former first lady who hasn't driven a car or pumped gas in many years because of Secret Service restrictions, joined a blue-collar worker at a filling station Wednesday to illustrate how the high price of gasoline is squeezing consumers.

The Democratic presidential candidate and sheet metal worker Jason Wilfing, 33, pulled into the station in a large white Ford 250 pickup truck, Clinton riding shotgun. Never mind that it wasn't even Wilfing's truck — he had borrowed his boss's larger vehicle to accommodate Clinton's security agent and personal assistant, who rode in the back.

Trailing Wilfing and Clinton was a Secret Service motorcade consisting of six gas-guzzling Suburbans, two squad cars and a green SUV bearing photographers and TV cameras. Several other reporters and cameramen stood shivering in unseasonably cold temperatures, ready to capture the multi-vehicle arrival.

:lol:

[@_@ Artman]

So really..I'm waiting. Please explain how the Iraq War has caused the current economic situation. I'll even accept an answer as to what the economic impact is in general. Hint: There is at least a debatable case for both. I just don't think you know what it is.


We keep feeding you the medicine (http://alternet.org/story/83555/?page=entire), but you keep spitting it out...

It is virtually impossible to overstate the profligacy of what our government spends on the military. The Department of Defense's planned expenditures for the fiscal year 2008 are larger than all other nations' military budgets combined. The supplementary budget to pay for the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, not part of the official defense budget, is itself larger than the combined military budgets of Russia and China. Defense-related spending for fiscal 2008 will exceed $1 trillion for the first time in history. The U.S. has become the largest single seller of arms and munitions to other nations on Earth. Leaving out President Bush's two on-going wars, defense spending has doubled since the mid-1990s. - Chalmers Johnson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalmers_Johnson)

U.S. Military Spending and the Cost of the Wars (http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2006/0706sturr.html)

For the past several years, the annual inflation-adjusted budget of the Department of Defense has been higher than the Cold War average of $342.4 billion per year (see Figure 1).

http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2006/0706sturrF1.gif

The money the Defense Department has spent on the Iraq war does not exhaust the costs of the war to the government. In a study released last February, Harvard policy analyst Linda Bilmes and Columbia economist Joseph Stiglitz estimated that if we include spending by the Veterans Administration, demobilization costs, and interest on debt incurred because of the Iraq war, the cost of the war to the U.S. government rises to between $750 billion and $1.2 trillion. If we add in economic costs that are not borne by the government—e.g. the lost economic contributions of reservists while they are deployed, or after they are dead or injured—the price tag for the war balloons by another $187 billion to $305 billion.

http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2006/0706sturrTable.gif


Sources: Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, "U.S Military Spending vs. the World," February 6, 2006, www.armscontrolcenter.org/archives/002244.php (see also www.sipri.org/contents/milap/milex/mex_trends.html).


Bilmes and Stiglitz also attempt to estimate the larger macroeconomic costs of the Iraq war. One source of such costs is the higher price of oil—now over $50 per barrel, vs. $25 per barrel before the war—plausibly due to instability in the Middle East resulting from the war. They argue that even assuming, conservatively, that only 10-20% of the increase is due to the war, this translates into a $25-50 billion dollar added expense. Addressing a number of other possible consequences of the war—increased security threats, higher interest rates, and opportunity costs of devoting so many resources to the war in Iraq—they conclude that even with conservative estimates, its macroeconomic costs "are potentially very large; possibly even a multiple of the direct costs," that is, possibly several trillion dollars. /IMG]

Where's Mary Poppins when you need her (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-Qmcvt6kKA)...:rolleyes:

[@_@ Artman]

152,669 veterans have filed for disability after fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20061010/index.htm).

Do note this last information was from March 2006. No telling how many have filed for disability since then.

[jimmac]

I have to say your post has crossed the line between illogical and straight up baffling.

You have not supported your position at all. I'm not even asking for polling data...I'm just asking you to make an argument in support of your position that McCain will lose. I've laid how, according to the electoral map, Obama will have a tough time. Yet you're ignoring all of it. I would be HAPPY to see you post something that makes sense.



Again, please support that. "People are mad" is not an argument.



It depends on what voters we're talking about. I don't believe a good portion of Obama's base will vote for Hillary. However, Hillary's more educated, more well-to-do liberal voters would certainly support Obama if she didn't get the nom.


That said, a significant percentage of Hillary's support comes from working class Democrats, like we have here in PA. Those people, who are primarily boomers and even "greatest generation" types, are not going to vote for Obama. That means a significant portion of Hillary's supporters will vote for McCain. Do you honestly disagree with that assessment. If so, why?

Ok you think I'm wrong. Myself and others have given really good reasons why this will happen. You of course have choosen to ignore them. But that's ok! Just watch like last time you were in denial about things. By the time the election rolls around people will be even more fed up. And SDW they're the ones who get to decide.


" Those people, who are primarily boomers and even "greatest generation" types, are not going to vote for Obama. That means a significant portion of Hillary's supporters will vote for McCain. Do you honestly disagree with that assessment. If so, why? "

Yes!

I've already told you. I'm not repeating for you any more. Go back and read my post.

By the way I'm a boomer ( 1953 ) and I'd vote for Obama in a heart beat! Not McCain ( Gak ! ). Besides he might pick " Huckelberry Hound " as his running mate and that's scary!:wow::lol:

[SDW2001]

We keep feeding you the medicine (http://alternet.org/story/83555/?page=entire), but you keep spitting it out...

Art...how in the HELL does your post address mine...even a little? I encourage you to go back and read what I posted previously and then reconsider your response.

[SDW2001]

Ok you think I'm wrong. Myself and others have given really good reasons why this will happen.

No, you haven't. You''ve said "people are mad" and they think McCain is close to Bush. You've given no detail beyond that at all. You've made no electoral case. You've ignored Dems nominating war and it's possible effects. You've presented jack shit, actually.

You of course have choosen to ignore them.

Actually, I've specifically acknowledged those points. Some peope...a significant number DO associate McCain with Bush. In addition, people ARE angry about the direction of the country and specific issues. I'm simply addressing the actual election...the process by which someone gets elected. In other words, my argument is supportable and yours isn't.


But that's ok! Just watch like last time you were in denial about things. By the time the election rolls around people will be even more fed up. And SDW they're the ones who get to decide.

Denial? My feeling was the Republicans stood a good shot at losing big. I was hoping they would not. I did not think they would lose the Senate, but that wasn't some vague "wishing for the best" feeling. I really didn't think it would go that way, mathematically speaking. But it did...so feel free to gloat while your party destroys itself.



" Those people, who are primarily boomers and even "greatest generation" types, are not going to vote for Obama. That means a significant portion of Hillary's supporters will vote for McCain. Do you honestly disagree with that assessment. If so, why? "

Yes!

OK, fine. WHY?

Facts:

1. Hillary is strong among older voters and the working class.
2. Obama is not.

All the data suggests a significant portion of Hillary's supporters (from #1) will NOT vote for Obama if he is the nominee. So, how do you disagree? Really..I can't wait.



I've already told you. I'm not repeating for you any more. Go back and read my post.

Tell ya what. You point to the specific post you're referencing and I'll read it. Perhaps I missed the part where you made any valid argument whatsoever.



By the way I'm a boomer ( 1953 ) and I'd vote for Obama in a heart beat! Not McCain ( Gak ! ). Besides he might pick " Huckelberry Hound " as his running mate and that's scary!:wow::lol:

Color me shocked. YOU'RE AN OBAMA SUPPORTER. Duh. Really...how can you manufacture the number of Strawmen that you do on a daily basis? It must be quite time consuming. I never claimed Obama didn't have boomer support. I didn't even claim that none of Hillary's boomer support would go to Obama.

I said:

Facts:

1. Hillary is strong among older voters and the working class.
2. Obama is not.

All the data suggests a significant portion of Hillary's supporters (from #1) will NOT vote for Obama if he is the nominee. So, how do you disagree? Really..I can't wait.

I really would like to summarize your arguments here for all to see:

1. People are mad.
2. McCain is Bush

That is the sum total of your responses at this point.

[@_@ Artman]

Art...how in the HELL does your post address mine...even a little? I encourage you to go back and read what I posted previously and then reconsider your response.

You're so ignorant of anyone's contribution to break your distortion on so many topics I've lost count. Which one you talking about?

[SDW2001]

You're so ignorant of anyone's contribution to break your distortion on so many topics I've lost count. Which one you talking about?

This:

The economic impact of Iraq? Please explain.

and this...you know, the one you quoted and ignored:

So really..I'm waiting. Please explain how the Iraq War has caused the current economic situation. I'll even accept an answer as to what the economic impact is in general. Hint: There is at least a debatable case for both. I just don't think you know what it is.


You have not done that. You've shown that it costs the government money. Well no shit.

[midwinter]

See, Art, this is a classic example of moving the goalposts.

SDW: show me the economic impact of the war!
Art: here. it's cost $515 billion dollars. It costs $340 million a day.
SDW: Well yeah. It costs money! Duh! Show me the IMPACT!

[@_@ Artman]

You've shown that it costs the government money. Well no shit.

Again...

For the past several years, the annual inflation-adjusted budget of the Department of Defense has been higher than the Cold War average of $342.4 billion per year.

The money the Defense Department has spent on the Iraq war does not exhaust the costs of the war to the government. In a study released last February, Harvard policy analyst Linda Bilmes and Columbia economist Joseph Stiglitz estimated that if we include spending by the Veterans Administration, demobilization costs, and interest on debt incurred because of the Iraq war, the cost of the war to the U.S. government rises to between $750 billion and $1.2 trillion. If we add in economic costs that are not borne by the government—e.g. the lost economic contributions of reservists while they are deployed, or after they are dead or injured—the price tag for the war balloons by another $187 billion to $305 billion.

It is virtually impossible to overstate the profligacy of what our government spends on the military. The Department of Defense's planned expenditures for the fiscal year 2008 are larger than all other nations' military budgets combined. The supplementary budget to pay for the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, not part of the official defense budget, is itself larger than the combined military budgets of Russia and China. Defense-related spending for fiscal 2008 will exceed $1 trillion for the first time in history. The U.S. has become the largest single seller of arms and munitions to other nations on Earth. Leaving out President Bush's two on-going wars, defense spending has doubled since the mid-1990s.

Sounds like something we can't afford anymore, or continue doing so with the other economic events that have occurred (and will keep happening).

I've shown that it costs the government money we won't or don't have. No shit.

But America Kicks Ass (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKLzClpc12A)*, no one and nothing can stop us. :rolleyes:

* I think this poet channeled you...:smokey:

[trumptman]

See, Art, this is a classic example of moving the goalposts.

SDW: show me the economic impact of the war!
Art: here. it's cost $515 billion dollars. It costs $340 million a day.
SDW: Well yeah. It costs money! Duh! Show me the IMPACT!

Shouldn't it actually be along the lines of a cost/benefit analysis?

Sort of like...A = here is what 9/11 cost the U.S. economy...
B = Here is what the war is costing the U.S. economy....
C = Here is what the cost of another 9/11 would be to the economy