Difference between Obama and McCain - Page 3

Originally Posted by mojo2

You are wrong.

Originally Posted by jamac

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

Originally Posted by @_@ Artman

Originally Posted by mojo2

Smoking as a POW in captivity?

Better healthcare than many US citizens here get?

Please substantiate those claims.

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

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

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

Originally Posted by mojo2

What is racist?

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

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

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administrations pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again. I dont oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.

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

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

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

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

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

Lets fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells. You want a fight, President Bush? Lets fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesnt simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil. Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

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

Originally Posted by jamac

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

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by mojo2


Period.

Originally Posted by @_@ Artman

Get it? Got it? Good.

Originally Posted by @_@ Artman

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

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

Originally Posted by 60 Minutes

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

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

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

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

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

"Absolutely," Piro says.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/...n3749494.shtml

Originally Posted by @_@ Artman

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

Originally Posted by mojo2

He's got an impressive looking boob there.

Originally Posted by mojo2

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

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

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

Originally Posted by @_@ Artman

Nobody's perfect. But wait...



Iran hasnt invaded anyone since the nineteenth century.



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

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

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

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

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

Thursday, February 28, 2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by mojo2

Apparently your leader disagrees.


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



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



What kind of fools do you take us to be?

Originally Posted by mojo2

What kind of fools do you take us to be?

Originally Posted by Bancho

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

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by mojo2

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

Originally Posted by mojo2

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

Or you think Christianity is just as bad?

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

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by e1618978

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

Originally Posted by Bancho

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

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

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

Originally Posted by @_@ Artman

Bush on Rwanda: "A clear lesson that I learned... was that outside forces that tend to divide people up inside their country are unbelievably counterproductive."


Defense Secretary Robert Gates tells Turkey to withdraw from Iraq because their military is violating Iraqi sovereignty.

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

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


At least Israel finally starting to call it what it is: "Israel threatens to unleash 'holocaust' in Gaza"

ALL ABOARD THE CRAZY TRAIN! HAHAHAHAHA! With Mojo2 the fuckin' conductor.

Originally Posted by mojo2

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

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

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


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

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

Originally Posted by mojo2

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by @_@ Artman

Get it? Got it? Good.

Originally Posted by franksargent

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

Originally Posted by @_@ Artman

Major survey challenges Western perceptions of Islam



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

Originally Posted by SDW2001

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

Originally Posted by mojo2

Are you testing us?

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

Originally Posted by @_@ Artman

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

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

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

Originally Posted by mojo2

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

Originally Posted by franksargent

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