# What Obama will do for us -- GDG



## Paul Johnson (May 6, 2008)

The following is a list of the wonderful things that Obama would do for us as president since he would have the complete backing Reed, the majority leader in the Senate, and Pelosi, the majority leader in the House of Representatives.

1. Attack Pakistan, our ally 
2. Talk with Iran, an enemy
3. Give Iraq to al Qaeda
4. Give Israel to the Palestinians
5. Redistribute your taxes
6. Redistribute dividends normally paid to pension funds
6. Take away your guns
7. Take away your right to defend yourself
8. Ignore voter fraud

If you can think of anything else, please let us know.


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

He cant do # 4 Israel is not ours to give to anyone ,believe me the Israelis are well funded and will start WW3 before that would happen...

As for # 7, the constitution defends us and we as a nation would never let anyone do that


----------



## Bud Bass (Dec 22, 2007)

Paul Johnson said:


> The following is a list of the wonderful things that Obama would do for us as president since he would have the complete backing Reed, the majority leader in the Senate, and Pelosi, the majority leader in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 1. Attack Pakistan, our ally
> 2. Talk with Iran, an enemy
> ...


Nice to see that you have an opinion. However you opinion is not worth much without any facts to back it up. All you are listing is a bunch of extream right wing fears which are based on the right's insecurities more then on fact. Why don't you go to some Bush blogg and list this crap where it might be appreciated. Bud


----------



## duk4me (Feb 20, 2008)

Paul Johnson said:


> The following is a list of the wonderful things that Obama would do for us as president since he would have the complete backing Reed, the majority leader in the Senate, and Pelosi, the majority leader in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 1. Attack Pakistan, our ally
> 2. Talk with Iran, an enemy
> ...


9.Take everyones first born. Its in the Koran, look it up.:razz:


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

akblackdawg said:


> Nice to see that you have an opinion. However you opinion is not worth much without any facts to back it up. All you are listing is a bunch of extream right wing fears which are based on the right's insecurities more then on fact. Why don't you go to some Bush blogg and list this crap where it might be appreciated. Bud


 
How dare you have an opinion! What were you thinking Only Buds opinion counts..go to a Bush blogg.................blah,blah,blah...

Nice of you (bud) to tell him it is nice to have one, but that it is not worth a crap.......what did I say before...kind of like saying I am really sorry you are such an idiot


----------



## Jim Danis (Aug 15, 2008)

akblackdawg said:


> Nice to see that you have an opinion. However you opinion is not worth much without any facts to back it up. All you are listing is a bunch of extream right wing fears which are based on the right's insecurities more then on fact. Why don't you go to some Bush blogg and list this crap where it might be appreciated. Bud


The majority of these items Obama has said he would do AK!!

It's amazing how the far left extremist have such short memories and no clue!! What he hasn't said he has voted for many times.


----------



## Scout (Dec 23, 2007)

You forgot those most important things.

He is going to (almost) socialize healthcare

Raise taxes during a recession (That is what helped to turn the stock market crash in 29' into a Great Depression in 33')


----------



## Jake Lunsford (Jun 15, 2008)

The absense of even rough agreement on the facts puts every opinion on equal footing and therefore eliminates the basis for thoughtful compromise. It rewards not those who are right, but those who can make their arguements most loudly, most frequently, most obstinately, and with the best backdrop.
Can anyone tell me who said that?


----------



## Bud Bass (Dec 22, 2007)

Paul Johnson said:


> The following is a list of the wonderful things that Obama would do for us as president since he would have the complete backing Reed, the majority leader in the Senate, and Pelosi, the majority leader in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 1. Attack Pakistan, our ally
> 2. Talk with Iran, an enemy
> ...


1. Bush has already been attacking inside Pakistan, I hope Obama continues to do so as he has said he would.
2. The current administration has communicated with Iran, I see nothing wrong with talking with Iran, that does not mean formal discussions over peace or anything like that, but possibly could do us some good before we blow them up.
3. Where did this one come from. Obama has never said we would give Iraq to al Queda. We will do more then Bush has to assist and make sure Iraq is better able to defend itself rather then relaying on US lives to defend a country that we should never had been involved with in the first place.
4. This is absurd.
5. What does this mean. Taxes get redistributed by every administration. It is not a negitive thing.
6. Thats a new one to me.
6? Nobody is taking away the right to own guns. And yes, I have no problem with laws designed to keep guns from the bad guys.
7. Same as 6?
8. No, Obama is not going to ignore voter fraud. I am sure he will go after the right wingers who attempt to keep people from voting, which has been just as prevelent in past elections as over registration. 

Bud


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

i saw his face on a muffin (props to Dennis Leary) he is the anti-christ!!!!!!

is that #10 or #11? hey, i'm trying to keep up......-Paul


----------



## Roger Perry (Nov 6, 2003)

paul young said:


> i saw his face on a muffin (props to Dennis Leary) he is the anti-christ!!!!!!
> 
> is that #10 or #11? hey, i'm trying to keep up......-Paul



No, the real anti christ is in office now.


----------



## cotts135 (Aug 5, 2008)

Where I come from it is more than reasonable to ask someone to prove there points with some facts. Consequently when someone just lists what appear to be talking points from whatever political party they come from it is more than fair to ask them to prove there statements. Not to do so just perpetuates myths, rumors and innuendo which benefits no one.


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

Paul Johnson said:


> The following is a list of the wonderful things that Obama would do for us as president since he would have the complete backing Reed, the majority leader in the Senate, and Pelosi, the majority leader in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 1. Attack Pakistan, our ally
> 2. Talk with Iran, an enemy
> ...


I pretty much knew where he stood on those items, although their descriptions listed here are pretty sketchy, don't you think? I'm more interested in the items on this list:

*1. Occidental College records -- Not released*


*2. Columbia College records -- Not released*


*3. Columbia Thesis paper -- 'not available'*


*4. Harvard College records -- Not released*


*5. Selective Service Registration -- Not released*


*6. Medical records -- Not released*


*7. Illinois State Senate schedule -- 'not available'*


*8. Law practice client list -- Not released*


*9. Certified Copy of original Birth certificate -- Not released*


*10. Embossed, signed paper Certification of Live Birth -- Not released*


*11. Harvard Law Review articles published -- None*


*12. University of Chicago scholarly articles -- None*


*13. Your Record of baptism-- Not released or 'not available'*


*14. Your Illinois State Senate records--'not available'*


Has anyone seen these?

Evan


----------



## sneaky (Apr 6, 2008)

"Ol Chicago slim is a fraud and already a lame duck; even the moderate to conservative democrats (you don't see them lined up behind BHO, Reid, or Pelosi do you?) in Congress are shocked at what they have witnessed from this and the gullibility of so many people across the country. The old dem guard will block him early and often. If the dem lovers out there really wanted a more effective dem president, they would have been much better off with Hilllary (do your home work on this guy....get your lazy butt off the couch and quit watching TV). I suggest to you that on Nov 4th, it is quite possible that you suckers may have pissed away $650 million and will never get your govie handouts.


----------



## RedHeadedHurricane (Oct 10, 2008)

How someone could vote for the O-dude is extremely bewildering to me. The O-dude has done absolutely nothing while in office and his past as stated above are for the most part somewhat unclear and seems to be tainted with some rather american unfriendly folk. To think that this guy has any inclination of bettering this country is completely assinine and the possibility of handing this guy the highest elected position in this country is utterly ludicrous. It is my opionion, I have to say that, to cast a vote for the O-dude is as un-american as it gets. Sorry if I offended anyone.


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/1...k-supreme-court-ruling-redistributing-wealth/


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

Paul Johnson said:


> 4. Give Israel to the Palestinians.


oh don't be goofy, everyone knows that Israel is owned jointly by the screen actors guild and the state of Florida


----------



## JDogger (Feb 2, 2003)

*11. Harvard Law Review articles published -- None*


*12. University of Chicago scholarly articles -- None*


Has anyone seen these?

Pretty hard to see things which don't exist isn't it? Oh, well... maybe not for some.

JD


----------



## Paul Johnson (May 6, 2008)

Bud,

I guess that I needed to offer more of an explanation for those folks that only listen to the Obama talking points. For example, most pension funds depend on dividends to pay their pensioners. Dividends are capital gains, therefore, taxing capital gains is the same as redistributing the dividends that fund the pensions, pensions that many retired folks (and most public servants) depend on. I suppose that I could provide the facts that back up everything on the list but then the items on the list would get lost in excess verbiage, especially since each of these items are easily verifiable.


----------



## Rosemary Westling (Jun 13, 2006)

badbullgator said:


> How dare you have an opinion! What were you thinking Only Buds opinion counts..go to a Bush blogg.................blah,blah,blah...
> 
> Nice of you (bud) to tell him it is nice to have one, but that it is not worth a crap.......what did I say before...kind of like saying I am really sorry you are such an idiot


McCains new theme song by the Beatles "I'm a looser."

PS Bullgator please take me off your span list.

Thansk, rm


----------



## Paul Johnson (May 6, 2008)

What truly amazes me is the gullibility of the American public. Obama says that he will give a tax cut to 90% of the population (including the 38% that do not pay taxes) while increasing taxes for corporations and individuals receiving more that $250,000 per year. Since most corporations are publicly owned and the owners (the public) expect a return on their investment, any tax increase will be passed on to the consumer. For example, if you increase the taxes on a company like Exxon-Mobile, they will increase the price you pay for fuel. If the price of fuel goes up, you will pay more for groceries because of the cost of raising and delivering the crops. In fact, you will pay more for everything that depends on transportation to get it to market. You will also pay more for petroleum dependent energy, etc. The list goes on and on. The real question, the question that the public is NOT asking, is: Will my tax cut pay for the increase in the price of everything that I purchase?


----------



## Bruce MacPherson (Mar 7, 2005)

sneaky said:


> "Ol Chicago slim is a fraud and already a lame duck; even the moderate to conservative democrats (you don't see them lined up behind BHO, Reid, or Pelosi do you?) in Congress are shocked at what they have witnessed from this and the gullibility of so many people across the country. The old dem guard will block him early and often. If the dem lovers out there really wanted a more effective dem president, they would have been much better off with Hilllary (do your home work on this guy....get your lazy butt off the couch and quit watching TV). I suggest to you that on Nov 4th, it is quite possible that you suckers may have pissed away $650 million and will never get your govie handouts.


I find this really interesting because many of the new Democrats are very conservative. They are from districts that may not take kindly to Obamas trying to govern from the left and this puts them at risk in the next election cycle. How they handle this, if he should win, could be very interesting.


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

Jake Lunsford said:


> The absense of even rough agreement on the facts puts every opinion on equal footing and therefore eliminates the basis for thoughtful compromise. It rewards not those who are right, but those ... who can make their arguements most loudly, most frequently, most obstinately, and with the best backdrop.
> Can anyone tell me who said that?


I added the dots to the above quote for you...


"Today’s politician understands this. He may not lie, but he understands that there is no great reward in store for those who speak the truth, particularly when the truth may be complicated. The truth may cause consternation; the truth will be attacked; the media won’t have the patience to sort out all the facts...”
;-)


----------



## Oregon Lab Lover (Jan 5, 2003)

Interesting article appeared in local paper. Written by small business owner. Shows to me how much mis-information is out there. Way too many sound bites coming from both sides. A lot like many of the political threads that get started on this site. If its my opinion then it must be true. Again this was not writen by me.


I own a small business that generates $2.5 - $3.0 millon gross revenue a year. Business is orginized in what is calles a "subchapter S" which means profits flow through to family income. So our personal income is what we pay ourseves for running the business plus any net profit the business makes.

Wages paid to employees plus payroll taxes paid on employee wages( Social Security, Medicare and some other small taxes like unemployment and workmans comp) are what is taken out of gross profit to arrive at net profit.

Bottom line: For my small business which employs 16 people we don't generate $250,000 in net profit. Under Obama's plan I would not pay any additional tax. If I saw that I might be affected we would work to minimize our tax exposure by putting away $40,000 in a 401k or providing our employees a year end bonus. We might do it by reinvesting in the business. There are always investments that small business needs and those investments would go towards reducing there tax exposure.

Obama has proposed a $3500 tax credit for each new employee I hire. A tax credit directly reduces my taxes. A tax write-off reduces only my net profit. So that $3500 tax credit is like a $10,000 tax write-off if your in that 35% bracket. Now that is a deal.

Someone like me who is in the middle zone can never seem to excape paying payrtoll tax(not paid on income over $102,000) nor do I have extra money laying around to invest in something other than my business. Someone who earns $500,000 pays the same payroll tax as me, 15%(7.5% for the employee and 7.5% for the employer, which in my case is both). So if I earn $102,000 I pay $15,300 in payroll tax. If I earn $500,000 I pay the same $15,300 in payroll tax. Now this is truly a regressive tax.

Further If I had a bunch of money to invest I could earn capital gains. Capital gains tax is 15% and there is no payroll tax on capital gains. So if your able to earn $500,000 through capital gains rather than wages your tax is $75,000. Now if you earn $500,000 in wages your tax is $190,750 (35% income tax and 15% payroll tax on income up to $102,000)

True patriots should stop complaining about paying there fair share and stop putting the burden on the poor and middle class today and our children and grandchildrens tomorrow.


----------



## Steve Hester (Apr 14, 2005)

What will Obama do for us??

Bring the country from it's knees to it's belly.


----------



## smillerdvm (Jun 3, 2006)

Steve Hester said:


> What will Obama do for us??
> 
> Bring the country from it's knees to it's belly.



I think the mess the current administration caused is going to result in the country going to it's belly regardless of who wins on Nov 4.

I for one can't vote for and reward the candidate who claims the fundamentals of the economy are strong; and brags or USED to brag that he supported and voted for Bush's policies[which have brought the country to its knees] over 90% of the time 

Tip of the iceberg regards


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

Oregon Lab Lover said:


> Interesting article appeared in local paper. Written by small business owner. Shows to me how much mis-information is out there. Way too many sound bites coming from both sides. A lot like many of the political threads that get started on this site. If its my opinion then it must be true. Again this was not writen by me.



The interesting thing to me is the fact that I have not heard a peep from McCain stating that he will eliminate the progressive tax structure in this country.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Rosemary Westling said:


> McCains new theme song by the Beatles "I'm a looser."
> 
> PS Bullgator please take me off your span list.
> 
> Thansk, rm


Not sure what your talking about...span list? Spam list?? You are not on any of my list that I know of


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

Oregon Lab Lover said:


> Interesting article appeared in local paper. Written by small business owner. Shows to me how much mis-information is out there. Way too many sound bites coming from both sides. A lot like many of the political threads that get started on this site. If its my opinion then it must be true. Again this was not writen by me.
> 
> 
> I own a small business that generates $2.5 - $3.0 millon gross revenue a year. Business is orginized in what is calles a "subchapter S" which means profits flow through to family income. So our personal income is what we pay ourseves for running the business plus any net profit the business makes.
> ...


WOW! That was written my a liberal for sure. He leaves out a lot along the way but whatever you choose to believe.


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

smillerdvm said:


> I think the mess the current administration caused is going to result in the country going to it's belly regardless of who wins on Nov 4.
> 
> I for one can't vote for and reward the candidate who claims the fundamentals of the economy are strong; and brags or USED to brag that he supported and voted for Bush's policies[which have brought the country to its knees] over 90% of the time
> 
> Tip of the iceberg regards


You fell for it. Woohoo!
THE CURRENT ADMIN(meaning Bush) DID NOT CAUSE THIS "MESS" and anyone who thinks so has their head in the sand falling for the soundbytes.


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

Obama will do for America what Vladmir I Lenin did for Russia.


----------



## Steve Hester (Apr 14, 2005)

achiro said:


> You fell for it. Woohoo!
> THE CURRENT ADMIN(meaning Bush) DID NOT CAUSE THIS "MESS" and anyone who thinks so has their head in the sand falling for the soundbytes.


woohoo is right!!! ;-)


----------



## dixiedog (Jun 18, 2007)

smillerdvm said:


> I think the mess the current administration caused is going to result in the country going to it's belly regardless of who wins on Nov 4.
> 
> Tip of the iceberg regards


Unfortunately, presidents inherit the residual effects of the prior administartion. With just a little reading (books or even magazines), you could quickly discover that the current financial crisis is caused by the massive failure of sub-prime loans. The volume of sub-prime loans which have flooded the market in the past 10 years is the result of deregulation. There really is no doubt who deregulated the housing market...it was Bill Clinton (not GWB). 

Just so you know who really caused the belly flop...


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

Lets not let Barney Frank and Chris Dodd off the hook for their involvement. Both deserve to be unelected.


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

Roger Perry said:


> No, the real anti christ is in office now.










Enjoy the intravenous Cool Aid regards,

Evan


----------



## BITE (Jun 13, 2008)

Have we as American's become scared of our shadows? Good think our dogs aren't. Maybe we should watch them a little closer and take their lead on this one. Who knows, maybe we'll learn something. They eat and drink from the same bowl, crap in the same area, enjoy the same games, and will defend you at their own peril. They might be yellow, black, brown, white, red, etc. but they don't seem to know it. They'll still lick eachother's butts and not think twice about it. At the end of the day, they work together and get the job done. 

The crap floating around today makes you long for yesteryear when we still knew our neighbor, had block parties, and could discuss our views over a beer without the self-righteous attitude.


----------



## SMITTYSSGTUSMC (May 12, 2008)

BITE said:


> Have we as American's become scared of our shadows? Good think our dogs aren't. Maybe we should watch them a little closer and take their lead on this one. Who knows, maybe we'll learn something. They eat and drink from the same bowl, crap in the same area, enjoy the same games, and will defend you at their own peril. *They might be yellow, black, brown, white, red, etc. but they don't seem to know it. They'll still lick eachother's butts and not think twice about it. * At the end of the day, they work together and get the job done.
> 
> The crap floating around today makes you long for yesteryear when we still knew our neighbor, had block parties, and could discuss our views over a beer without the self-righteous attitude.


Interesting!!!


----------



## Jake Lunsford (Jun 15, 2008)

achiro,
Please let us know what was left out of the article you said was so liberal. I was unaware that math could be liberal. I thought it was just cold, hard facts and numbers.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Jake Lunsford said:


> achiro,
> Please let us know what was left out of the article you said was so liberal. I was unaware that math could be liberal. I thought it was just cold, hard facts and numbers.


 
That is part of the problem...too many people think that way. 
Figures don’t lie, but liars figure….
Or maybe liars, damn liars, and statistics……

Reminds me of a joke someone sent the other day, maybe posted here as well.

A guy dies and goes to heaven. He gets there and St. Peter is standing in front of the gates. He tells the guy that before he can come in he has to spend one day in hell and one in heaven and then decide where he wants to spend eternity. St. Pete then sends him off to hell. When the guy gets there it is just gorgeous, all lush and green. There is a magnificent country club and all of his buddies playing golf on the most spectacular course anyone has ever seen. He spends the day playing golf and enjoying his old friends and being served by the most beautiful women ever. The next day he returns to heaven and finds it too is very nice with old friends floating around on clouds and playing harps. At the end of the day in heaven St. Peter ask him to make his choice. He tells Peter that while Heaven is nice he really, really liked hell and that is where he wanted to spend eternity. St. Peter sends him off to hell. When he gets there all his buddies are being tortured and burning in fiery brimstone. The smell of burning flesh is over powering and the agonizing screams are all he can hear. Satan comes along and the guy ask “what happened, yesterday this was paradise and a beautiful country club”… Satan answers and says “yesterday you were undecided, today you voted”.

Careful what you wish for they are all full of crap when running. What ever happened to the belief that if it sounds too good to be true…….


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

badbullgator said:


> A guy dies and goes to heaven. He gets there and St. Peter is standing in front of the gates. He tells the guy that before he can come in he has to spend one day in hell and one in heaven and then decide where he wants to spend eternity. St. Pete then sends him off to hell. When the guy gets there it is just gorgeous, all lush and green. There is a magnificent country club and all of his buddies playing golf on the most spectacular course anyone has ever seen. He spends the day playing golf and enjoying his old friends and being served by the most beautiful women ever. The next day he returns to heaven and finds it too is very nice with old friends floating around on clouds and playing harps. At the end of the day in heaven St. Peter ask him to make his choice. He tells Peter that while Heaven is nice he really, really liked hell and that is where he wanted to spend eternity. St. Peter sends him off to hell. When he gets there all his buddies are being tortured and burning in fiery brimstone. The smell of burning flesh is over powering and the agonizing screams are all he can hear. Satan comes along and the guy ask “what happened, yesterday this was paradise and a beautiful country club”… Satan answers and says “yesterday you were undecided, today you voted”.
> 
> Careful what you wish for they are all full of crap when running. What ever happened to the belief that if it sounds too good to be true…….


How true! As long as the populace can be kept *HOPE'n*, the One has a free ride.


----------



## Paul Johnson (May 6, 2008)

Jake,

I think that achiro forgot to mention is that Oregon Lab Lover is just one of the small businesses in the country and that for many other small business, the math just does not work. He also forgot to tell you that when Congress taxes big corporations, they just pass the taxes on to you so that the price you pay for the products will go up. In an earlier post, I pointed out that if you increase the taxes on big oil, the increase in cost will, in many cases, be compounded. The net result will be that the increase in what you pay for everything that you purchase will be far greater than any tax cut (rebate) that you get under the Obama tax plan. Since Obama has proposed a 4.3 trillion dollar increase in spending, he is going to have to get the money somewhere. And, we are not even considering the problems with funding Social Security and Medicare. 

To many people think that Obama is going to either give them more money to spend or fix the economy or both. The only thing that Obama is going to "fix" is who controls the government for the foreseeable future. He will make sure that the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals are all far to the left and that we now have a "living" constitution, a constitution that can be changed (intrepreted) on a whim.


----------



## mcduck (Mar 12, 2008)

akblackdawg said:


> Nice to see that you have an opinion. However you opinion is not worth much without any facts to back it up. All you are listing is a bunch of extream right wing fears which are based on the right's insecurities more then on fact. Why don't you go to some Bush blogg and list this crap where it might be appreciated. Bud


Can someone say baaaaaaaaaaah!


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

I can tell you that our small business is already discussing ways to cover any tax increases because we do make over 250K each year. My boss is not going to take the loss (raised taxes) out of his pocket. The only choice left is to cut at least one position or to raise prices. Nothing is free and raising taxes on those mean old big money makers is just passed on down to the consumer or the worker who is not making the “big bucks”.


----------



## Oregon Lab Lover (Jan 5, 2003)

achiro said:


> WOW! That was written my a liberal for sure. He leaves out a lot along the way but whatever you choose to believe.


Relative of wife is a retired President of a large Nationwide Corporatation. During our golf game yesterday I brought this article up to him. His take on it was it was true and believe me this guy is not a liberal. 
So whatever you choose to believe.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Oregon Lab Lover said:


> Relative of wife is a retired President of a large Nationwide Corporatation. During our golf game yesterday I brought this article up to him. His take on it was it was true and believe me this guy is not a liberal.
> So whatever you choose to believe.


 
Well then it must be true.
A friend of my friends sisters cousin told me they though it was liberal so I believe them :razz::razz::razz::razz:


----------



## SMITTYSSGTUSMC (May 12, 2008)

You know I heard recently that Obama is G. Bush's 10th cussin once removed what ever that means

Jus Sayen

"we are family" 

Smitty


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

Jake Lunsford said:


> achiro,
> Please let us know what was left out of the article you said was so liberal. I was unaware that math could be liberal. I thought it was just cold, hard facts and numbers.


Well for one, right at the end it talks about capital gains at 15%, Obama started y saying he wanted to raise them to 35%, then droped that to 29% and now says 25%. Regardless, it's a lot higher than 15%. In the article he says something about IF he had that to invest.

The $3500 tax credit = $10,000 thing...someone is gonna have to explain how that works exactly unless that drops you into a different tax bracket,I am not seeing it. Also, can someone send me a link to something that says that Obama has proposed this amount? 

THen there is the last line about being a patriot to pay taxes. I am so tired of hearing this bs. I say a patriot doesn't spend the country into oblivion. A patriot doesn't take money away from the folks producing income/payroll/revenue for the country and give it to people as welfare straight across the board without any qualifications except that you make below x amoutn of dollars.


----------



## Jake Lunsford (Jun 15, 2008)

we will see. i don't think the outcome is going to be nearly as woeful as some would have us believe. every election i can remember someone has been predicting the end of the world. i just don't believe it and refuse to be afraid. whoever wins is my next boss, and i'll stand up and support them just like bush. a house divided cannot stand. 
i'm gonna go read about dog stuff now.
jake


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

achiro said:


> The $3500 tax credit = $10,000 thing...someone is gonna have to explain how that works exactly unless that drops you into a different tax bracket,I am not seeing it. Also, can someone send me a link to something that says that Obama has proposed this amount?



If you are in the 35% tax bracket, if you take a $10,000 deduction, your tax bill goes down by $3500, provided that entire $10k is taxed at the top rate. The deduction in effect decreased your income.;-)

A tax credit is subtracted directly from your tax bill. So, the $3500 tax credit has the same impact on your tax bill as a $10,000 deduction.

Actually, doing a search, I'm seeing $3000 new hire tax credits. I heard $3500 on the TV. Don't have a link that shows $3500...


----------



## Grant Wilson (Feb 27, 2008)

Hey I've got #12 or is it #13?

Drumroll please...............

LEAVE INFANTS TO DIE ON A SHELF AFTER A BOTCHED ABORTION!!!!

Does that count as genocide?


----------



## Steve (Jan 4, 2003)

Rosemary Westling said:


> McCains new theme song by the Beatles "I'm a looser."


Give him credit, he is trying to *tighten* up the race


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

Considering the 'messiah's' choice of marxist professors http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/28/obama-affinity-marxists-dates-college-days/ his theme song should be the Beatles "Back in the USSR"


----------



## Oregon Lab Lover (Jan 5, 2003)

badbullgator said:


> Well then it must be true.
> A friend of my friends sisters cousin told me they though it was liberal so I believe them :razz::razz::razz::razz:


Where is the fine print disclaimer. I really missed that.


----------



## K.Bullock (May 15, 2008)




----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

dback said:


> He will cost us almost 5 BILLION in pension more than McCain....
> 
> Current annual Presidential Pension: $191,300.00 per X 26 years (to the age of 80 if he serves two terms) =$4,973,800.00........quick....someone check my math
> 
> ...


Not quite, that would be 5 MILLION not 5 BILLION
Too much Austin Powers regards


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Oregon Lab Lover said:


> Where is the fine print disclaimer. I really missed that.


 
None was needed with that post. It stands alone;-)


----------



## Illinois Bob (Feb 3, 2007)

Bob Gutermuth said:


> .... his theme song should be the Beatles "Back in the USSR"


 

http://objllc.com/USSA.htm (Link added to stir the pot)

I think after(if) Obama is President all of this split between our opinions is not going to go away.I think it will get stronger and the country(Right and Left) will just be more split apart than ever.I don't think things are going to quiet down after the election.It's going to be a looong 4 years.


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

This is a link to an LA Times article
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-video29-2008oct29,0,7568849.story

Within this article is a link to an earlier article of April 2008. You really need to look at that link as well to get a more complete picture http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-obamamideast10apr10,0,5826085.story

I think that this may help explain why there is support from Hamas for BHO.


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

Illinois Bob said:


> http://objllc.com/USSA.htm (Link added to stir the pot)
> 
> I think after(if) Obama is President all of this split between our opinions is not going to go away.I think it will get stronger and the country(Right and Left) will just be more split apart than ever.I don't thing things are going to quiet down after the election.It's going to be a looong 4 years.


I agree 100 % ...IF the Democrats control both the House and Senate and the White House and turn the SCOTUS to the liberal side the backlash may be seen for generations to come. and yes that could lead to a larger divide in our country, more than black vs white, rich vs not so rich, lab vs golden, collar vs no collar


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

Illinois Bob said:


> http://objllc.com/USSA.htm (Link added to stir the pot)
> 
> I think after(if) Obama is President all of this split between our opinions is not going to go away.I think it will get stronger and the country(Right and Left) will just be more split apart than ever.I don't thing things are going to quiet down after the election.It's going to be a looong 4 years.


It's already been a long eight years with GWB, my own nominee for the most un-American award. 

When GWB first ran, he indicated an intention to govern in a bi-partisan manner, much as he had in Texas as Governor. I was actually somewhat optimistic even though i did not suport his candidacy. He broke that promise and deepened the partisan animosities that characterized the Newt Gingrich/Clinton era. 

For those demanding a right wing ideological agenda for the country, an Obama presidency will be painful. However, most people would prefer a less ideological and less angry approach. If Obama governs from the center, as his campaign has appeared to promise, I would hope the tenor of our politics will settle down some. If he follows in GWB's footsteps by abandoning the center for an indeological liberal agenda, things won't get worse, but they also won't get better. However, the ideological right will continue its attacks no matter what simply because their positions are ideological and they would rather see our country fail than succeed through compromise. Similarly, if he follows through on his promise, Obama will be attacked by the ideological left, much as Clinton was, for being too conservative. 

Personally, I do not think either of the two candidates could be as bad as GWB. Unfortunately, it's not clear that either one is good enough to deal with the mess that Bush leaves behind.


----------



## SMITTYSSGTUSMC (May 12, 2008)

YardleyLabs said:


> It's already been a long eight years with GWB, my own nominee for the most un-American award.
> 
> When GWB first ran, he indicated an intention to govern in a bi-partisan manner, much as he had in Texas as Governor. I was actually somewhat optimistic even though i did not suport his candidacy. He broke that promise and deepened the partisan animosities that characterized the Newt Gingrich/Clinton era.
> 
> ...



Jeff,

Obama and the democratic lead congress and senate have had a minimum two years to start working on some of the so called issues you say that GWB is leaving, it is not only the POTUS fault for the crap we are in, in fact the Democrats control 2/3 of the Gov. now in my book that makes them 66% responsible. Are there any indisputable facts here?


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

SMITTYSSGTUSMC said:


> Jeff,
> 
> Obama and the democratic lead congress and senate have had a minimum two years to start working on some of the so called issues you say that GWB is leaving, it is not only the POTUS fault for the crap we are in, in fact the Democrats control 2/3 of the Gov. now in my book that makes them 66% responsible. Are there any indisputable facts here?


The reality is that the deck is stacked in favor of the President. For six years, Bush enjoyed an unprecedented level of Congressional support for his programs. He chose to use that support to pursue more and more ideological agendas. In fact, I think some of his best actions as President have happened in the last few months dealing with the financial crisis when he was, for the first time in his Presidency, forced to negotiate with all sides of the political spectrum to achieve consensus. Similarly, some of his most intelligent moves in foreign policy have happened in the last several months when the weakness of his position forced him to listen and compromise.

The fact is that almost no Presidents in our history have enjoyed overwhelming support at the time of their election. However, our Presidents are still supposed to represent all of us, supporters and opponents alike. A leader builds on their support by recognizing this and working to be a leader, not a tyrant. By contrast, a tyrant takes the power and runs, ignoring those with opposing viewpoints. I believe that Clinton earned the hatred of ideological Republicans not because he was too ideological, but because he was too successful in claiming the center in most of his policies. Most of the successes of his first term as President came with majorities forged from a mix of Republican and Democratic votes in Congress, with the most liberal and conservative members of each party in opposition. By contrast. most of Bush's successes came from votes that were almost completely split on party lines. 

My biggest fear with an Obama Presidency is that he will use Democratic majorities as an excuse to ignore opposition in the same manner that Bush did rather than to work to forge consensus. If he does that, I would expect (and welcome) large Democratic losses in the 2010 mid-term elections because the public is sick of the ideological disputes and incessant name calling from both sides.


----------



## Illinois Bob (Feb 3, 2007)

YardleyLabs said:


> ... If Obama governs from the center, as his campaign has appeared to promise...


There is not much to the left of Obama.I don't see him as even close to center.I think McCain is too liberal for a Rebublican but more in the center that Obama claims he would be.Obama has never been close to the center.Why would he start now?


----------



## Byron Musick (Sep 19, 2008)

I don't understand, seems like both sides of the political party are getting along??? If they can do it, so can we!


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

Illinois Bob said:


> There is not much to the left of Obama.I don't see him as even close to center.I think McCain is too liberal for a Rebublican but more in the center that Obama claims he would be.Obama has never been close to the center.Why would he start now?


Bob,

Maybe the difference is that I am trying to measure the center based on what people state as their beliefs in surveys and in their voting. It's possible that you are measuring the center from where you stand and that you are assuming that everyone to the left has simply been hoodwinked or that their opinions/votes are simply being manipulated.

For what it's worth, I _know_ that my own positions tend to be left of center on most issues. I am willing to assume, until proven otherwise, that those who disagree with me are relatively well informed, patriotic, moral, and thoughtful, but that they simply don't agree with me, which is just fine. And for what it's worth, I think I am relatively well informed, patriotic, moral, and thoughtful as well.


----------



## Hew (Jan 7, 2003)

> The reality is that the deck is stacked in favor of the President. For six years, Bush enjoyed an unprecedented level of Congressional support for his programs. He chose to use that support to pursue more and more ideological agendas.


I'd be curious to read your top three list of examples of the ideological agendas that Bush pursued (excepting the invasion of Iraq, of course, since so many Democrats voted for it that calling it a Bush "idealogical agenda" would be beyond a stretch).


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

YardleyLabs said:


> If Obama governs from the center, as his campaign has appeared to promise, I would hope the tenor of our politics will settle down some.


OMG! We are talking about the most liberal member of the senate. He has NEVER, not once, NEVER broken from party line. The thought that he would do anything different as prez is beyond belief! 


Even when Bush had a majority Senate and Congress the dims had the numbers and power to stop legislation. If Obama is elected the Repubs won't have that power.


----------



## Joe S. (Jan 8, 2003)

Jeff -

Three outstanding posts.

Nicely Done Regards,

Joe S.


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

Joe S. said:


> Jeff -
> 
> Three outstanding posts.
> 
> ...


HA yeah, except that most of it is opinion based on little fact or flat out wrong.


----------



## Joe S. (Jan 8, 2003)

achiro said:


> HA yeah, except that most of it is opinion based on little fact or flat out wrong.


In your opinion, perhaps.;-)

Gotta Have Hope Regards,

Joe S.


----------



## Seaforth (Feb 5, 2008)

Paul Johnson said:


> The following is a list of the wonderful things that Obama would do for us as president since he would have the complete backing Reed, the majority leader in the Senate, and Pelosi, the majority leader in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 1. Attack Pakistan, our ally
> 2. Talk with Iran, an enemy
> ...


I can think that this is ridiculous.


----------



## smillerdvm (Jun 3, 2006)

achiro said:


> You fell for it. Woohoo!
> THE CURRENT ADMIN(meaning Bush) DID NOT CAUSE THIS "MESS" and anyone who thinks so has their head in the sand falling for the soundbytes.


Is the CURRENT ADMIN responsible for anything? Please list what things they are responsible for. From reading your previous apologist posts, I suspect it will be a short list.

Speaking of short lists; care to list the CURRENT ADMINS positive accomplishments?


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

smillerdvm said:


> Is the CURRENT ADMIN responsible for anything? Please list what things they are responsible for. From reading your previous apologist posts, I suspect it will be a short list.


My point, folks like you want to sit back and blame everything on the Bush admin. This housing thing started years before Bush was in office. The economy wasn't too bad for a country at war up to the point of the banking meltdown. 



smillerdvm said:


> Speaking of short lists; care to list the CURRENT ADMINS positive accomplishments?


How about the fact that there have been no terrorist attacks on our soil since 9-11? That not good enough for ya?

BTW, yet another lib trying to argue why Obama will be such a great POTUS because Bush is so baaaaaaad.


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

Joe S. said:


> Jeff -
> 
> Three outstanding posts.
> 
> ...


Do you really believe that?

What are you lefties going to do in 7 days if the polls are as biased as most think they are?


----------



## Jake Lunsford (Jun 15, 2008)

Achiro,
As far as a lack of attacks on US soil, it's not like we had a plethora of them before Bush came into office. Not saying that 9/11 was his fault, but not having an attack is more like a historical trend than an accomplishment. And before you call me a liberal idiot like you have called everybody else, just know that I earned my right to vote over there.


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

Jake Lunsford said:


> Achiro,
> As far as a lack of attacks on US soil, it's not like we had a plethora of them before Bush came into office. Not saying that 9/11 was his fault, but not having an attack is more like a historical trend than an accomplishment. And before you call me a liberal idiot like you have called everybody else, just know that I earned my right to vote over there.


I'm pretty sure I never called anyone onthis site a liberal idiot.


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

Buzz said:


> If you are in the 35% tax bracket, if you take a $10,000 deduction, your tax bill goes down by $3500, provided that entire $10k is taxed at the top rate. The deduction in effect decreased your income.;-)
> 
> A tax credit is subtracted directly from your tax bill. So, the $3500 tax credit has the same impact on your tax bill as a $10,000 deduction.
> 
> Actually, doing a search, I'm seeing $3000 new hire tax credits. I heard $3500 on the TV. Don't have a link that shows $3500...


Just saw this, thanks for explaining it. ;-)
I would like to see where you are seeing $3000, all I found was $500 and i think that was on Obama's website.


----------



## Jake Lunsford (Jun 15, 2008)

OK. My appologies. I meant "liberal with the conotation that they have no idea as to what they are talking about." And in no way do I mean to insult you, either. I just wanted to make a "pre-emptive strike" in defending myself like Bush. lol


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

Jake Lunsford said:


> OK. My appologies. I meant "liberal with the conotation that they have no idea as to what they are talking about." And in no way do I mean to insult you, either. I just wanted to make a "pre-emptive strike" in defending myself like Bush. lol


So to you when I say "liberal" you take that as a "conotation that they have no idea as to what they are talking about"?


----------



## Hew (Jan 7, 2003)

Jake Lunsford said:


> As far as a lack of attacks on US soil, it's not like we had a plethora of them before Bush came into office.


I'd say that we had a plethora of terrorist attacks against the United States prior to 9/11:

2001 - 911 - 3,000k Americans dead
2000 - USS Cole bombed - 17 Americans dead, 39 injured
1998 - Two US embassies bombed in Tanzania and Kenya - 12 Americans dead, 7 injured
1996 - Khobar Towers bombed - 19 Americans dead, 240 injured
1995 - Riyadh bombing - 5 Americans dead
1993 - First attack on Twin Towers - 6 Americans dead, over 1,000 wounded

I'm no statistician, mind you, but the trend seems to have stopped since 911. Anyone who says that on September 12, 2001 that they thought we would go the next seven years without another attack is full of it.

PS...I wonder why Iraq is not part of the Democrat's discussion this election cycle? Perhaps it's because Iraq is well on its way to being exactly what Bush envisioned it to be: free, democratic, and a counter-balance to Islamic nutjobs in the region, and Obama, Reid, Pelosi, et al were proven to be dangerously partisan and dangerously wrong as they seemingly did their damndest to subvert a Commander in Chief at every turn. 

PPS...Does any Democrat on this site dare to make an argument that the Heller decision affirming an indiviual citizen's right to own guns wouldn't have been entirely different if Gore or Kerry had selected the last two Supreme Justices instead of Bush? Buehler? Buehler? Anyone? Buehler?


----------



## Jake Lunsford (Jun 15, 2008)

I think this is what the news does to presidential canidates. I don't like it. - achiro


----------



## Jake Lunsford (Jun 15, 2008)

I meant attacks on U.S. soil, as that was the context of my post. But since you venture to say we have not had any attacks since 9/11, I'll venture to say that I have been in a couple. 
Context is key to debate.


----------



## Hew (Jan 7, 2003)

Jake Lunsford said:


> I meant attacks on U.S. soil, as that was the context of my post. But since you venture to say we have not had any attacks since 9/11, I'll venture to say that I have been in a couple.
> Context is key to debate.


Yeah, I know what you wrote. I just don't see much difference between driving a bomb into the WTC parking garage or into the side of the USS Cole. A bombing in an active war zone like Iraq or A-stan is about as applicable to my previous point as counting Iraqi insurgents and Taliban as criminals in FBI crime statistics. But I get your point, and I imagine the distinction of what's considered a terrorist bombing against US interests doesn't matter much if you're the American interest being bombed. 

Thanks for your service.


----------



## Joe S. (Jan 8, 2003)

Marvin S said:


> Do you really believe that?
> 
> *Of course not, Marvin. It is my habit to make people think I like what they say when I really don't. *
> 
> ...


Ya' Gotta' Have Hope Regards,

Joe S.


----------



## Joe S. (Jan 8, 2003)

achiro said:


> I'm pretty sure I never called anyone onthis site a liberal idiot.


Ummm...well not _exactly_...you didn't use the *EXACT* term but the intent was pretty clear.

Just Sayin' Regards,

Joe S.


----------



## Joe S. (Jan 8, 2003)

Hew said:


> I'd say that we had a plethora of terrorist attacks against the United States prior to 9/11:
> 
> 2001 - 911 - 3,000k Americans dead _*(aQ)*_
> 2000 - USS Cole bombed - 17 Americans dead, 39 injured *(aQ)*
> ...


Good Talking With You Regards,

Joe S.


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

Joe S. said:


> Ya' Gotta' Have Hope Regards,
> 
> Joe S.


We could support your candidate just as the sitting president was supported from Day 1. But we'd have to do it without the aid of the media, which is firmly in your camp & has been for decades. 

But unfortunately we don't have a group of partisan attack dogs representing us from safe seats & will allow the party in power to foul up the legal system for many decades. That is, assuming the *Redistributor* prevails as he believes is his due as spokesman for those who contribute little to society.


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

Joe S. said:


> *To think that Iraq will be a counter balance to the Islamic nutjobs in the region in the next 5 - 7 years, at the soonest is off track. They are at least 10 years and maybe more from the point of being a political, economic, or military force in the region...and by Iran will have all the HEU (not HEW) it needs.*
> 
> *But again, we get to the ends justifying the means. 50 years from now, IF Iraq is a free and democratic country, will it have been worth the 5K killed, +35K wounded, and $10Billion a month to do it?*
> Joe S.


Did any of us really believe that it would all be over in a matter of days, weeks or months?

An entire generation (or more) lived under a despotic government. Readjusting to making decisions as an individual and overcoming internal conflicts is not something that can occur overnight. It takes much longer than that.

Even the U.S., with less ethnic diversity at the time, fought an horrific civil war to overcome the different opinions on slavery. The difference was there was no country at that time who could or wanted to intervene. It might well have even been that some European countries might have been quite happy to watch the Union dissolve and open the opportunity to them for parcelling out the wealth of the North American continent again.

There has been a lot of violence associated with the evolution of the U.S. --- unionization of the workplace; suffragettes; the civil rights movement. We should not be too quick to judge the struggle of the Iraqis to come to grips with freedom.

I'm not condoning violence, just stating that our own country's history is not free of violence among ourselves in seeking greater freedoms. The invasion of Iraq may have been ill-advised, but if we created chaos we may also have a responsibility to clean up our mess as best we can. I'm not sure that leaving the Iraqis to fight it out themselves is the answer. Nor do I have the wisdom to see into the future as to what strategy will work best to make the best out of what is now a very chaotic situation with least loss of more American lives. I have an aversion to: "Well, we screwed this up, so let's go home & let them figure it out." It just doesn't seem fair to anyone ... either the Iraqi citizens or the Americans who died there.

I do believe the U.S. should not make the mistake it made in Viet Nam. There should be a zero tolerance level for corruption in the local government. Might not be a bad idea if we applied the same to our own government as well!


----------



## Jake Lunsford (Jun 15, 2008)

Well said, Gerry.


----------



## Steve Hester (Apr 14, 2005)

Jake Lunsford said:


> Well said, Gerry.


Except the statement implying that the Civil War was fought over slavery. That's not true.


----------



## Jake Lunsford (Jun 15, 2008)

agreed 
7,8,9,10 (posts have to be 10 characters)


----------



## smillerdvm (Jun 3, 2006)

achiro said:


> My point, folks like you want to sit back and blame everything on the Bush admin. This housing thing started years before Bush was in office. The economy wasn't too bad for a country at war up to the point of the banking meltdown.
> 
> 
> How about the fact that there have been no terrorist attacks on our soil since 9-11? That not good enough for ya?
> ...


----------



## Joe S. (Jan 8, 2003)

Gerry Clinchy said:


> Did any of us really believe that it would all be over in a matter of days, weeks or months?


It didn't really matter what "any of us really" believed at the time. The President, Vice President, Secretary of Defense, US of Defense and the NSA all seemed to think so and said so, in public and on the record, I think.

Kind Regards,

Joe S.


----------



## Joe S. (Jan 8, 2003)

Gerry Clinchy said:


> Did any of us really believe that it would all be over in a matter of days, weeks or months?
> 
> An entire generation (or more) lived under a despotic government. Readjusting to making decisions as an individual and overcoming internal conflicts is not something that can occur overnight. It takes much longer than that.
> 
> ...


You do recognize the difference between what happened in the US Civil War and the invasion of Iraq, right? We were not invaded by a foriegn power in an effort to force us to change our style of government.

I have an adversion to the same thing you have an adversion to, we broke it, we bought it. My adversion is simply to being there in the first place.

Kinder Regards,

Joe S.


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

Steve Hester said:


> Except the statement implying that the Civil War was fought over slavery. That's not true.


There was more to it than that, of course, but the point was really that we had a horrific civil war to resolve our differences. And that was in a country that had existed for less than 100 years. The Iraqi religious/ethnic factions go back much longer. Unifying those factions cannot be expected to be a short-term effort.

I think we forget how "young" the U.S. really is compared to much older civilizations. I do believe that influences our cultural nature, which tends to be "impatient" with other cultures and with their slower evolution. The culture that is present in Iraq took thousands of years to become whatever it is today. Its roots, however, are very different from the upstart character of the young U.S. US presence may be able to accelerate the evolution toward freedoms we have, but it still is likely to take a longer time than our own cultural perspective envisions.

Even now, as we speak of this presidential, there is an impatience with seeking "instant" change. We really all know (as has been expressed by others) that the present economic situation took many more years to evolve than is readily evident. So we should hardly expect it to be "fixed" in a year ... but we keep hoping that will happen even though it may not be a realistic hope.


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

Gerry Clinchy said:


> I think we forget how "young" the U.S. really is compared to much older civilizations. I do believe that influences our cultural nature, which tends to be "impatient" with other cultures and with their slower evolution. The culture that is present in Iraq took thousands of years to become whatever it is today. Its roots, however, are very different from the upstart character of the young U.S. US presence may be able to accelerate the evolution toward freedoms we have, but it still is likely to take a longer time than our own cultural perspective envisions.


There is a Michener book about this - I think it is "*The Source*" - it's been a while since I read it but it showed me why animosity exists in that part of the world.


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

Joe S. said:


> You do recognize the difference between what happened in the US Civil War and the invasion of Iraq, right? We were not invaded by a foriegn power in an effort to force us to change our style of government.
> 
> I have an adversion to the same thing you have an adversion to, we broke it, we bought it. My adversion is simply to being there in the first place.
> 
> ...


Most certainly I do recognize the difference between our civil war and the invasion of Iraq. 

The point was that we are critical of the violence of the Iraqis against each other (which, of course, complicates what the US may have hoped to accomplish by its presence there). The violence between Sunni and Shiites has been around a long while. The U.S. has had tumult in its history. The violence we see there now is not just against the US. There is also the element of "civil war" between those factions. It is often the case that despotic governments keep such violence "contained" through a heavy hand on the populace. I believe that many people are critical of the fact that the Iraqis have these factional disputes rather than join together to rebuild their country. I don't think that most of us understand fully the deep roots of these factional disputes. It will take a long time to overcome that and create unity of purpose.

The aversion to being in Iraq in the first place ... fortunately I was not one of those in Congress who had to cast a vote for it. I don't think that I, even now, really have all the facts. That's just me. Others may feel differently.

It did occur to me that Saddam might have wanted outsiders to think he had weapons of mass destruction, to instill fear in his neighbors and beyond. If he succeeded in this, it seems he had not anticipated how it could backfire on him.

Was that decision to invade Iraq right or wrong? I can't be sure. Evidently, at the time there were many in Congress who believed it was the right thing to do who have since changed their opinion. It's possible only history will be able to judge.


----------



## brian breuer (Jul 12, 2003)

Hew said:


> I'd say that we had a plethora of terrorist attacks against the United States prior to 9/11:
> 
> 2001 - 911 - 3,000k Americans dead
> 2000 - USS Cole bombed - 17 Americans dead, 39 injured
> ...


----------



## Steve Hester (Apr 14, 2005)

brian breuer said:


> Hew said:
> 
> 
> > I'd say that we had a plethora of terrorist attacks against the United States prior to 9/11:
> ...


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Don't forget the bombing at London's Heatherow airport and the train bombing in Spain....both al Qaeda, but not on our soil.....and I would be remiss if I didn't bring up the MULTIPLE airliner bombing plot that MI6 diffused in London.....more innocent lives saved, many Americans likely among that number.

As for the gallant US soldiers (coalition ones, too) that have died since March '03, the mission they accomplished HAS kept us safe, regardless of your unwillingness to see it, Brian. Read the recent casualty stats and you'll see that Iraq is barely a skirmish war now. That will surely change as soon as we pull out, but at least they won't be American dead, right Brian?

kg


----------



## Tom H. (May 17, 2005)

Can ya'll say 12-21-2012 

According to the Mayan calander we're all dead anyway regards -
________
Top Portable Vaporizer


----------



## Hew (Jan 7, 2003)

*



True. Your post seems to suggest that the ends justify the means. Do you really feel that way, John?


Click to expand...

*Hmmm...I intended it to suggest that there was a long list of terror attacks against the United States prior to 911 and that there hasn't been any since. But if you're asking me if retaliating against the folks who have killed thousands of Americans in the past is an appropriate means to stop them from killing thousands more in the future, then I would say yes. If you're asking me if I gnash my teeth and wail about the Patriot Act, Gitmo, waterboarding three high level terrorists, or the detention of two putative US citizens without charge, then the answer is no. If you're asking me if I think that you should put the "means" in historical context of the cost of other wars we've fought, 100,000 interred Japanese-Americans, mass censorship, peaceful demonstrations of our citizens ended with brute force by the govt., suspension of habeas corpus and the imprisonment or deportation of folks who disagreed with our govt., then that's a big YES. 

*



Aren't you, as one of the most logical of the right-wingers on this board, at least struck by the irony of a pre-emptive invasion and occupation of another country in order to spread democracy. Come on John, be honest.

Click to expand...

*Let's not rewrite history. Iraq wasn't invaded solely for spreading democracy. 

*



You do know that many Democrats own guns, right?

Senator Webb (D-Va) is running a pro-Obama, pro-gun add in my area of Virginia. He is kicking Senator McCain's tail with it.

Click to expand...

*Sure I know that many Democrats own guns. That's why I directed my question to the Democrats who post here. I'm glad to see that the ones who post here have the intellectual honesty to not bother trying to disagree that the Heller decision would have been reversed had Gore or Kerry selected the last two justices. Does Jim Webb admit that to the gun owners of Virginia in his "tail kickin'" add? I'm guessing not so much.


----------



## brian breuer (Jul 12, 2003)

Steve Hester said:


> brian breuer said:
> 
> 
> > That's really cute........
> ...


----------



## Joe S. (Jan 8, 2003)

K G said:


> Don't forget the bombing at London's Heatherow airport and the train bombing in Spain....both al Qaeda, but not on our soil.....and I would be remiss if I didn't bring up the MULTIPLE airliner bombing plot that MI6 diffused in London.....more innocent lives saved, many Americans likely among that number.
> 
> As for the gallant US soldiers (coalition ones, too) that have died since March '03, the mission they accomplished HAS kept us safe, regardless of your unwillingness to see it, Brian. Read the recent casualty stats and you'll see that Iraq is barely a skirmish war now. That will surely change as soon as we pull out, but at least they won't be American dead, right Brian?
> 
> kg


Keith,

aQ. aQ. aQ. aQ. aQ.

aQ wasn't in Iraq until we were there. That, then, begs the question if we weren't there, would our gallant US and coalition service member still be alive and what could we have done here at home with $10Billion a month? The Iraq invasion has done precious little to end the GWoT. Keep in mind that our President has said words to the effect that there is little reason to think that those aQ members fighting in Iraq would be fighting in the USA.

I think when we eventually pull out of Iraq, or are asked to leave by the Iraqi government as they have signaled they are going to do, there will certainly be an increase in dead Iraqis but it won't be from aQ, it will be because of a return to the religious-based bloodshed that has existed in that area of the world for thousands of years.

And you are correct, Keith, at least they won't be American dead.

Take Care Regards,

Joe S.


----------



## brian breuer (Jul 12, 2003)

K G said:


> Don't forget the bombing at London's Heatherow airport and the train bombing in Spain....both al Qaeda, but not on our soil.....and I would be remiss if I didn't bring up the MULTIPLE airliner bombing plot that MI6 diffused in London.....more innocent lives saved, many Americans likely among that number.
> 
> As for the gallant US soldiers (coalition ones, too) that have died since March '03, the mission they accomplished HAS kept us safe, regardless of your unwillingness to see it, Brian. Read the recent casualty stats and you'll see that Iraq is barely a skirmish war now. That will surely change as soon as we pull out, but at least they won't be American dead, right Brian?
> 
> kg


Hew brought up US attacks on Americans and said the trend had stopped since 911. That clearly is wrong. This mission in Iraq keeping the US safe is your opinion. I would think the majority of the US would disagree. 

Now, as far as people that are not US citizens. don't tell me what I care about. You don't know. That wasn't the discussion. 

One will never know the amount killed by this war vs if Saddam would have been left in power. He was an evil man but the country was fairly stable.


----------



## Joe S. (Jan 8, 2003)

Hew said:


> Hmmm...I intended it to suggest that there was a long list of terror attacks against the United States prior to 911 and that there hasn't been any since.
> 
> *OK. We agree.*
> 
> ...


So Please Tell Me More About The Fishing Regards,

Joe S.


----------



## Steve Hester (Apr 14, 2005)

brian breuer said:


> Steve Hester said:
> 
> 
> > No. It is sad. Do not our troops count in your opinion?
> ...


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

Joe S. said:


> *Say, John, I may have missed your response but I think I asked if the War in Iraq was so effective, why aren't the Republicans using it more? Did I miss that? *:wink:
> Joe S.


I'm not John , but there is no question that the war is a mostly unpopular one at this point in time. Had the eleection taken place the day after the troops arrived in Baghdad, popular opinion would have been decidedly different, I think.

I don't think the success of this military effort can be judged solely by the popular opinion of the present situation nor by the popular opinion of that earlier time. The success or failure will be based on the longer-term results.

Similarly, Obama might use his association with ACORN as one of his successful ventures in his career, but he does not mention them much in his speeches in view of the prosecution of the group in multiple states for their questionable voter registration measures. He mentions that Ayres is considered a respected educator today; but he does not mention that the Annenberg project based on Ayres' hypothesis failed in its goals when it was ultimately completed and evaluated.

So, it seems reasonable that the McCain campaign has referred to the success of the "surge", and points to his disagreement with the way the Iraqi military effort was conducted prior to the surge. 

As with many things in history (and in our own personal lives), few events are easily painted all black or all white. Of course, political campaigns do attempt to make it seem that we only need to see black or white


----------



## brian breuer (Jul 12, 2003)

Steve Hester said:


> brian breuer said:
> 
> 
> > Hew was talking about terrorist attacks on the U.S. That was clear to anyone who can read. He wasn't talking about the Iraq war. What's sad is that the troops who have died in Iraq will have died in vain when Obama pulls out all the troops prematurely. It will be another Viet Nam, where the America doesn't finish the job it has started.
> ...


----------



## Matt McKenzie (Oct 9, 2004)

Brian,
Here's how it's different. The USS Cole pulled into Yemen to refuel. This was part of a political, diplomatic process of attempting to normalize relations with a state sponsor of terrorism. When those Sailors pulled into port, they were not involved in combat operations. They expected to refuel and restock the ship and get underway again on a non-combat mission. A group of terrorists pulled a small craft alongside the ship and detonated a bomb. This was a terrorist attack on a US asset. 
The Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, Airmen and Coasties in Iraq are involved in an ongoing conflict and the majority of casualties have resulted from combat operations. We are at war. At the time of the bombing of the USS Cole, we were also at war, but few Americans realized it and only a very few were willing to verbalize it.
Hope that helps.


----------



## dixiedog (Jun 18, 2007)

Steve Hester said:


> Except the statement implying that the Civil War was fought over slavery. That's not true.


You are correct, and thank you for setting the record straight about a war fought over state's rights.


----------



## dixiedog (Jun 18, 2007)

Joe S. said:


> You do recognize the difference between what happened in the US Civil War and the invasion of Iraq, right? We were not invaded by a foriegn power in an effort to force us to change our style of government.
> 
> Kinder Regards,
> 
> Joe S.


"We were not invaded by a foriegn power in an effort to force us to change our style of government."

Maybe if you lived in PA at the time, but the above statement depends upon which part of the country you lived in during 1860.


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

Maryland was also invaded during the War of Northern Aggression. Antietam, enroute to get Bobby Lee's boys shoes at Gettysburg and during Harry Gilmore's Raid. Where I live there are in one churchyard 14 local boys who fought for the CSA. No bluebellies around here.


----------



## Hew (Jan 7, 2003)

> _If you're asking me if I gnash my teeth and wail about the Patriot Act, Gitmo, waterboarding three high level terrorists, or the detention of two putative US citizens without charge, then the answer is no._
> 
> *OK. We don't agree. How do you square the **defense of our rights and way of life as Americans by violation of the laws that govern us?*


Taking my examples of the Patriot Act, Gitmo, waterboarding, and holding two US citizens without charges, your list of "violation of the laws that govern us" would be awfully short. The gist of the Patriot Act has been upheald in court. Same for Gitmo. To my knowledge nobody has even bothered trying to litigate waterboarding. Perhaps a good PI attorney should give it a spin, though, as there are tens of thousands of potential lawsuits from the American servicemen who have been waterboarded during training. Lastly, the holding without charge of two terrorist scum were extraordinary events and not the norm. At the time the Justice Dept. was convinced of the legality of their position. The Supreme Court said no. It hasn't happened since. 

*



Help me better understand why it doesn't repulse and outrage you that the United States of America condones the torture of a US citizen and then wonders why it's own Justice Department won't allow the information to be used in a legal procedure against the individual it tortured?

Click to expand...

*I believe you're wrong on two accounts: 1) waterboarding isn't torture (unless you want to claim that we torture our own military trainees) and 2) to my knowledge no US citizens have been waterboard or otherwise "tortured." 



> _Let's not rewrite history. Iraq wasn't invaded solely for spreading democracy.
> _
> *Let's not be naive, either. The other reasons didn't hold water and this is the most recent reason the Administration has selected to base the decision on.*


To quote the great Lilly von Schtupp..."not twu, not twu." Bush provided, on numerous occasions prior to the war, a laundry list of justifications/goals. To date, nearly all have been accomplished. In no particular order:

1. Enforce UN sanctions from first Gulf War - check
2. Eliminate Iraq/Saddam's WMD capacity - check (too bad we didn't find the weapons that Saddam, the CIA, Bush and nearly every influential Democrat claimed were there)
3. Free the Iraqi people from a murdering tyrant - check
4. Free the Middle East from a destabilizing influence - check
5. Establish democracy in a strategically important and influential Middle Eastern/Arab nation - check

Some unstated, but obvious additional reasons:
6. Demonstrate to a region that respects the stick a lot more than the carrot that we won't abide arsehats with WMDs. - check
7. Protect our petroleum interests - debatable
8. Demonstrate that we won't allow our petroluem interests to be threatened - check
9. Put pressure on Iran to toe the line by having a military presence at their front door - debatable
10 Draw thousands of terrorists to one location so that we can more easily kill them - check (I grant that may have been an unintended consequence) 

*



Again, not all Democrats think we shouldn't own guns. I think the Heller decision would be based on who would have been appointed to the SCOTUS so it amounts to conjecture on our part.

Click to expand...

*True, but until the sun actually rises tomorrow morning that is conjecture on our part, too. But I'd be willing to wager both that the sun will rise tomorrow _and_ that Kerry or Gore wouldn't have appointed justices who would have ruled with the current majority. 

*



Say, John, I may have missed your response but I think I asked if the War in Iraq was so effective, why aren't the Republicans using it more? Did I miss that? :wink:

Click to expand...

*I dunno...maybe they are bringing it up and the media doesn't consider it worthy of discussion so we don't hear much about it. Remember, Iraq was only important when lots of people were dying. Peace/success are not a story to them. McCain has his own bully pulpit, though, and could bring it up if he chose to. Why he doesn't I don't know. My hunch would be that it has been hammered into so many American's heads for so long that Iraq was/is a failure that he doesn't want to waste energy trying to explain the facts to them and that there's lower hanging fruit to go after that is easily understandable...Joe the plumber/common good, my tax cut's better than his tax cut, etc.


----------



## Jake Lunsford (Jun 15, 2008)

You have to uncheck four and five. We made stability take a hike. It might not have been there before, but it sure ain't there now either. As for establishing democracy, just because we say that it exists and is good emough doesn't make it true. And we only recognize democracy when it suits our purposes. Look at the ecelctions in Palestine a couple of years ago. We said we will respect free elections, but when the party that we oppose gets elected, we back out on our word. We shouldn't be able to pick and chose if we give our word.


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

Hew said:


> 1. Enforce UN sanctions from first Gulf War - check
> 2. Eliminate Iraq/Saddam's WMD capacity - check (too bad we didn't find the weapons that Saddam, the CIA, Bush and nearly every influential Democrat claimed were there)
> 3. Free the Iraqi people from a murdering tyrant - check
> 4. Free the Middle East from a destabilizing influence - check
> ...


1. Actually it appears that Sadam complied with at least that part of the sanctions calling for elimination of WMD. However, since the U.S. determined that he had weapons anyway there was absolutely no possible way for him to satisfy U.S. demands which required that he produce weapons. The reality is that the administration decided to go to war in Iraq early and the lead up to the war was window dressing designed to convince the U.S. electorate, which was strongly opposed to the war, that there was no other reasonable choice.

2. I agree, we eliminated WMD production capabilities along with the rest of the country's infrastructure.

3. I think the jury's still out on this. Most non-partisan assessments have concluded that the Iraqi people are somewhat worse off as a result of the war with 10's of thousands killed, millions displaced, security for average citizens undermined, etc. It is possible that they will ultimately benefit. However, it is also possible that those same benefits might have happened sooner and possibly with less pain without the war. Interestingly, women are likely to be the greatest losers from the war since we bought into religious demands to curb their rights which were well established under the more secular Sadam government.

4. On this I think we failed miserably. Iraq itself is now a source of instability where before it was a counter balance to Iran while having no ability to threaten other neighbors. The war has helped radicalize the area and has contributed directly to an increase in the power of Iran.

5. I believe the jury is also out on whether or not Iraq will in any way become a democratic state.

6. Here we come to the crux of the neo-con justification of the war: prove that the U.S. can punish those countries with which it is unhappy to discourage future "asymetric" threats. Unfortunately, what we have proven is that we can do this but only at a cost much greater than anyone thought and much greater than we are likely to be willing to do again. If anything, I suspect that we have emboldened those who do not welcome our involvement in the region.

7. Agreed. I would hasten to point out, however, that for those that respect property rights, the interests involved are Iraq's, not ours. 

8. What petroleum interests? We are just one buyer in a global market. What gives us the right to seize the assets of another country?

9. I suspect that our presence _has_ had a curbing effect on Iran but that they welcome the political advantage that we have given them. They will in all probability have a stronger voice in the future of Iraq than would have ever been possible without our invasion. In fact, their influence is likely to be greater than ours unless we decide to colonize Iraq completely.

10. I agree. We failed to get the terrorists out of Afghanistan, helped them to establish a stronger presence in Pakistan (already a nuclear power), and gave them a whole new country to train in.

I believe that our invasion of Iraq has been an unmitigated disaster despite the heroic efforts of the extraordinary men and women in our military. Our soldiers have been failed by their command structure and the failure began at the top with the CIC.


----------



## subroc (Jan 3, 2003)

Hew said:


> ...2. Eliminate Iraq/Saddam's WMD capacity - check (too bad we didn't find the weapons that Saddam, the CIA, Bush and nearly every influential Democrat claimed were there)...


Too bad it was more important militarily to keep information from public view than debate the issue allowing left wing zealots to damage their own country.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,376747,00.html


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

subroc said:


> Too bad it was more important militarily to keep information from public view than debate the issue allowing left wing zealots to damage their own country.
> 
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,376747,00.html


The presence of the yellowcake uranium in question was actually identified at the time of the first Gulf War. Its location had been known for a decade and it was under U.N. supervision.


----------



## subroc (Jan 3, 2003)

Does that mean it didn't exist?


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

subroc said:


> Does that mean it didn't exist?


It existed. Had it been a particular concern we were in a position to remove it at any time in the last 17 years. It was never part of what was deemed a WMD threat.


----------



## subroc (Jan 3, 2003)

YardleyLabs said:


> ...Had it been a particular concern we were in a position to remove it at any time in the last 17 years...


I expect it wasn't a concern until we were attacked on 9-11. That was when both republicans and democrats alike thought it was a concern and voted for the war. In addition, I expect we were in position. The “we” being the operative word here meaning the United States, not the UN, and it would and did require military action.




YardleyLabs said:


> ...It was never part of what was deemed a WMD threat.


By who? I expect it was and is what is considered a WMD threat whatever you appear to want to believe.


----------



## Matt McKenzie (Oct 9, 2004)

YardleyLabs said:


> 1. Actually it appears that Sadam complied with at least that part of the sanctions calling for elimination of WMD. However, since the U.S. determined that he had weapons anyway there was absolutely no possible way for him to satisfy U.S. demands which required that he produce weapons. The reality is that the administration decided to go to war in Iraq early and the lead up to the war was window dressing designed to convince the U.S. electorate, which was strongly opposed to the war, that there was no other reasonable choice.
> 
> 2. I agree, we eliminated WMD production capabilities along with the rest of the country's infrastructure.
> 
> ...


6. How exactly have we emboldened those folks and what is the result? I thought 9/11 was pretty bold. I haven't seen anything that bold since. I've been spending time in the middle east since the late '80s and I'm always amused when people here try to blame U.S. foreign policy for the bad guys' actions. Just like the mean kids in school, they won't like us even if we are extra nice. 

8. Whose assets have we seized? I've spent my share of time providing security for ABOT and KAOT so that the world can have an uninterrupted supply of oil on the free market. If you somehow think that the U.S. government is stealing oil from Iraq or any other country, you are either mistaken or misinformed.

Just out of curiosity, what do you think George Bush's motive was for going into Iraq? I always hear people say that he intentionally misled the American people and our Congress in order to start a war. Why did he do that?


----------



## retrievingbest (Oct 4, 2007)

I'd like to know what americans are thinking? Here's a man that has approx. 43 days in the Senate, shoot in 43 days I'd be lucky if I could be manager of a McDonalds yet he made a President Candidate, and what gets me the most, he's not an american citizen - born in Kenya. No one is pressuring him for his birth certificate, it's locked away in Hawaii, see what money can do along with Mickey Mouse backers. Besides no befief in our laws, or america, what are people thinking - not!!! We as a people are in Biggggg trouble.
Bylaws for Presidency requires an american citizen, he's not. He can be a Senator, in Congress or House of Reps. but not our President!


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

subroc said:


> By who? I expect it was and is what is considered a WMD threat whatever you appear to want to believe.


The stated concer at the time was about stockpiles of weapons that were being concealed from U.N. inspectors. The Tawaitha area where the yellowcake was stored had been fully inspected and documented. There is no evidence that anything was added to the stores after 1991.


----------



## BrettG (Apr 4, 2005)

retrievingbest said:


> I'd like to know what americans are thinking? Here's a man that has approx. 43 days in the Senate, shoot in 43 days I'd be lucky if I could be manager of a McDonalds yet he made a President Candidate, and what gets me the most, he's not an american citizen - born in Kenya. No one is pressuring him for his birth certificate, it's locked away in Hawaii, see what money can do along with Mickey Mouse backers. Besides no befief in our laws, or america, what are people thinking - not!!! We as a people are in Biggggg trouble.
> Bylaws for Presidency requires an american citizen, he's not. He can be a Senator, in Congress or House of Reps. but not our President!


These are the issues that don't get discussed that I personally would like to see addressed. Why won't he or his supporters open up his complete past, if he is going to lead the greatest country in the world I would like to know more about him, not just what makes him look good.


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

retrievingbest said:


> I'd like to know what americans are thinking? Here's a man that has approx. 43 days in the Senate, shoot in 43 days I'd be lucky if I could be manager of a McDonalds yet he made a President Candidate, and what gets me the most, he's not an american citizen - born in Kenya. No one is pressuring him for his birth certificate, it's locked away in Hawaii, see what money can do along with Mickey Mouse backers. Besides no befief in our laws, or america, what are people thinking - not!!! We as a people are in Biggggg trouble.
> Bylaws for Presidency requires an american citizen, he's not. He can be a Senator, in Congress or House of Reps. but not our President!





Willow Oaks Retrievers said:


> These are the issues that don't get discussed that I personally would like to see addressed. Why won't he or his supporters open up his complete past, if he is going to lead the greatest country in the world I would like to know more about him, not just what makes him look good.


Some people obviously like their stories to be unimpeded by facts.

Obama's birth certificate has been widely circulated and the certified copy was provided to the Federal Election Commission as required. It shows he was born in Hawaii. McCain's was a little more problematic since he was born in Panama. However, both met the citizenship requirement for the Presidency.

Barack Obama was sworn in as Senator for Illinois on January 5, 2005 which was 1,395 days ago. Which 43 days are you counting?


----------



## Joe S. (Jan 8, 2003)

YardleyLabs said:


> The presence of the yellowcake uranium in question was actually identified at the time of the first Gulf War. Its location had been known for a decade and it was under U.N. supervision.


Careful, Jeff, you know how much Subroc hates to be confused with facts. Please, go back to being left-wing zelot and continue to risk the safety of your country.

Don't Be A Rube Regards,

Joe S.


----------



## smillerdvm (Jun 3, 2006)

Hew said:


> Taking my examples of been accomplished. In no particular order:
> 
> 1. Enforce UN sanctions from first Gulf War - check
> 2. Eliminate Iraq/Saddam's WMD capacity - check (too bad we didn't find the weapons that Saddam, the CIA, Bush and nearly every influential Democrat claimed were there)
> ...


----------



## subroc (Jan 3, 2003)

YardleyLabs said:


> The stated concer at the time was about stockpiles of weapons that were being concealed from U.N. inspectors. The Tawaitha area where the yellowcake was stored had been fully inspected and documented. There is no evidence that anything was added to the stores after 1991.


What does that have to do with anything?


----------



## subroc (Jan 3, 2003)

Joe S. said:


> Careful, Jeff, you know how much Subroc hates to be confused with facts. Please, go back to being left-wing zelot and continue to risk the safety of your country.
> 
> Don't Be A Rube Regards,
> 
> Joe S.


Hey Joe

Still trying to feature yourself as a free thinking, undecided, centrist when all evidence is to the contrary?

Joe


----------



## Joe S. (Jan 8, 2003)

subroc said:


> Hey Joe
> 
> Still trying to feature yourself as a free thinking, undecided, centrist when all evidence is to the contrary?
> 
> Joe


Pretty much on the free thinking part. Perhaps a tad left of center on the political position. Pretty much I've decided. It was close for a long while but I'm good with it now. Thanks for asking though. ;-)

Do you really not have a clue why the IAEA knowing the yellowcake was already there is important to the WMD discussion or are you just being difficult? I guess you missed this discussion the first time around.

Nice Name Ya' Got There Regards,

Joe S.


----------



## Joe S. (Jan 8, 2003)

Hew said:


> I believe you're wrong on two accounts: 1) waterboarding isn't torture (unless you want to claim that we torture our own military trainees) and 2) to my knowledge no US citizens have been waterboard or otherwise "tortured."


John-

As someone I consider a friend, do you really want to let this one stand as is or would you like to modify it?

Just Asking Regards,

Joe S.


----------



## BrettG (Apr 4, 2005)

Left-wing, right-wing I hate that our politicians have to be so far one way or the other when the majority of the country is middle ground. And Neither candidate would be allowed to govern from the middle even if that's what they wanted. I personally feel that neither represents me and find myself picking once again the lesser of two evils (in my mind). It's time for a new party.


----------



## subroc (Jan 3, 2003)

October 2002 vote to authorize the president to use force in Iraq: 77-23

This is why it doesn't matter.

Our nations leaders determined, based on years of reports, through 3 administrations, in the shadow of 9-11 that Saddam, his yellow cake, his terrorist payoffs to palestinians, repeated attacks on our and British aircraft while patrolling the "no fly zone" and potential to develop other WMD posed a threat to our nation. I accept that their (Democrats and Republicans alike) reasoning at the time, based on the information available acted in the inerest of the nation and in good faith.


----------



## subroc (Jan 3, 2003)

Is there a clear definition of torture?

Is there a difference between torture and coerced interrogation?

Is any discomfort allowed when trying to get an enemy combatant to provide information?

As an aside, should anyone in US custody be afforded the full panoply of rights that a United States citizen is entitled to?


----------



## Joe S. (Jan 8, 2003)

subroc said:


> Is there a clear definition of torture?
> 
> *Yes.*
> 
> ...


It's Basic Research Regards,

Joe S.


----------



## subroc (Jan 3, 2003)

> Originally Posted by *subroc*
> _Is there a clear definition of torture?_
> 
> _*Yes.*_
> ...


 


Joe S. said:


> It's Basic Research Regards,
> 
> Joe S.


 

Not kidding! Is this the same as your feigning outrage in previous posts and are now using the "you must be kidding" argument in your discussions?

It brings a lot to the table.

Just so you know I am not kidding.

Interrogation techniques I would find acceptable with regards to battlefield enemy: Sleep deprivation, isolation, hunger, heat, cold, water boarding, cramped quarters, fear, even old fashion police style grilling under the lights among others world be acceptable forms of interrogation.


----------



## Hew (Jan 7, 2003)

Bold text is mine:



YardleyLabs said:


> 1. Actually it appears that Sadam complied with at least that part of the sanctions calling for elimination of WMD.* Since Saddam wouldn't allow inspections the ONLY way to have know that was after the war. He said he had 'em. The UN said he had 'em. Countless Democrats said he had 'em. In the post-911 environment that was a ticket to get your lights punched out. *However, since the U.S. determined that he had weapons anyway there was absolutely no possible way for him to satisfy U.S. demands which required that he produce weapons. The reality is that the administration decided to go to war in Iraq early and the lead up to the war was window dressing designed to convince the U.S. electorate, which was strongly opposed to the war, that there was no other reasonable choice. *Sorry, but claiming a plurality of the electorate was opposed to the war (strongly or otherwise) is patently incorrect. NUMEROUS polls indicated that the US electorate was firmly behind going to war in Iraq. A bipartisan Congress was firmly behind going to war in Iraq. Nearly every influential Democrat, including Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, Dick Gephart, Tom Daschle, Jack Murtha, Henry Waxman, Chuck Schumer, Dianne Feinstein were for the war. You're more than entitled to your own opinions about the war, but you're not entitled to your own facts. *
> 
> 3. I think the jury's still out on this. Most non-partisan assessments have concluded that the Iraqi people are somewhat worse off as a result of the war with 10's of thousands killed, millions displaced, security for average citizens undermined, etc. *Do Iraqi's opinions count? If so, then the non-partisans should reassess their assessments: *http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/GoodMorningAmerica/Iraq_anniversary_poll_040314.html It is possible that they will ultimately benefit. However, it is also possible that those same benefits might have happened sooner and possibly with less pain without the war. Interestingly, women are likely to be the greatest losers from the war since we bought into religious demands to curb their rights which were well established under the more secular Sadam government.
> 
> ...


----------



## JDogger (Feb 2, 2003)

subroc said:


> Interrogation techniques I would find acceptable with regards to battlefield enemy: Sleep deprivation, isolation, hunger, heat, cold, water boarding, cramped quarters, fear, even old fashion police style grilling under the lights among others world be acceptable forms of interrogation.


So these techniques, applied to our troops, would then also be acceptable? Que no?

JD


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

Terrorists and other guerilla fighters do not deserve the Geneva protections accorded to uniformed soldiers serving in a state military, SCOTUS errant decision not withstanding.


----------



## JDogger (Feb 2, 2003)

I read "battlefield enemy". What did you read?

JD


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

I saw battlefield enemy as well, BUT I think there is a difference between irregular troops and a nations duly constituted military and the way they should be treated: Viet Cong vs NVA regulars for example.


----------



## JDogger (Feb 2, 2003)

Yeah, but who decides, how do you always know? We have troops operating in Afganistan who dress as locals. What is their status?

JD


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

Their status is up to the Taliban if they are captured. We ratified the Geneva accords, the Taliban and Al Qaeda did not. Thats not to say that these GI's don't deserve proper treatment, but I don't hold my breath that the enemy will recognize that.


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

[QUOTE
Quote:
Originally Posted by *subroc* 
_Interrogation techniques I would find acceptable with regards to battlefield enemy: Sleep deprivation, isolation, hunger, heat, cold, water boarding, cramped quarters, fear, even old fashion police style grilling under the lights among others world be acceptable forms of interrogation._

So these techniques, applied to our troops, would then also be acceptable? Que no?

JD
__________________][/QUOTE]

It beats having your head chopped off
Pete


----------



## BITE (Jun 13, 2008)

Paul,

Check your facts on the part about most corporations being publicly owned. I don't believe you will find that you are correct. Most are private.

Also, go pull up Exxon Mobile's 10K and last audited financials last year and see if you can calculate their effective NOT marginal tax rate. Go ahead - give it a try.

Also, some say that most corporations don't pay tax. It isn't that they don't pay taxes it is that they don't have tax liabilities. There is a tax that is calculated but 66% of corporations actually have those amounts offset with credits and loopholes. The issue really isn't as big as politicians want it to seem.

Check it out.


----------



## BITE (Jun 13, 2008)

According to the Tax Policy Center, McCain's proposals will increase the national debt by 4.1 trillion and Obama's will increase the national debt 2.9 trillion. Neither are acceptable. 

The retired comptroller general said if you think the new digit added to the national debt is big, consider the $40 to $50 trillion that is classified as "off balance sheet debt". 

This has to become personal for every American. 

The question is: What are you willing to sacrifice to bring this under control?


----------



## BITE (Jun 13, 2008)

You are making an oversimplified assumption with regard to the balance of power. The elections aren't over. What do you know that the rest of us don't?


----------



## Joe S. (Jan 8, 2003)

subroc said:


> Not kidding! Is this the same as your feigning outrage in previous posts and are now using the "you must be kidding" argument in your discussions?
> 
> It brings a lot to the table.
> 
> ...


I'm not feigning a thing and to clear it up for you, the emotion isn't outrage. I am incredulous that you, like Mr. Bybee and Mr. Yoo, are unable to extend your line of reasoning beyond the narrow scope of your own field of vision. Then again, perhaps not so much.

What about when those same techniques, plus "enhanced" others, are applied to an American citizen? What about when we contract the interrogation out to those that don't operate under our rule of law?

Muzzle-loader opens in Virginia today. This is my favorite time of year. I was on the Eastern-Shore of Maryland on Thursday. The geese were everywhere. As soon as I crossed the bridge you could see them and could almost hear them over the sound of the tires on the road. I'm thinking I'm going to take the week between Christmas and New Years off this year and do a lot of hunting. 

What are your plans?

If memory serves, today may be opening day of small game in PA. Used to love to walk the fields around Dillsburg and Gettysburg looking for my quota of pheasants. I usally found them but would miss the shots...still, the walk in fields with the guys and the dogs was worth the effort.

Be Well Regards,

Joe S.


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

BITE said:


> According to the Tax Policy Center, McCain's proposals will increase the national debt by 4.1 trillion and Obama's will increase the national debt 2.9 trillion.


I get so sick of hearing this stat. McCain has said that he will cut spending and increase revenue to balance the budget. 
This week Barney Frank said that we should forget the deficit, increase spending and then increase taxes. Do you really think if he, reid, and pelosi send those bills to the white house that Obama will veto them. Get real!


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

Joe S. said:


> What about when those same techniques, plus "enhanced" others, are applied to an American citizen? What about when we contract the interrogation out to those that don't operate under our rule of law?


Joe, I hate to think of our boys and girls going through any of that stuff.(I hate that they have to leave their friends and families to protect us) but I know you are smart enough to know that it doesn't matter one bit what we do or don't do to our prisoners, they are going to torture, mame, and kill the men and women that they capture regardless. 
We could take them to disneyland, hold their hands and sing cum by ya and they would still cut off the heads of those that they capture.
and don't tell me that if we have to waterboard someone to get information that may save innocents or our troops that it makes us just like them...PULEESE


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

Putting this discussion in another context: If someone kidnapped a child, tortured and abused them and then offered to release the kid for ransom, would anyone object(ACLU and defense lawyers need not answer) if I gave the scumbag the 3rd degree? to enable the victim to be recovered alive? I assure you that I would not think about waterboarding(too gentle), I know enough about the methods of the Kempetai, Gestapo and KGB not to mention good old US police methods to get the answers needed. Thats how I feel about strongly interrogating those terrorists who would bomb our country or kill our GI's.


----------



## Joe S. (Jan 8, 2003)

Bob Gutermuth said:


> Putting this discussion in another context: If someone kidnapped a child, tortured and abused them and then offered to release the kid for ransom, would anyone object(ACLU and defense lawyers need not answer) if I gave the scumbag the 3rd degree? to enable the victim to be recovered alive? I assure you that I would not think about waterboarding(too gentle), I know enough about the methods of the Kempetai, Gestapo and KGB not to mention good old US police methods to get the answers needed. Thats how I feel about strongly interrogating those terrorists who would bomb our country or kill our GI's.


You know Bob, I think you are a hell of a nice guy. I'll run a dog under you any time, any place, under any conditions (though you do get carried away with yourself up at Lynn's ;-)). I would drink beer with you again. I'd sit an eat with you again, I'd laugh and tell jokes with you again, but it is impossible for me to accurately describe how overjoyed I am at the thought that you will, most likely, never be elected to a public office in the United States of America where you would have wide-spread impact on the rule of law.

Take Care Regards,

Joe S.


----------



## Sundown49 aka Otey B (Jan 3, 2003)

to save ONE American life I just wish they would hire a South Korean Captain from the 'Nam era to interrogate the prisoners. My feeling is what ever it takes to get the info......they were very good at that.


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

Joe, believe it or not I seriouisly thought about going to law school some years back. Rest assured I have no intention of ever running for political office, the salary would screw up my pension.

I'm a nationalist first and foremost. I believe that nothing and nobody on this planet is more important that the USA and our people and our national security. I don't give a fat rats butt about most of the rest of the world(our few friends excepted).


----------



## Joe S. (Jan 8, 2003)

achiro said:


> Joe, I hate to think of our boys and girls going through any of that stuff.(I hate that they have to leave their friends and families to protect us) but I know you are smart enough to know that it doesn't matter one bit what we do or don't do to our prisoners, they are going to torture, mame, and kill the men and women that they capture regardless.
> We could take them to disneyland, hold their hands and sing cum by ya and they would still cut off the heads of those that they capture.
> and don't tell me that if we have to waterboard someone to get information that may save innocents or our troops that it makes us just like them...PULEESE


Yep. I know that. That is why they have War Crimes trials. The United States has a very long memory and very, very, very long arms. Ramsey Yousef thought he was safe, sleeping in a Hotel in Pakistan. The United States knew he would never know a safe day for the rest of his life. People that do those evil things to our brave men and women should be hunted down and tried for their crimes.

I have no desire to take them Disneyland, hold their hands or sing them cum ba ya. I do have a desire to see them held accountable for their actions under the rule of law. Like it or not, if we are willing to use the tactics and methods of our enemy, we become like them. If we are going to become them anyway, what are we fighting about?

Thank You Regards,

Joe S.


----------



## Joe S. (Jan 8, 2003)

Bob Gutermuth said:


> I'm a nationalist first and foremost. I believe that nothing and nobody on this planet is more important that the USA and our people and our national security. I don't give a fat rats butt about most of the rest of the world(our few friends excepted).


The oddest thing about this whole process for me is that I feel *EXACTLY* the same way you do.

Good Hunting Regards,

Joe S.


----------



## Uncle Bill (Jan 18, 2003)

Late to this party, but thought I'd proffer another man's view. Since we are similar vintage geezers, his thoughts pretty much coincide with mine.

UB



A serious comment by Bill Lear (Lear jet) a smart, successful business man and an Independent.Most Americans are aware of Bill Lear, because of his Lear Jet business; however, he has accomplished much more, as you can see at this link: William P. Lear -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/333965/William-P-Lear#tab=active~checked%2Citems~checked&title=William%20P.%20Lear%20--%20Britannica%20Online%20Encyclopedia). ​

His opinions are worth a read:​ 

A Humble Plea to McCain and Obama Supporters:​ 

Dear friends,​ 

I am truly astonished by the ignorance Obama supporters have displayed in their quest to get someone - ANYONE - into the White House. Now, wait a minute. I can well understand your dislike or even hatred of our clown, GWB, but he is not the root cause of all of our problems. Our Congress is. And a change there would be welcomed by all. You ain't gonna get it done with Obama. You gotta fire the whole damnable crooked Congress. (Read my book, 'BERNIE'S WAR!').​ 

Perhaps I'm looking at all of this from a different perspective than you because my life experiences have been so different from yours. I'm ​
80-years old and have traveled the world where I've seen a great deal. I spent five years on active duty as a fighter pilot in the USAF and another seven years flying with the Air National Guard in California and Texas as well as a few years flying in the USAF Reserve. I spent three years on active duty in Germany flying Czech border patrol with 'cold guns' in aircraft inferior to the MIG during the Korean 'Police Action' when it was thought that Korea was a diversion for a Soviet invasion of Western Europe .​ 

I lived abroad for a total of 28 years. Three years in Germany, twenty years in Switzerland and five years in Great Britain where I was based doing 'spook' work for the U.S. behind the Iron Curtain before it fell. During that era of the Cold War I ventured to Moscow, Prague, Warsaw, Bucharest, Peshawar, Pakistan and Bulgaria posing as a Swiss French-speaking arms dealer purchasing weapons we surreptitiously supplied to the Afghani Mujahedeen in their successful fight against the Soviets - all of which came back to haunt us. I've been there and done that and have had close associations with top government people in Germany , the Netherlands and Great Britain. I've had more foreign affair experience than Obama could ever dream of and, yet, wouldn't have the temerity to deign myself 'Presidential' material; although I feel eminently more qualified to judge who would NOT be best for our country. My long-time world experience should count for something in my plea to you to abandon this miscreant flake. You will only be doing yourself and our country an enormous disservice if you persist in your support of this flash-in-the-pan opportunist. On this, you MUST trust me.​ 

I've associated closely with European royalty and African politicians. I've traveled to the Far East to observe their cultures. My point is that Obama, although formally well educated and a brilliant orator, is a neophyte when it comes to understanding the world and is uniquely unqualified for the job as President of these great United States . His knowledge of economics is nil and his tax proposals absurd and life-threatening to the U.S. not only in economic terms but in preserving our national security as well. I don't want a 'citizen of the world' to be President, I want a citizen of the good old USA to be President. Screw the rest of the world as they have well and truly screwed us. The time has come for us to awaken and start looking after ourselves. Now THAT would be CHANGE if that's what you're looking for.​ 

While McCain has abstained from playing 'the race-card', Obama is playing it to the hilt even though he's technically not an African-American. To qualify for this distinction you must be at least one-sixth black. Obama is only one-eighth. His father would be, as he was one-sixth. No, Obama is more Muslim than black yet he trades on his blackness.​ 

The larger question I have about him is that we really don't know much about him other than what HE tells us, what we read on blogs and from some serious non-partisan investigators whose factual reports are, unfortunately, generally ignored and which receive precious little media exposure.​ 

I, as a registered Independent, a military veteran and a patriot, beseech you to put aside party considerations and vote for the lesser of the two evils. Yes, I am NOT a McCain supporter, but he is, at least, not a flake, doesn't carry Muslim baggage and is a PROVEN hero and patriot WITH experience. It's not a party issue. It's all about electing the best we can trust with what we've got to work with. Mr. Obama is NOT that guy.​ 

Please, please rethink your voting position. Thanks for reading my innermost thoughts. I care about all of you, but I care more about our country. Please help me to do both.​ 

William P. (Bill) Lear, Jr.​ 

[email protected]​

(386) 763-5051​ 









​


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

UB

Great Post & *Powerful*, Thanks!!


----------



## BITE (Jun 13, 2008)

You are truly a prophet - it appears that you know what will happen behind closed doors. While the Tax Policy Center is only considering the two TAX policies and how they play out, they do include the effect that both have on the national debt. If you are sick of hearing about the national debt, then bury your head in the sand regardless of which candidate succeeds. You will have a lot of company. 

Can you be specific and inform the crowd exactly how McCain will "increase revenues". This is very important.

BTW, Chaney has also been quoted saying to forget about the national debt.


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

BITE said:


> You are truly a prophet - it appears that you know what will happen behind closed doors. While the Tax Policy Center is only considering the two TAX policies and how they play out, they do include the effect that both have on the national debt. If you are sick of hearing about the national debt, then bury your head in the sand regardless of which candidate succeeds. You will have a lot of company.
> 
> Can you be specific and inform the crowd exactly how McCain will "increase revenues". This is very important.
> 
> BTW, Chaney has also been quoted saying to forget about the national debt.


 

The Bush apologists have become quite adept at burying their head in the sand over these past 8 years


----------

