All anyone needs to know in November

[sheepshead]

Obama’s 143 Days of Senate Experience


Obama’s 143 Days of Senate Experience


Just how much Senate experience does Barack Obama have in terms of actual work days? Not much.



From the time Barack Obama was sworn in as a United State Senator, to the time he announced he was forming a Presidential exploratory committee, he logged 143 days of experience in the Senate. That’s how many days the Senate was actually in session and working.



After 143 days of work experience, Obama believed he was ready to be Commander In Chief, Leader of the Free World, and fill the shoes of Abraham Lincoln, FDR, JFK and Ronald Reagan.



143 days — I keep leftovers in my refrigerator longer than that.



In contrast, John McCain’s 26 years in Congress, 22 years of military service including 1,966 days in captivity as a POW in Hanoi now seem more impressive than ever.



At 71, John McCain may just be hitting his stride.

[Scott Campbell]

I think you're grasping at straws a little bit. The only thing that'll keep Obama out of the Whitehouse now is a juicy tabloid rumor with some underlying merit.

And I'm voting McCain.

[sheepshead]

Shouldnt a resume count for the most important job in the free world?

Why should we care about any of his ideas if he has no history of accomplishment?

I dont see how he can win 4 states.

[Patler]

Shouldnt a resume count for the most important job in the free world?


It should, but it really hasn't for quite some time.

[texaspackerbacker]

That sounds good, Sheepshead, and if it sells, go for it.

However, the REAL difference--the SIGNIFICANT difference--is views/values/positions on issues.

Do you know who J.C. Watts is? He has about as much experience in Congress and government in general as Obama, maybe less. However, he is on the right side of every issue. I know that I sure as hell would support him over some four term Senate Dem. I think you would too.

Obama is a God damned extremist. He's a socialist at heart; And he's blatantly disdainful of America and all things American. He is horrendously dangerous on security and prevention of mass murder of Americans by terrorists. He would kill our economy with tax and spend liberalism. If he had the experience of Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, etc., ALL of that would still be true.

But if emphasizing the experience angle wins hearts and minds of voters, fine, run with it.

[MJZiggy]

The only thing you need to remember in November is my birthday.

[packinpatland]

Mine too!!!!!!

[Joemailman]

So now we know that John McCain has been in the Senate a lot longer than Obama. Glad we got that cleared up.

[Freak Out]

Democrats pick stadium for Obama's acceptance speech
David Lightman | McClatchy Newspapers

last updated: July 07, 2008 06:54:49 PM

WASHINGTON — Barack Obama, whose ability to deliver a soaring speech is considered so unrivaled among the current crop of American politicians that it became an issue in the primary campaign, will head for a bigger stage next month when he formally accepts the Democratic presidential nomination — he'll deliver his acceptance speech at Denver's 76,000-seat football stadium.

Democratic officials said they decided to move the speech from the city's 21,000-seat basketball arena, where the convention's first three nights will be held, to the football stadium to lend the speech a greater sense of history. Obama, the first black presidential candidate of a major American political party, will deliver his acceptance speech on Aug. 28, the 45th anniversary of Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream Speech," which is considered one of the seminal moments of the civil rights movement.

Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean said the speech was being moved to INVESCO Field at Mile High in downtown Denver because of the "excitement and interest" Obama has generated. INVESCO is the home field for the National Football League’s Denver Broncos.

"This is very much in keeping with Senator Obama’s philosophy," Dean said. "This convention is meant to be opened up to the American people. Senator Obama does not look at this as his convention. He looks at this as America’s convention."

The decision to move the final night of the party's convention to the stadium marks a departure from recent years, when officials of both parties have preferred indoor locations because they generate more noise and are more TV-friendly — with fewer vacant seats visible to viewers at home.

But generating a crowd apparently is not one of the concerns Democratic officials have. Obama generated huge crowds at many of his primary campaign stops, including an afternoon rally in Oregon in May attended by more than 70,000. Officials didn't specify who besides convention delegates would be invited to witness Obama's acceptance speech, but said that at least some tickets would be distributed to Denver residents.

Republican presumptive nominee John McCain, whose speaking skills are generally compared unfavorably to Obama's, isn't expected to try to match the Obama move when he gives his acceptance speech in St. Paul, Minn., on Sept. 4.

"Well, look," McCain adviser Carly Fiorina said Monday, "John McCain is not going into a stadium and talk to 70,000 people, you all know that. It's not his personality."

Fiorina cast the Obama venue change as another example of the differences between the two candidates — and not in Obama's favor.

"With all due respect to Barack Obama's considerable oratory skills, and they are considerable, it isn't much of a dialogue to have a speech in a stadium with 70,000 people," she said. "John McCain is at his best when people actually get to ask him a question, and he actually has to answer it and then they have to follow up."

[Tyrone Bigguns]

As is Tyrone's.

Crack always makes a lovely gift...for those of you wondering what to get me.

Either that or socks.

[Little Whiskey]

The only thing you need to remember in November is .....

hunting season. get your guns ready!

[Jimx29]

The only thing you need to remember in November is my birthday.
Mine too!!!!!!
As is mine also :)

[Harlan Huckleby]

So now we know that John McCain has been in the Senate a lot longer than Obama. Glad we got that cleared up.

It isn't just experience. Obama has been running for president almost from the moment he arrived in Washington. Once a politician is that close to the big prize, all of their comments and votes are calibrated.


And what did he do before being a U.S. Senator? Some law teaching. A community organizer. Illinois STate Senate. Not bad experience, but not adequate preparation to understood the ways of the world, business, government.

We really can't know who Obama is, he hasn't had to comment on many controversial issues while he was in a position of accountability. Would he have voted to authorize Bush in Iraq? Who knows.

You've commented that you expect Obama to govern as a centrist. MAybe, but hell, you have no reason to believe this.

[texaspackerbacker]

Let him make his little speech at the Olympic stadium. He would fit in real well in RED China.

[Tarlam!]

143 days — I keep leftovers in my refrigerator longer than that.


That is one of the funniest things I have ever read on PR. And everyone knows how I feel about sheepdip, so I aint lying!


But in terms of the election in November;

The Free World, as it has been put, wants Obama. We are sick to death of people like George W. Bush. Why? Well, as rightly pointed out, your President is the leader of the ENTIRE free world. That's not just because of the military might of the United States of America. And, if you think you are the leaders of the free world, just because you have great aircraft carriers and invisible bombers, you are selling yourself very cheaply.

No, it's not just your military. It is also your hamburgers, your proms, your football, your schools, your PTA's, Hollywood, Nashville, Maine Lobsters, Chicago Steaks, Halloween, Thanks Giving Day, in fact, almost everything you do. You people are simply good. The world loves to hate you (but not me). But, the begrudgingly respect your achievements. You leave us little choice. You are simply the best. We even have Halloween in Germany these days. Blieve me, that was not the case 15 years ago.

But being the best means you need to lighten up on the not so goods. You beat the rest of the world in leadership, but you mustn't be arrogant about it. W. Bush has been. Reagan was a Prince among men. We had a good laugh with Clinton. But, W. Bush has been a nightmare.

If McCain is deemed to be anything like W. or his father, it would not surprise me to see Obama's coffers filled with money funnelling in from outside the US of A.

The world is sick of your President today. We have been for many years.


But back to my original point. The Free World wants Obama. And, if indeed he has only had 143 days of experience, we want him even more, because maybe, just maybe he will lead the Free World and not just America. He won't be indoctrinated with some of the drivel that The Free World has had to swallow.

Boy, I hope I don't lose any friends here posting this. I should learn when to keep my mouth shut.

[MJZiggy]

:bclap: :hug:

[Iron Mike]

The only thing you need to remember in November is this:

Quantum of Solace (http://youtube.com/watch?v=PpCsJJ4kk4w)




Fixed. 8-)

[sheepshead]

Regarding this war and the president. No one hates GWB more than John McCain. Bush hosed him in 2000. Also with 3 sons in service and 2 active, and having served in a war and if you dont know his story-look it up-he's not going to flaunt it like John Kerry-no one wants this war over more than John Mccain. Obama is a product of Hollywood and has no business near the white house.

[sheepshead]

The only thing you need to remember in November is my birthday.

:)

[retailguy]

The world is sick of your President today. We have been for many years.


But back to my original point. The Free World wants Obama. And, if indeed he has only had 143 days of experience, we want him even more, because maybe, just maybe he will lead the Free World and not just America. He won't be indoctrinated with some of the drivel that The Free World has had to swallow.

Boy, I hope I don't lose any friends here posting this. I should learn when to keep my mouth shut.

This quote should be enough for any good thinking american to vote for McCain.

Tar - the fact that the "free world" wants Obama means he is NOT right for this country. I live in Ill. This idiot has been my senator (I did not vote for him). I will not vote for him. No one else should either.

Oh, and that President that "the free world is sick of" has helped keep you free over the last 5 years, and probably helped keep the number of terrorism related attackes lower than they would have been. Remember Tar, those attacks are happening PRIMARILY in your backyard.... not ours. We got the big one, you got the rest of them.

I shudder to think how the world would look today had the last President that the free world wanted - (Al Gore) been elected. :shock: The thought of him handling Sept. 11th sickens me.

Tar - you haven't pissed me off and you shouldn't have to keep your mouth shut, however, ask yourself - is Europe as a whole prepared to deal with terrorist attacks? Are you willing to take the war to them? Quite honestly, I see you folks as prepared to defend yourselves as you were in WWII when the Germans captured everything they invaded until America got involved.

We protected you folks then, and we're doing it again today. Makes no difference to me whether you like the method or not. Maybe you should just be grateful for the free help? :tup:

[Scott Campbell]

We had a good laugh with Clinton.


If you thought Bubba was funny, you would have loved Hillary. Fortunately Harlan endorsed her, and she lost.

Obama is telegenic and articulate - important qualities in a game show host. But he's starting to look like an empty suit to me - no depth.

Now McCain isn't exactly the best man for the job either. But as is the case in many elections, I think he's the lesser of two evils. He's no George.

This country is in serious, serious trouble. I think terror and the war are the least of our problems now. The credit markets here have completely shriveled up, and there is a lethal bunker mentality among lenders. I'm not even sure Republican leadership could fight our way out of this mess, but I fear an economic nuclear winter with Democratic leadership.

[Tarlam!]

Well, RG, see now you're pushing me on thin ice.

I don't think we get "free help" from the USA, at least not the German taxpayers. Maybe the rest of the free world pays nothing towards financing the wars that the US of A lead. Fact is, Germany almost financed Desert Storm. We had a huge row about it here.

Germany also had a leading role in ex-Yugoslavia and Afghanistan. And, we still do.

I am not really certain I was clear on what I was saying. But here it is again. The world needs leadership and the Free World has pretty much said, hey, that oval office guy/girl seems to be a good bet to lead.

That in itself is a remarkable achievement! I mean, you guys and girls were "colonies" 2 centuries ago and today, you lead the free world! An achievement matched by no one.

But, your President today leads the free world from a biased stance. Biased towards what is great for the USA and may only so-so for the rest. An arrogance that rubs people not American up the wrong way. I again repeat, not me. But I have visited your fine country 20 times and been privileged to work for bosses, American. I am not your average German/Australian/ Other Free world nation taxpayer.

W. Bush, when he's not being laughed at, is not very well liked.

You wanna talk 9/11, RG? O.K. I read reports where Belgian "society" were cocktailing the night of 9/11 and the Belgian high society people quipped how it served you right that terrorists attacked you. That is not my opinion AT ALL. I am merely highlighting how volatile the leadership of the free world is. I was disgusted at those remarks.

Put another way. I grew up especially under the Reagan influence. Believe me, when you elected a star of "b" grade movies, the world laughed. But, He was no laughing matter as he proved over and over again.

Reagan led the world to victory in the cold war in a way where we all knew who was leading, where we all willingly and gladly followed and where we could hold our heads up, proud to being the ass of the donkey and knowing the USA was the head.

We, the free world, have not had that kind of leadership since.

I know, only Americans will get to vote for their President. He/she is after all yours. But, he/she belongs to us a bit as well.

Today, we know very little about McCain. We know little about Obama, but we do know, Obama is so far away from w. Bush, we want him.

[retailguy]

Tar,

The goal wasn’t to push you onto thin ice. Sorry if it appeared that way. I do have a markedly different perspective than you do.

I agree that leadership is sorely lacking since Reagan. I am not a fan of McCain. I think he’s way less dangerous than Obama. In this world, I’ll take the less dangerous guy. In this country, no one dares run with strong views. He’s almost unelectable. There are few people of character willing to subject themselves to what this country describes as “politics” today.

But, please keep in mind that some of the folks in this room that are supporting your candidate also vilify Reagan. What he stood for, and what he believed in and the methods he used are very offensive to them. But with Reagan, in the end, results mattered.

Today, results don’t matter so much. It matters “how it looks” and “how it feels”. Truthfully, could you see the pundits comments today, when Reagan told Gorbachev to “tear down the wall”? Heck, the Senate Democrats would be talking impeachment!

If you look past what went wrong in Iraq, and look at what has gone right, if you look at most of the “terror” activity in Iraq is NOT done by Iraqi’s, if you listen to the Iraqi people and not what we’re spoon fed by the media, if you look at WHO is in Guantanamo Bay, and not whether or not they should be there, you can see progress. Maybe, if you’d stop believing everything you’re told, Bush might not be a laughing stock. Realistically, public opinion is too far gone for that.

But, if you believe that terrorists are evil, if you understand that the terror activity in Iraq is done by “foreigners”, not Iraqi people, HOW can you advocate leaving? Other than “feeling better” for a week, or a month, or maybe a year, what benefit does the world get from destabilizing Iraq? Vengence? Revenge? The ability for the liberal pundits to say they were right? Not much else, unfortunately.

Finally, the money issue. Are others paying the bills? Sure, small portions. Compare our costs to the rest of the world combined. Nothing in life is free, but for the rest of the world, this is ALMOST free. Look at our debt load Tar. Look at it. We’ve been there to help every other country in the world. Who is going to help us? NO ONE.

That’s what happens when you’re at the top of the heap. You are envied. You are judged. People aspire to be where you are. If for no other reason than that, the FREE WORLD CANNOT PICK OUR PRESIDENT.

I pray every day that Obama loses. I’ll also pray that you and others will one day see that before it is too late.

[Freak Out]

Just an FYI...Europe/Germany have been dealing with terrorism, homegrown and outside for many, many years. Saying the US has shielded them from it is debatable....unless you want to classify the USSR as a terrorist state. Both countries have worked well together for the most part protecting each other.

Reagan was a liberal in many cases. He signed the most liberal abortion law in the country while Governor of California and worked with the Democrats in Congress while President on many, many issues. The Dems in Congress respected him. But he was also sold on some very bad policy decisions by the people he had around him. Which almost cost him his job.

[retailguy]

Just an FYI...Europe/Germany have been dealing with terrorism, homegrown and outside for many, many years. Saying the US has shielded them from it is debatable....unless you want to classify the USSR as a terrorist state. Both countries have worked well together for the most part protecting each other.

Reagan was a liberal in many cases. He signed the most liberal abortion law in the country while Governor of California and worked with the Democrats in Congress while President on many, many issues. The Dems in Congress respected him. But he was also sold on some very bad policy decisions by the people he had around him. Which almost cost him his job.

True, they've been dealing with it much longer than we have. But in totality, they aren't any closer to a solution than we are. So, you can't claim much progress from their dealings, can you? Their actions are by default mostly reactionary, and this issue was getting far worse than it was better. Right now, it's largely contained to Iraq. It wasn't this way 5 years ago.

I wouldn't suspect that you or anyone else would argue that keeping the population of Guantanamo Bay locked away has reduced terrorist actions and terrorist threats - the downside is it has pissed other terrorists off, but there isn't a free lunch any way that you look at it. I think all of us can agree with that statement, even if you think the existence of Guantanamo Bay is a crime. If you keep them locked away, they can't plan attacks nor carry them out. This is my point towards reducing terrorism in the short term.

Here's the reality. You can't negotiate with these people. You can't pacify, or mollify them, you can't reason with them, and you can't meet any demand that they have, since their only demand is death. Until we accept that statement as a fact, not much will change. Since their goal is to wipe out "Western Civilization", we should all be on the same side here. Whether they wipe out the Germans or the Americans, or the Austrians, or the Russians, or the Austrailians they don't care. They'll take what they can get. A little debate on our side is healthy, but when we forget this basic premise, it gets dangerous very quickly. Obama gives me ZERO confidence that he gets this point. His insistence on leaving Iraq is a clear sign to me that he does not understand this premis.

History's revisionism of the Reagan years is well documented. My statement is probably easily provable by searching archives here and elsewhere. If we had more people with the fortitude of Reagan this country would be better off. Quite honestly, the fact Reagan didn't blink was as much a part of his success as his policies were.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

So now we know that John McCain has been in the Senate a lot longer than Obama. Glad we got that cleared up.

It isn't just experience. Obama has been running for president almost from the moment he arrived in Washington. Once a politician is that close to the big prize, all of their comments and votes are calibrated.


And what did he do before being a U.S. Senator? Some law teaching. A community organizer. Illinois STate Senate. Not bad experience, but not adequate preparation to understood the ways of the world, business, government.

We really can't know who Obama is, he hasn't had to comment on many controversial issues while he was in a position of accountability. Would he have voted to authorize Bush in Iraq? Who knows.

You've commented that you expect Obama to govern as a centrist. MAybe, but hell, you have no reason to believe this.

Please elaborate on our current president's qualifications. 4 years as governor from a state in which the gov has some of the least power...yep, so much more than obama.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Please elaborate on our current president's qualifications. 4 years as governor from a state in which the gov has some of the least power...yep, so much more than obama.

Being governor of a large state is enough of a credential to run for president, in my view. A gov has to compromise, make decisions, commit his signature to a variety of legisation.

Clinton, Reagon, Carter were state governors. Bush the Elder had a long record in the executive and legislative branch.

OBama's situation is truly biazaare. I'm no historian, but I can't remember a President being nearly so unqualified. The comparison with Kennedy is silly, Kennedy had full terms in the Senate & House. Obama is a phenomena, he will probably shoot from the Illinois State Legislator to the Presidency in 4 years solely on the basis of his charm and novelty.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Please elaborate on our current president's qualifications. 4 years as governor from a state in which the gov has some of the least power...yep, so much more than obama.

Being governor of a large state is enough of a credential to run for president, in my view. A gov has to compromise, make decisions, commit his signature to a variety of legisation.

Clinton, Reagon, Carter were state governors. Bush the Elder had a long record in the executive and legislative branch.

OBama's situation is truly biazaare. I'm no historian, but I can't remember a President being nearly so unqualified. The comparison with Kennedy is silly, Kennedy had full terms in the Senate & House. Obama is a phenomena, he will probably shoot from the Illinois State Legislator to the Presidency in 4 years solely on the basis of his charm and novelty.

4 years from a state in which the gov has very little power. Sorry, i don't see it. And, a failure at everything he did prior. Plus a drunk and a drug user.

Obama at least has been a success at every level of his life. An achiever.

Experience: Ike was in the military. that ain't exactly someone who had far reaching compromise, policy making, etc.

Washington...um, where was the experience.

Lincoln was a state senator.

I'm with Andrew Sullivan...Obama represents the greatest rebranding of our country since RR.

[mraynrand]

Obama at least has been a success at every level of his life. An achiever.



He was the best community organizer Chicago ever saw. Except according to those who worked with him. He was also a great success as U.S. Senator. All the things he accomplished! He was a great success getting monies for his terrorist buddies. And he was a success prizing monies out of his multiple-felon buddy Tony Reszko. Barak Obama: A success at ever level.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Obama at least has been a success at every level of his life. An achiever.



He was the best community organizer Chicago ever saw. Except according to those who worked with him. He was also a great success as U.S. Senator. All the things he accomplished! He was a great success getting monies for his terrorist buddies. And he was a success prizing monies out of his multiple-felon buddy Tony Reszko. Barak Obama: A success at ever level.

Spin away, dipshit. Who ever said.."best." It is just hilarious to watch you repeatedly twist and spin.

BTW, hard to be the best at something when you are 26 or so with no experience in that area.

Let's review:

1. Graduateded from an IVY..got in on merit.
2. Worked at BIC, etc. in NYC....no family connections.
3. Community Organizer/Director. Hmm, success:

a: Staff grew from 1 to 13
b: budget increased around 600 percent

4. Attended Harvard Law
5. Editor of Law Review as freshmen....pretty much the top position you can have while attending law school as freshmen.
6. Prez of Law Review.
7. Graduated Magna cum laude....please tell me that isn't success.
8. Book contract based on his election as Prez...hmm, they must know something that you don't.
9. U of Chitown recruited him to be on faculty. Yep, those prestigious schools surely like losers. Progressed in his career there from lecturer to senior lecturer.
10. Voter reg drive meets goal...leading Crains to put him as 40 under 40 powers. Yep, that wasn't a success.
11. Worked several years for private law firm...not fired or had it go under...contrary to current prez.
12. member of board of directors of several orgs.
13. Elected and reelected as state senator...yep, people always reelect. :roll:
14. Keynote address at Dem Convention...yep, got that by being unsuccessful.
15. In senate..junior member..still sponsored some bills and was on committees. But, what would you expect of a junior senator...please give me someone who was there for 2 years that was better... :roll:

16. Won his parties nomination from widely considered unbeatable and presumptive nominee.

I, and most of america, would call that being a success. Guess it pales in comparison to your life, but...don't we all. :oops:

[mraynrand]

Obama at least has been a success at every level of his life. An achiever.



He was the best community organizer Chicago ever saw. Except according to those who worked with him. He was also a great success as U.S. Senator. All the things he accomplished! He was a great success getting monies for his terrorist buddies. And he was a success prizing monies out of his multiple-felon buddy Tony Reszko. Barak Obama: A success at ever level.

Spin away, dipshit. Who ever said.."best." It is just hilarious to watch you repeatedly twist and spin.

BTW, hard to be the best at something when you are 26 or so with no experience in that area.

Let's review:

1. Graduateded from an IVY..got in on merit.
2. Worked at BIC, etc. in NYC....no family connections.
3. Community Organizer/Director. Hmm, success:

a: Staff grew from 1 to 13
b: budget increased around 600 percent

4. Attended Harvard Law
5. Editor of Law Review as freshmen....pretty much the top position you can have while attending law school as freshmen.
6. Prez of Law Review.
7. Graduated Magna cum laude....please tell me that isn't success.
8. Book contract based on his election as Prez...hmm, they must know something that you don't.
9. U of Chitown recruited him to be on faculty. Yep, those prestigious schools surely like losers. Progressed in his career there from lecturer to senior lecturer.
10. Voter reg drive meets goal...leading Crains to put him as 40 under 40 powers. Yep, that wasn't a success.
11. Worked several years for private law firm...not fired or had it go under...contrary to current prez.
12. member of board of directors of several orgs.
13. Elected and reelected as state senator...yep, people always reelect. :roll:
14. Keynote address at Dem Convention...yep, got that by being unsuccessful.
15. In senate..junior member..still sponsored some bills and was on committees. But, what would you expect of a junior senator...please give me someone who was there for 2 years that was better... :roll:

16. Won his parties nomination from widely considered unbeatable and presumptive nominee.

I, and most of america, would call that being a success. Guess it pales in comparison to your life, but...don't we all. :oops:

I didn't deny his success. I just filled in the details that a radical lefty like yourself wouldn't mention - or would actively obfuscate. I actually don't have any problems with his positive accomplishments - just with his radical leftists ideology and his current attempts to confuse the electorate as a policy chameleon.

BTW, you're slipping - 'Dipshit?' Such reparte! You're obviously a skilled linguist!

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Obama at least has been a success at every level of his life. An achiever.



He was the best community organizer Chicago ever saw. Except according to those who worked with him. He was also a great success as U.S. Senator. All the things he accomplished! He was a great success getting monies for his terrorist buddies. And he was a success prizing monies out of his multiple-felon buddy Tony Reszko. Barak Obama: A success at ever level.

Spin away, dipshit. Who ever said.."best." It is just hilarious to watch you repeatedly twist and spin.

BTW, hard to be the best at something when you are 26 or so with no experience in that area.

Let's review:

1. Graduateded from an IVY..got in on merit.
2. Worked at BIC, etc. in NYC....no family connections.
3. Community Organizer/Director. Hmm, success:

a: Staff grew from 1 to 13
b: budget increased around 600 percent

4. Attended Harvard Law
5. Editor of Law Review as freshmen....pretty much the top position you can have while attending law school as freshmen.
6. Prez of Law Review.
7. Graduated Magna cum laude....please tell me that isn't success.
8. Book contract based on his election as Prez...hmm, they must know something that you don't.
9. U of Chitown recruited him to be on faculty. Yep, those prestigious schools surely like losers. Progressed in his career there from lecturer to senior lecturer.
10. Voter reg drive meets goal...leading Crains to put him as 40 under 40 powers. Yep, that wasn't a success.
11. Worked several years for private law firm...not fired or had it go under...contrary to current prez.
12. member of board of directors of several orgs.
13. Elected and reelected as state senator...yep, people always reelect. :roll:
14. Keynote address at Dem Convention...yep, got that by being unsuccessful.
15. In senate..junior member..still sponsored some bills and was on committees. But, what would you expect of a junior senator...please give me someone who was there for 2 years that was better... :roll:

16. Won his parties nomination from widely considered unbeatable and presumptive nominee.

I, and most of america, would call that being a success. Guess it pales in comparison to your life, but...don't we all. :oops:

I didn't deny his success. I just filled in the details that a radical lefty like yourself wouldn't mention - or would actively obfuscate. I actually don't have any problems with his positive accomplishments - just with his radical leftists ideology and his current attempts to confuse the electorate as a policy chameleon.

BTW, you're slipping - 'Dipshit?' Such reparte! You're obviously a skilled linguist!

Spin away..you didn't deny? LOL. You didn't mention, just detract and confuse by substituting "best" for success. Is that what you learned at the goebbels institute of propaganda?

Why would i mention? I didn't mention specifics...noted only that he was successful. Must be a hard concept for you to figure out.

Linguist: Not slipping, just using appropriate term for you. I guess i coulda called you a cretin..but, that would be giving you a bit more credit than you are due.

Thought you weren't responding to me after the beatdown i gave you. Can't actually believe that you woulda taken the time to bring a hastily written post to a professor. And, of course, didn't mention taking your post and having him/her analyze it. Pretty much sums up your modus operandi.

Rare feat..being both sad and pathetic.

[sheepshead]

scary

[mraynrand]

Thought you weren't responding to me after the beatdown i gave you. Can't actually believe that you woulda taken the time to bring a hastily written post to a professor. And, of course, didn't mention taking your post and having him/her analyze it. Pretty much sums up your modus operandi.


Beatdown? You basically gave me a Wikipedia report on Obama's life. I know all the details already. I didn't find the grammer school report edifying. Having a professor read it wouldn't have been anywhere as amusing as your 'essay' on Rand, which I keep around for laughs. The point is that you regard Obama's track record as one of uninterrupted success. He went to law school and became a politician. Essentially, he really never had much of a real job, outside academia and politics. But that's true of a lot of politicians, and a lot of academia - they live sheltered lives in many ways.

What concerns me is what Obama really believes, when he can be pinned down. For example, he originally did NOT understand the basic principle that raising taxes reduces tax receipts (even though a Harvard educated man should know that it worked for Kennedy, Reagan, Bush, etc.) When informed that revenues would decrease, he claimed that he would raise taxes anyway, because it was 'fair.' Of course, he doesn't understand that raising taxes on businesses will cause them to flee the country - this from a guy who pledges to keep businesses in the U.S. - and unilaterally change NAFTA at the same time (Oh, but he changd that view already - see other examples below) But that's rare - seeing a glimpse that he would willingly harm the nation because something conflicted with his Rawls-like view of fairness. In other instances, he thought the DC gun ban was constitutional - except not now. He was against faith-based initiatives - except not anymore. He was for a direct draw down of forces in Iraq - except not anymore (he'll meet with the joint chiefs first!). It will be interesting to see how long it takes before he finds a way to say he was for the surge all along. What does Obama really believe? Who will change his mind when he's in office? That's what I care about. Not whether he, like thousands of other meretricious sycophants, are able to graduate law school with honors and become societal parasites (e.g. politicians).

And what do you stand for Tyrone? What do you actually care about? Fr what cause would you take up a rifle and risk your life? Would you defend me, a fellow American, against a terrorist? Do you have an absolute definition of a terrorist? Do you have an absolute definition of anything? The answers aren't on Wikipedia. Even though I disagree heartily with guys like you, I'd still defend you against real enemies of the U.S.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Thought you weren't responding to me after the beatdown i gave you. Can't actually believe that you woulda taken the time to bring a hastily written post to a professor. And, of course, didn't mention taking your post and having him/her analyze it. Pretty much sums up your modus operandi.


Beatdown? You basically gave me a Wikipedia report on Obama's life. I know all the details already. I didn't find the grammer school report edifying. Having a professor read it wouldn't have been anywhere as amusing as your 'essay' on Rand, which I keep around for laughs. The point is that you regard Obama's track record as one of uninterrupted success. He went to law school and became a politician. Essentially, he really never had much of a real job, outside academia and politics. But that's true of a lot of politicians, and a lot of academia - they live sheltered lives in many ways.

What concerns me is what Obama really believes, when he can be pinned down. For example, he originally did NOT understand the basic principle that raising taxes reduces tax receipts (even though a Harvard educated man should know that it worked for Kennedy, Reagan, Bush, etc.) When informed that revenues would decrease, he claimed that he would raise taxes anyway, because it was 'fair.' Of course, he doesn't understand that raising taxes on businesses will cause them to flee the country - this from a guy who pledges to keep businesses in the U.S. - and unilaterally change NAFTA at the same time (Oh, but he changd that view already - see other examples below) But that's rare - seeing a glimpse that he would willingly harm the nation because something conflicted with his Rawls-like view of fairness. In other instances, he thought the DC gun ban was constitutional - except not now. He was against faith-based initiatives - except not anymore. He was for a direct draw down of forces in Iraq - except not anymore (he'll meet with the joint chiefs first!). It will be interesting to see how long it takes before he finds a way to say he was for the surge all along. What does Obama really believe? Who will change his mind when he's in office? That's what I care about. Not whether he, like thousands of other meretricious sycophants, are able to graduate law school with honors and become societal parasites (e.g. politicians).

And what do you stand for Tyrone? What do you actually care about? Fr what cause would you take up a rifle and risk your life? Would you defend me, a fellow American, against a terrorist? Do you have an absolute definition of a terrorist? Do you have an absolute definition of anything? The answers aren't on Wikipedia. Even though I disagree heartily with guys like you, I'd still defend you against real enemies of the U.S.

Yes, i give you beatdowns everytime you post.

I find it sad and pathetic that you would call my post an essay and then bring it to a prof. I also find it..well, typicall that you wouldn't show him your response. LOL

obama: Again, that is success by any standard. For you to imply anything else is hilarious.

His views: Should i contrast them with McCain's flip flops? Ooops. :oops: If we wanna discuss econ...obama may not know much, but infinitely more than McCain. As for troop withdrawls..um, the situation has changed since he made his pronouncement. Should he not reevaluate?

And, what is the point of discussing things when you just spin. Obama wasnt' against faith based.

Me: Why do you care? As for what you would do...i could care less..and more importanly, you aren't doing it..so, it is all talk.

[texaspackerbacker]

I'm fairly confident that Obama will self-destruct to such a degree that even the leftist mainstream media won't be able to save him in the eyes of the electorate.

What troubles me is what Tarlam--ordinarily a sane and rational poster wrote about European and possibly other foreign views of America. My first reaction, of course, is the hell with them. Who gives a shit what they think anyway. Realistically, though, although America doesn't NEED the support of foreigners, harmony with the relatively civilized portion of the world--those generally practicing freedom, representative democracy, and capitalism--is better than the absence of it.

Tarlam, as with virtually every other perceived problem of America, the media--the sinister leftist mainstream media--is primarily to blame. European perceptions of America are shaped by OUR media, both in a direct sense and in an indirect sense through foreign medias parrotting the crap spewed by our own left-saturated media assholes.

The substance of this discussion was handled pretty well by retailguy--America, in fact, DOES have the moral high ground, and both is and has been for the better part of a century, responsible for saving the world from falling into a new dark age of tyranny, depravity, poverty, and ignorance. I, of course, refer to Nazism, Communism, and now radical Islam.

Over and above that, however, I see a distinct trend in Europe toward the light--toward support for America and effective responsible national policies. Sarkozy in France and Merkel in Germany both got elected touting a pro-American, even pro-Bush stance. Denmark and most of the former Soviet bloc countries are staunchly pro-American--people, not merely government. Do you disagree with the accuracy of that, Tarlam? I know first hand that the Philippines and several other countries in that part of the world are solidly in our corner. Latin America seems pretty well adjusted too--minus 2 or 3 countries that Chavez has managed to contaminate.

I see the whole perceived anti-American outlook as just another in a long line of bogus demagogic crap put out by our own sick America-hating media.

[Harlan Huckleby]

years from a state in which the gov has very little power. Sorry, i don't see it. And, a failure at everything he did prior. Plus a drunk and a drug user.

I'm not going to defend how Bush turned out. But he was chief executive of the third largest state, I think for 5 years. That's serious management experience.


Obama at least has been a success at every level of his life. An achiever.

So has Oprah.



Experience: Ike was in the military. that ain't exactly someone who had far reaching compromise, policy making, etc.

Oh come on, he managed the War in Europe. That ain't exactly running a Dairy Queen. Generals can have good management preparation, and the military is very political. He served in a political role.


Washington...um, where was the experience.

Good Lord! Don't you think his efforts to fanangle a seperation from Britian involved a little leadership and political skill? This one is ridiculous.


Lincoln was a state senator..

On paper, this comparison presents your strongest case. But Lincoln was a freak. Those Lincoln-Douglass debates were 4 years before his presidential run. He was already a mature and brilliant thinker at that point.
I watched Obama in the debates. He got better throughout the primaries, but he is shallow. Very glib. Don't talk to me about Lincoln.


I'm with Andrew Sullivan...Obama represents the greatest rebranding of our country since RR.

Ya, I see this as a potential advantage of an OBama presidency. He is admired around the world because he is black, charismatic, sends the signal that the U.S. is an evil force in Iraq and he aims to extract the evil, and he has a cute smile. What's not for a foreigner to like?

[Tarlam!]

Tex,

I think you nailed it with commending Retailguy for his most delicate handling of my posts - thanks RG, you showed me a hell of a lot of respect!

Tex, you ask me if I think you've got your facts wrong. No, I don't think you have. In fact, the one thing I admire most about you is your fact based posting.

I want to go on record as being an arch conservative. ARCH. I have noticed that liberal in America is a dirty word for conservatives. That's kinda interesting, because in Australia, The Liberal Party are the conservatives and in Germany they are, too. Albeit in Germany, they struggle to be the 3rd largest Party.

I would really hate to be misunderstood here. My position is pretty simple, but probably offensive and I'm sorry for that.

The USA provides the Leader of the Free World. I and many many other, live in the Free World. We simply have no say in Our Leader. You Americans do. Choose wisely, for all of us.

[mraynrand]

I'm with Andrew Sullivan...Obama represents the greatest rebranding of our country since RR.

Ya, I see this as a potential advantage of an OBama presidency. He is admired around the world because he is black, charismatic, sends the signal that the U.S. is an evil force in Iraq and he aims to extract the evil, and he has a cute smile. What's not for a foreigner to like?

I agree with Andrew Sullivan as well. Reagan rebranded the US as a moral force - reminding the world what the US stood for - Reagan was direct and succinct: the Soviet Union was evil. Barak stands with the World's left, that says the US is the evil in the world. The US is the immoral force that invades and occupies countries, solely for oil and corporate wealth, slaughtering civilians indiscriminantly as we go. Funded and supported by the most rabid of US lefties - most significantly MoveOn.org - who repeatedly support the notion that the US under Bush is the world's greatest evil - it really matters not so much what Barak himself thinks (because of his changes in almost every core position, we have no idea what he personally stands for) - we have to look at his support base. Barak represents the far-left, anti-Reagan in the country - the United States is evil, the influence and power of the US must be diminished , and the socialist left in the world are to be emulated. That others don't recognize this, and see him as various manifestations of a savior, is a testament to his skill (success, you can argue) as a politician.

[sheepshead]

Bigguns, While I respect your right to post away on here, it is very clear that you are ill equipped to comment on the political process and the background of candidates past or present. I have taken the time to answer your same comments on another thread to no avail. Why don't you take a little time during this process and educate yourself with a little history? The branches of government (state and federal) and their functions. This presidential election can be a could education for you. I invite you to properly delve into the process.

Best,

SheepsHead

[HowardRoark]

I have been lost in the cyber wilderness as of late. It is good to see that Mr. Town and Mr. Galt are still going at it somewhere.

[sooner6600]

Tex;

You mentioned the sinister left media.

A partial definition of the word sinister is left handed.

Therefor do two lefts make a right?


Sign me

no left turns in Ardmore!

[texaspackerbacker]

Tex;

You mentioned the sinister left media.

A partial definition of the word sinister is left handed.

Therefor do two lefts make a right?


Sign me

no left turns in Ardmore!

Very Interesting. I guess I'll have to be more careful with my double negatives.

My daughter and son-in-law just finished living in Oklahoma City for a year, so I spent a lot of time there. I didn't see much that was sinister or otherwise left in Oklahoma.

Even the Democrats seem pretty tame and halfway civilized there.

[retailguy]

I think you nailed it with commending Retailguy for his most delicate handling of my posts - thanks RG, you showed me a hell of a lot of respect!

Thank you Tarlam! for the fine heartfelt comment. I have enjoyed our discussion very much. I am very much in favor of healthy debate, I think it solves a lot.

I don't typically participate in the political discussions here, as they accomplish little. The left call the right "Christian wackos" and the right call the left "liberal athiests" and it pretty much ends there. (Yes I realize that there are many more acronymns but lets leave it at the 1st two "G" rated ones I could think of.)

I respect you and your point of view Tarlam. I want you to know that I listened to you and heard where you're coming from and I hope likewise.




The USA provides the Leader of the Free World. I and many many other, live in the Free World. We simply have no say in Our Leader. You Americans do. Choose wisely, for all of us.

I agree with this. Yes, we are the defacto world leader. I'm not sure that most of us want this role, but accept that someone needs to do it, and we believe we're pretty damn prepared to try.

That being said, we do make mistakes. In a way, we contributed to the current spat of terrorism many years ago. (My belief)

As you recall, back when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, we played a large role in providing weapons and funding and training for the Afghan's to defend themselves. Then, when it got political, we bailed on them. We bailed. My President. Our President. A President and a Congress that I voted for. We left them with more chaos than they would have had, had they been under Soviet rule. Can you imagine what it would feel like to be left with a largely bombed out country, no money, no jobs, no economy, no hope for the future? Hell, Tarlam, if I was Afghani, I'd hate us too.

Then came many years of dissarray, followed by the Taliban, and worse oppression than the Soviets could've imagined inflicting on them. This, I believe, is the main reason we cannot find Obama. People that absolutely despise us are giving him sanctuary, and see him as a leader. Can you really blame them? I can't. He rails against the same "Western Society" that abandoned them.

So, what are some of us prepared to do now? Leave the Iraqi's in the same situation. We bombed their country back to the stone age, arrested, jailed and helped execute most of their leaders, and now we're about to say "Well, go fix it yourself". :shock:

If we do this, we'll raise ANOTHER generation of people that justifiably hate America. As long as we REFUSE to learn from our mistakes we are destined to repeat them. Eventually, those mistakes will destroy us.

I don't care if you agree with the Iraq war or not, leaving will not make it "right". It'll just make us look like selfish, wimpy people who are incapable of "getting" the big picture.

My prayers continue... It'll take a power much much greater than me to fix this mess.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Bigguns, While I respect your right to post away on here, it is very clear that you are ill equipped to comment on the political process and the background of candidates past or present. I have taken the time to answer your same comments on another thread to no avail. Why don't you take a little time during this process and educate yourself with a little history? The branches of government (state and federal) and their functions. This presidential election can be a could education for you. I invite you to properly delve into the process.

Best,

SheepsHead

Oh, lord. Have you actually ever looked in the mirror.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

double post

[Freak Out]

If we do this, we'll raise ANOTHER generation of people that justifiably hate America. As long as we REFUSE to learn from our mistakes we are destined to repeat them. Eventually, those mistakes will destroy us.

I don't care if you agree with the Iraq war or not, leaving will not make it "right". It'll just make us look like selfish, wimpy people who are incapable of "getting" the big picture.

My prayers continue... It'll take a power much much greater than me to fix this mess.

So if the Iraqi government demands a timetable for foreign troop withdraw do we refuse?

[bobblehead]

143 days — I keep leftovers in my refrigerator longer than that.


That is one of the funniest things I have ever read on PR. And everyone knows how I feel about sheepdip, so I aint lying!


But in terms of the election in November;

The Free World, as it has been put, wants Obama. We are sick to death of people like George W. Bush. Why? Well, as rightly pointed out, your President is the leader of the ENTIRE free world. That's not just because of the military might of the United States of America. And, if you think you are the leaders of the free world, just because you have great aircraft carriers and invisible bombers, you are selling yourself very cheaply.

No, it's not just your military. It is also your hamburgers, your proms, your football, your schools, your PTA's, Hollywood, Nashville, Maine Lobsters, Chicago Steaks, Halloween, Thanks Giving Day, in fact, almost everything you do. You people are simply good. The world loves to hate you (but not me). But, the begrudgingly respect your achievements. You leave us little choice. You are simply the best. We even have Halloween in Germany these days. Blieve me, that was not the case 15 years ago.

But being the best means you need to lighten up on the not so goods. You beat the rest of the world in leadership, but you mustn't be arrogant about it. W. Bush has been. Reagan was a Prince among men. We had a good laugh with Clinton. But, W. Bush has been a nightmare.

If McCain is deemed to be anything like W. or his father, it would not surprise me to see Obama's coffers filled with money funnelling in from outside the US of A.

The world is sick of your President today. We have been for many years.


But back to my original point. The Free World wants Obama. And, if indeed he has only had 143 days of experience, we want him even more, because maybe, just maybe he will lead the Free World and not just America. He won't be indoctrinated with some of the drivel that The Free World has had to swallow.

Boy, I hope I don't lose any friends here posting this. I should learn when to keep my mouth shut.

Tar..i love ya...you are NOT losing me as a friend...but I could give two flying shits about what the "free world" wants for MY president. WE have to live with his policies and the damage he can do to this country. WE have to overcome his overbearing tax policy. WE have to strive to overcome his nanny state politics.

Bush has irked me plenty with several of his policies and approaches. We are mired in trying to stabalize a region that has resisted stabilization for thousands of years. He has devalued the dollar something fierce. Maybe Obama is the chemo that our country needs to show us the way...but a good president?? Not a chance in hell.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

years from a state in which the gov has very little power. Sorry, i don't see it. And, a failure at everything he did prior. Plus a drunk and a drug user.

I'm not going to defend how Bush turned out. But he was chief executive of the third largest state, I think for 5 years. That's serious management experience.


Obama at least has been a success at every level of his life. An achiever.

So has Oprah.



Experience: Ike was in the military. that ain't exactly someone who had far reaching compromise, policy making, etc.

Oh come on, he managed the War in Europe. That ain't exactly running a Dairy Queen. Generals can have good management preparation, and the military is very political. He served in a political role.


Washington...um, where was the experience.

Good Lord! Don't you think his efforts to fanangle a seperation from Britian involved a little leadership and political skill? This one is ridiculous.


Lincoln was a state senator..

On paper, this comparison presents your strongest case. But Lincoln was a freak. Those Lincoln-Douglass debates were 4 years before his presidential run. He was already a mature and brilliant thinker at that point.
I watched Obama in the debates. He got better throughout the primaries, but he is shallow. Very glib. Don't talk to me about Lincoln.


I'm with Andrew Sullivan...Obama represents the greatest rebranding of our country since RR.

Ya, I see this as a potential advantage of an OBama presidency. He is admired around the world because he is black, charismatic, sends the signal that the U.S. is an evil force in Iraq and he aims to extract the evil, and he has a cute smile. What's not for a foreigner to like?

1. Of the state with extremely limited powers. How much experience do you really think he gained.

2. Sure, that is management. And, do you not think that running the harvard law review, being on boards, etc. isn't management. Not of the same scale, but management nonetheless. And, Ike wasn't having others question him or needing to make compromises...that is what you do in the real world...not in the military. Political..interpersonal, perhaps, but you can't even compare it to illinois politics..or being a senator.

3. Washington..didn't question leadership. We are talking exeperience relevant to running a country. So, not really. He had little to do with the politics...that would be jefferson, franklin. Washingon was hardly a worldly man. Nor a man of letters. Nor a man of education. Good fighter and a man smart enough to marry a wealthy widow.

4. Lincoln. Your personal opinion. Brilliant thinker..i'd have to say yes. You don't get to harvard and then basically run the show without being that. And, you don't windup teaching constituional law at U of Chitown without being a thinker.

5. Rebranding. If that is how you choose to frame it..so be it.

I see it as Sullivan sees it. That we aren't Bush/Cheney. That we are among the most culturally, racially and religiously diverse countries in the world. That we are for civil rights..not torture and not executive tyranny.

That we are about what is good for the world as it's partner..not boss. That we arent' perfect and that we do make mistakes..not imperiousness. Recognizing that everyone is important and equal..and not as tex would have it..that we are more important. Not a good stance to have if we want to lead.

That our leader is one of brains, thoughfullness...and here is the kicker...a little bit of humility. Something that we have missed with our current leadership.

THat we arent' a country that ships prisoners off to other countries to be tortured. that arrests people without ever telling them what they are arrested for.

That we can't be talking sideways about compassion and justice while doing the opposite here.

[retailguy]

If we do this, we'll raise ANOTHER generation of people that justifiably hate America. As long as we REFUSE to learn from our mistakes we are destined to repeat them. Eventually, those mistakes will destroy us.

I don't care if you agree with the Iraq war or not, leaving will not make it "right". It'll just make us look like selfish, wimpy people who are incapable of "getting" the big picture.

My prayers continue... It'll take a power much much greater than me to fix this mess.

So if the Iraqi government demands a timetable for foreign troop withdraw do we refuse?

Freak, that's not what is going on. NO ONE has asked us to leave. The Iraqi people need and want our help defending THEIR country from foreigners who are illegally in their country creating/planning/executing terrorist threats. Obama believes we should pull out in spite of that danger because it's the "politically popular" thing to do, and "he's always opposed the war". I vehemently disagree with that.

That's not what happened in Afghanistan either. We left, they expected us not to leave and to help them. We left anyway and didn't help them with work or with money. We abandoned them.

I don't understand your point, except to divert the discussion away from my point, and to justify backing your candidate. Vote for him Freak, but when you pull the lever or check the box, just understand what your vote REALLY means. All of it, both the good and the bad. Every candidate has "warts". Don't ignore Obama's. This is a BIG wart.

[sheepshead]

Bigguns, While I respect your right to post away on here, it is very clear that you are ill equipped to comment on the political process and the background of candidates past or present. I have taken the time to answer your same comments on another thread to no avail. Why don't you take a little time during this process and educate yourself with a little history? The branches of government (state and federal) and their functions. This presidential election can be a could education for you. I invite you to properly delve into the process.

Best,

SheepsHead

Oh, lord. Have you actually ever looked in the mirror.

Ahhh the ol' "I know you are but what am I?" comeback again. I'll just move on and ignore your mindless rants. It's one thing to not be up on a sports team it's quite another not to have any idea how your country is run and profess to know otherwise.

[Freak Out]

If we do this, we'll raise ANOTHER generation of people that justifiably hate America. As long as we REFUSE to learn from our mistakes we are destined to repeat them. Eventually, those mistakes will destroy us.

I don't care if you agree with the Iraq war or not, leaving will not make it "right". It'll just make us look like selfish, wimpy people who are incapable of "getting" the big picture.

My prayers continue... It'll take a power much much greater than me to fix this mess.

So if the Iraqi government demands a timetable for foreign troop withdraw do we refuse?

Freak, that's not what is going on. NO ONE has asked us to leave. The Iraqi people need and want our help defending THEIR country from foreigners who are illegally in their country creating/planning/executing terrorist threats. Obama believes we should pull out in spite of that danger because it's the "politically popular" thing to do, and "he's always opposed the war". I vehemently disagree with that.

That's not what happened in Afghanistan either. We left, they expected us not to leave and to help them. We left anyway and didn't help them with work or with money. We abandoned them.

I don't understand your point, except to divert the discussion away from my point, and to justify backing your candidate. Vote for him Freak, but when you pull the lever or check the box, just understand what your vote REALLY means. All of it, both the good and the bad. Every candidate has "warts". Don't ignore Obama's. This is a BIG wart.

I guess your not paying attention to some recent comments coming from Iraqi government officials. There is a debate going on over the dreaded "timetable"...and it does not involve Hussein Obama. Good or bad does it ever become the Iraqi's decision? This has nothing to do with Obama. When did Hussein become my candidate? I'm not aware of ever had made that determination.

[The Shadow]

Obama reminds me of an empty suit.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Bigguns, While I respect your right to post away on here, it is very clear that you are ill equipped to comment on the political process and the background of candidates past or present. I have taken the time to answer your same comments on another thread to no avail. Why don't you take a little time during this process and educate yourself with a little history? The branches of government (state and federal) and their functions. This presidential election can be a could education for you. I invite you to properly delve into the process.

Best,

SheepsHead

Oh, lord. Have you actually ever looked in the mirror.

Ahhh the ol' "I know you are but what am I?" comeback again. I'll just move on and ignore your mindless rants. It's one thing to not be up on a sports team it's quite another not to have any idea how your country is run and profess to know otherwise.

My mistake. Asking you to do some self examing is foolish. Of course you can't..that would require some analysis and deep thougt..not parroting rhetoric.

Don't you get tired of being told you are a jerk?

[sheepshead]

Name calling now? swell

[Scott Campbell]

Thank god I never get into any stupid fights.

[retailguy]

Thank god I never get into any stupid fights.

:roll: :P

[retailguy]

I guess your not paying attention to some recent comments coming from Iraqi government officials. There is a debate going on over the dreaded "timetable"...and it does not involve Hussein Obama. Good or bad does it ever become the Iraqi's decision? This has nothing to do with Obama. When did Hussein become my candidate? I'm not aware of ever had made that determination.

Well, Freak, I stay pretty plugged in but I miss things from time to time. When the Iraqi officials are ready, they'll tell us, I'd think, and we should act accordingly. (At least that seems reasonable to me).

When we start to pull out, don't we owe the willingness to move back in should they need (and request) us to do that? Don't you think if we move out on their timetable as opposed to ours, that "feelings" are less likely to be hurt, and the perceptions of us are much better rather than listening to the empty suit (Thanks, Shadow!) tell us we should step up the timetable. Additionally, don't you think that makes for a "safer" transfer of power? After all, we're a pretty good war machine.

That's what I was referring to, and I thought I was pretty clear about that. I see Obama's position as political pandering to the popular opinion at best case, and at worst case he believes the crap he's spewing. That, in my mind, makes him dangerous because it suggests he's either a fool, or willing to take the "popular" path at the risk of disaster, neither of which are acceptable to me.

Freak, I don't read much of your political posting, so I guess I can't point to a place where you've said you support Obama. I'd find it difficult to believe that you'd support McCain, however, Harlan's on board so it isn't out of the question, I guess.

In any event, if you agreed with me, I'd hardly see the need to pose the question that you did. Nowhere did I even hint that we should overstay our welcome, nor that we should tell the Iraqis how to run their country. We owe them as much safety as we can provide in the transfer, and as much education as they want. We also owe them to not abandon them and make them fend for themselves because that makes them vulnerable, as happened in Afghanistan.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Name calling now? swell

Now playing the aggrieved poster. Rich.

[mraynrand]

Recognizing that everyone is important and equal..and not as tex would have it..that we are more important. Not a good stance to have if we want to lead.

And there is the hallmark of the left in this country (and the left around the world for that matter). Absolute moral relativism - No one is any better. We're all equal. Yet such thinking quickly leads to floating abstractions - concepts disconnected from perception. A leader somehow should both know that no one is any better or worse, yet still think that they can 'lead.' How can one justify leading anything if they don't believe they have better ideas, or aren't themselves better than the next guy? Why should anyone vote for Obama if he isn't 'better' than McCain? Isn't Obama considered 'better' than say Bush (who was only a governor without any power) or Eisenhower (who was only the Allied commander during WWII). Clearly, Obama, with his experience as head of the law review at Harvard is more accomplished, right? Or perhaps the editor of the school yearbook is equally qualified, since he too is equal and important. Since we are all equal and no one is more important, surely the head Janitor at Harvard, with his management and scheduling expertise, is just as qualified as Obama to run the country.

By what logic should the U.S. be a world leader if all countries are important and equal?


Are all people in the world equal too? Should Osama bin laden, should he be captured, get a trial in U.S. civilian courts? Should all non-uniformed violators of the geneva convention get the same treatment? If so, should U.S. soldiers under indictment get the same - or continue to be dealt with by military court martial. With everyone being equal and important, how can we judge anyone, or anything?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

To bad Andrew Sullivan isn't a liberal. Kinda makes you look foolish, but, i guess you are use to that.

Guess those libertarian conservatives and liberals are easy to confuse. :oops:

[mraynrand]

To bad Andrew Sullivan isn't a liberal. Kinda makes you look foolish, but, i guess you are use to that.

Guess those libertarian conservatives and liberals are easy to confuse. :oops:

He doesn't have to be liberal to be expose the flawed shallow thinking of tongue wagging moveon.org tools like you.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

To bad Andrew Sullivan isn't a liberal. Kinda makes you look foolish, but, i guess you are use to that.

Guess those libertarian conservatives and liberals are easy to confuse. :oops:

He doesn't have to be liberal to be expose the flawed shallow thinking of tongue wagging moveon.org tools like you.

So, you are saying that Sullivan is shallow thinking? Of course you do...those oxford scholars/phd guys from Harvard are idiots.

Especially conservatives that wrote their thesis on one of the most influential and intellectual conservatives of the 20th century. :roll:

Yep, i'm sure he can't hold a candle to you or rand.

[Tarlam!]

I could give two flying shits about what the "free world" wants for MY president. WE have to live with his policies and the damage he can do to this country. WE have to overcome his overbearing tax policy. WE have to strive to overcome his nanny state politics.

You have perfectly described the paradox we are confronted with!

Whilst the President of The United States of America is a man/woman that must suit the brief of solving USA issues, he/she also is MY WORLD LEADER.

So, this person leading me doesn't really give a toss if I get torched in my bed by terrorists, as long as it isn't in the USA. That would be bad for his/her image.

I was/am all for the Iraqi effort - Australians are dying in Iraq, too.

The paradox is, you vote for him/her, because of your private concerns, but you expect him/her to lead me, despite my private concerns.

All I am asking is that you choose wisely.

[sheepshead]

http://www.exposeobama.com/

[HowardRoark]

To bad Andrew Sullivan isn't a liberal. Kinda makes you look foolish, but, i guess you are use to that.

Guess those libertarian conservatives and liberals are easy to confuse. :oops:

He doesn't have to be liberal to be expose the flawed shallow thinking of tongue wagging moveon.org tools like you.

So, you are saying that Sullivan is shallow thinking? Of course you do...those oxford scholars/phd guys from Harvard are idiots.

Especially conservatives that wrote their thesis on one of the most influential and intellectual conservatives of the 20th century. :roll:

Yep, i'm sure he can't hold a candle to you or rand.

So, is it the Ph.D? Or the Ivy League school? Or maybe the combination…..what is it that gives him the intellectual heft to garner your respect?

Or am I missing some Otown nuance? Sometimes I need things spelled out.

[texaspackerbacker]

I could give two flying shits about what the "free world" wants for MY president. WE have to live with his policies and the damage he can do to this country. WE have to overcome his overbearing tax policy. WE have to strive to overcome his nanny state politics.

You have perfectly described the paradox we are confronted with!

Whilst the President of The United States of America is a man/woman that must suit the brief of solving USA issues, he/she also is MY WORLD LEADER.

So, this person leading me doesn't really give a toss if I get torched in my bed by terrorists, as long as it isn't in the USA. That would be bad for his/her image.

I was/am all for the Iraqi effort - Australians are dying in Iraq, too.

The paradox is, you vote for him/her, because of your private concerns, but you expect him/her to lead me, despite my private concerns.

All I am asking is that you choose wisely.

Who says Bush doesn't care about you--either as an Aussie or as a European "getting torched" by terrorists. I'm here to tell you that he has done more to prevent that than probably any individual in the world, and EXTREMELY much more than Kerry would have done or Obama would do.

BTW, Tarlam, did I miss you response to my post suggesting that most of Europe is coming around to supporting both America in general and Bush in particular--electing Sarkozy and Merkel, etc.? Or did you not respond?

[bobblehead]

I could give two flying shits about what the "free world" wants for MY president. WE have to live with his policies and the damage he can do to this country. WE have to overcome his overbearing tax policy. WE have to strive to overcome his nanny state politics.

You have perfectly described the paradox we are confronted with!

Whilst the President of The United States of America is a man/woman that must suit the brief of solving USA issues, he/she also is MY WORLD LEADER.

So, this person leading me doesn't really give a toss if I get torched in my bed by terrorists, as long as it isn't in the USA. That would be bad for his/her image.

I was/am all for the Iraqi effort - Australians are dying in Iraq, too.

The paradox is, you vote for him/her, because of your private concerns, but you expect him/her to lead me, despite my private concerns.

All I am asking is that you choose wisely.

I hear you tarlam, but unfortunately most of europe doens't get it. Iran can NOT have a nuclear weapon. THAT is what is in europes best interest and if they are too thick to get that then we will have to elect someone they don't like for their own good.

Imagine Iran dropping a nuke on israel because allah told them to. They don't really care about retaliation, they can't wait to die as martyrs. What amount of leadership can overcome that kind of result? I choose unpopular but no nuke on israel....call me nutty.

The first thing that the "free world" has to understand is that we are in iraq and afghan because of nuclear weapons, period. We don't give a flip about anything else that goes on in that god forsaken desert. We might say so, but nuclear weaponry is the ONLY reason we are there. And keeping nukes out of zealots hands is good for the "free world" as well as america.

I'll say one thing, bush is not very good at selling things. He is being to political about the whole thing. If RR were president it would all be spelled out and people would understand it. Bush doesn't have faith in americans to understand exactly what is going on so he doesn't explain it. I think that is a mistake, but hey, I take the good with the bad. I hope he is right and history will judge this all correctly.

[mraynrand]

To bad Andrew Sullivan isn't a liberal. Kinda makes you look foolish, but, i guess you are use to that.

Guess those libertarian conservatives and liberals are easy to confuse. :oops:

He doesn't have to be liberal to be expose the flawed shallow thinking of tongue wagging moveon.org tools like you.

So, you are saying that Sullivan is shallow thinking? Of course you do...those oxford scholars/phd guys from Harvard are idiots.

Especially conservatives that wrote their thesis on one of the most influential and intellectual conservatives of the 20th century. :roll:

Yep, i'm sure he can't hold a candle to you or rand.

Don't you get it? I'm saying YOUR thinking is shallow. I've heard Sullivan interviewed at length. He is a mental giant compared to you. The point is that you're just a tool for the likes of Moveon.org, because your drivel sounds like the standard post of the typical non-thinking parrot that posts leftist talking points there, or like a typical Katrina vanden Heuvel screed in the Nation. In other words, you're completely unoriginal. The irony of you dismissal of Rand is that while you denigrate her, you continually commit the same basic mistakes she outlines in her simplified metaphysics and epistemology - you constantly use floating abstractions and stolen concepts. These are not difficult or new ideas - Rand borrowed them and freshened them up from Aristotle and Spinoza. If you think Rand is a midget thinker, but then commit the basic cognitive flaws even she understands from the greats, where does that leave you?

[Tarlam!]

BTW, Tarlam, did I miss you response to my post suggesting that most of Europe is coming around to supporting both America in general and Bush in particular--electing Sarkozy and Merkel, etc.? Or did you not respond?

You missed it Tex. I agreed with you.

And in response to what Mr. Bush has done to protect me from terrorism, I only partly agree. Reagon did more to keep me from being torched IMHO.

My problem with Mr. Bush is probably a style problem. I love Condie Rice - now that woman rocks! And, no need to point out that Mr.Bush reruited her.

Too bad she's not running. You could have a first non caucasion and female all at the same time.

And, she is really excellent with foreign governments, from what I have picked up.

[Tarlam!]

Iran can NOT have a nuclear weapon. THAT is what is in europes best interest and if they are too thick to get that then we will have to elect someone they don't like for their own good.


Europe most certainly gets this and under Chancellor Merkel of Germany, the Free World delegation to protest Iran's plans has been spearheaded. The diplomatic contribution by the USA has been enormous, but please, don't discount what Merkel has done.

And the Israeli problem is one caused to a large degree by the Israelis. I don't know if you ever saw footage of the 1945 creation of the state and the subsequent take over from the Palestinians. The Israelis are very brutal people. I only saw film myself a few years ago. Germany is very pro-Israeli, trying to make up for killing 6 million in WWII, even to this day. So there is hardly anything anti-Israeli here.

I have visited the area extensively on business in my past years. I saved up going to Israel last on one such journey, because I wanted to "reward" myself. I was a huge fan of Wilbur Smith and many of his novels romanticize Israel and its people. I was shocked when I got there and spent time there.

To me, the Arabs are a far warmer, more giving host than what I met with in Israel. Exactly the opposite of what I expected. Having met with both peoples on the ground, it is easy for me to understand why the want to kill eachother.

The good news is, I think a majority in the Middle East are becoming fed up with the bloodshed and genuinely want peace.

[bobblehead]

Iran can NOT have a nuclear weapon. THAT is what is in europes best interest and if they are too thick to get that then we will have to elect someone they don't like for their own good.


Europe most certainly gets this and under Chancellor Merkel of Germany, the Free World delegation to protest Iran's plans has been spearheaded. The diplomatic contribution by the USA has been enormous, but please, don't discount what Merkel has done.

And the Israeli problem is one caused to a large degree by the Israelis. I don't know if you ever saw footage of the 1945 creation of the state and the subsequent take over from the Palestinians. The Israelis are very brutal people. I only saw film myself a few years ago. Germany is very pro-Israeli, trying to make up for killing 6 million in WWII, even to this day. So there is hardly anything anti-Israeli here.

I have visited the area extensively on business in my past years. I saved up going to Israel last on one such journey, because I wanted to "reward" myself. I was a huge fan of Wilbur Smith and many of his novels romanticize Israel and its people. I was shocked when I got there and spent time there.

To me, the Arabs are a far warmer, more giving host than what I met with in Israel. Exactly the opposite of what I expected. Having met with both peoples on the ground, it is easy for me to understand why the want to kill eachother.

The good news is, I think a majority in the Middle East are becoming fed up with the bloodshed and genuinely want peace.

I don't discount it at all tar, and I think germany after a slow start has been a huge ally in all this. Sarkozy also has really helped smooth relations. Europe is moving in the right direction, no doubt, but some of the radical left of the EU is still huffing and puffing and hating bush. Again, I'm no fan of the GW version of bush, he botched the midgame big time and has made mistakes, but obama talks of pretty much respecting irans right to a nuclear weapon...that is sweet sentiment in a utopia, unfortunately, just like the shoot 'em up thread, sometimes you don't get the benefit of a perfect world.

I think you are on the right track in what you desire, and no doubt europe is moving in the right direction, but electing obama is a serious problem that I hope only sets us back 4 years. I do think when he gets in office he will realize his errors, it would be hard not to. If not, I think we will live in strange times indeed.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

To bad Andrew Sullivan isn't a liberal. Kinda makes you look foolish, but, i guess you are use to that.

Guess those libertarian conservatives and liberals are easy to confuse. :oops:

He doesn't have to be liberal to be expose the flawed shallow thinking of tongue wagging moveon.org tools like you.

So, you are saying that Sullivan is shallow thinking? Of course you do...those oxford scholars/phd guys from Harvard are idiots.

Especially conservatives that wrote their thesis on one of the most influential and intellectual conservatives of the 20th century. :roll:

Yep, i'm sure he can't hold a candle to you or rand.

Don't you get it? I'm saying YOUR thinking is shallow. I've heard Sullivan interviewed at length. He is a mental giant compared to you. The point is that you're just a tool for the likes of Moveon.org, because your drivel sounds like the standard post of the typical non-thinking parrot that posts leftist talking points there, or like a typical Katrina vanden Heuvel screed in the Nation. In other words, you're completely unoriginal. The irony of you dismissal of Rand is that while you denigrate her, you continually commit the same basic mistakes she outlines in her simplified metaphysics and epistemology - you constantly use floating abstractions and stolen concepts. These are not difficult or new ideas - Rand borrowed them and freshened them up from Aristotle and Spinoza. If you think Rand is a midget thinker, but then commit the basic cognitive flaws even she understands from the greats, where does that leave you?

No, the mental midget is you...since i essentially was listing his rebranding remarks..they came from HIM. Not moveon.

Ooops. Perhaps you'd be better off emailing him and explaining why he is a dope.

P.S. I'll leave you with this little quote from a conservative..about your FUCKING MORAL EQUIVALENCY argument..so tired.

"There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn't work."

Your truth is that of a child. I'll let you in on the highly educated adult truths someday.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

To bad Andrew Sullivan isn't a liberal. Kinda makes you look foolish, but, i guess you are use to that.

Guess those libertarian conservatives and liberals are easy to confuse. :oops:

He doesn't have to be liberal to be expose the flawed shallow thinking of tongue wagging moveon.org tools like you.

So, you are saying that Sullivan is shallow thinking? Of course you do...those oxford scholars/phd guys from Harvard are idiots.

Especially conservatives that wrote their thesis on one of the most influential and intellectual conservatives of the 20th century. :roll:

Yep, i'm sure he can't hold a candle to you or rand.

So, is it the Ph.D? Or the Ivy League school? Or maybe the combination…..what is it that gives him the intellectual heft to garner your respect?

Or am I missing some Otown nuance? Sometimes I need things spelled out.

His education, his professional positions, his writing, etc. No different than the respect i would show for uncle miltie, newt, kristol (if i want to read something interesting...irving not willy)etc...i don't to agree with them to respect them.

[Freak Out]

To me, the Arabs are a far warmer, more giving host than what I met with in Israel. Exactly the opposite of what I expected. Having met with both peoples on the ground, it is easy for me to understand why the want to kill eachother.

The good news is, I think a majority in the Middle East are becoming fed up with the bloodshed and genuinely want peace.

The vast majority of people in the middle east and the world want what should be their birthright. Freedom. That's it....they don't want to kill us. The problem is we still support (directly or indirectly) far to many foreign governments that continue to oppress their citizens.

[Tarlam!]

To me, the Arabs are a far warmer, more giving host than what I met with in Israel. Exactly the opposite of what I expected. Having met with both peoples on the ground, it is easy for me to understand why the want to kill eachother.

The good news is, I think a majority in the Middle East are becoming fed up with the bloodshed and genuinely want peace.

The vast majority of people in the middle east and the world want what should be their birthright. Freedom. That's it....they don't want to kill us. The problem is we still support (directly or indirectly) far to many foreign governments that continue to oppress their citizens.

Interesting and true. So, you want want anybody burned on this specifically? You want Jews or Arabs torched? Or Afghanis? Iranians?

[retailguy]

To me, the Arabs are a far warmer, more giving host than what I met with in Israel. Exactly the opposite of what I expected. Having met with both peoples on the ground, it is easy for me to understand why the want to kill eachother.

The good news is, I think a majority in the Middle East are becoming fed up with the bloodshed and genuinely want peace.

The vast majority of people in the middle east and the world want what should be their birthright. Freedom. That's it....they don't want to kill us. The problem is we still support (directly or indirectly) far to many foreign governments that continue to oppress their citizens.

Freak, I'm not so sure that's true. On the surface you'd like to believe it, however, in reality that's not what we're experiencing.

In the Middle East, I'm not sure they "want" freedom. What they "want" is land. The land that God gave the israelites, that the arab's believe is theirs. I think this "want" trumps the want for freedom.

Freedom, if it's important, (I think)is secondary. I recognize that the Bible has little weight with you, and that's fine, I don't want a religious discussion with anybody, but, according to that Bible, this war over the promised land will never end... I think we need to keep trying, but, ultimately I don't believe we'll succeed in stopping wars in the Middle East.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

To me, the Arabs are a far warmer, more giving host than what I met with in Israel. Exactly the opposite of what I expected. Having met with both peoples on the ground, it is easy for me to understand why the want to kill eachother.

The good news is, I think a majority in the Middle East are becoming fed up with the bloodshed and genuinely want peace.

The vast majority of people in the middle east and the world want what should be their birthright. Freedom. That's it....they don't want to kill us. The problem is we still support (directly or indirectly) far to many foreign governments that continue to oppress their citizens.

Freak, I'm not so sure that's true. On the surface you'd like to believe it, however, in reality that's not what we're experiencing.

In the Middle East, I'm not sure they "want" freedom. What they "want" is land. The land that God gave the israelites, that the arab's believe is theirs. I think this "want" trumps the want for freedom.

Freedom, if it's important, (I think)is secondary. I recognize that the Bible has little weight with you, and that's fine, I don't want a religious discussion with anybody, but, according to that Bible, this war over the promised land will never end... I think we need to keep trying, but, ultimately I don't believe we'll succeed in stopping wars in the Middle East.

You are missing the point. Most the arab countries citizens want freedom...do you think they like having ruling elites?

The state of israel is of little concern to those destitute, with little opportunity in most of the middle east.

[Freak Out]

I should clarify that I was not referring to the Arab-Israeli issue alone. There are many other examples in that part of the world. Some are close "Allies" of ours.

The Arab-Israeli issue is something else entirely and one that we could really get throwing some haymakers over if we put the effort into it. :lol:

[Freak Out]

To me, the Arabs are a far warmer, more giving host than what I met with in Israel. Exactly the opposite of what I expected. Having met with both peoples on the ground, it is easy for me to understand why the want to kill eachother.

The good news is, I think a majority in the Middle East are becoming fed up with the bloodshed and genuinely want peace.

The vast majority of people in the middle east and the world want what should be their birthright. Freedom. That's it....they don't want to kill us. The problem is we still support (directly or indirectly) far to many foreign governments that continue to oppress their citizens.

Freak, I'm not so sure that's true. On the surface you'd like to believe it, however, in reality that's not what we're experiencing.

In the Middle East, I'm not sure they "want" freedom. What they "want" is land. The land that God gave the israelites, that the arab's believe is theirs. I think this "want" trumps the want for freedom.

Freedom, if it's important, (I think)is secondary. I recognize that the Bible has little weight with you, and that's fine, I don't want a religious discussion with anybody, but, according to that Bible, this war over the promised land will never end... I think we need to keep trying, but, ultimately I don't believe we'll succeed in stopping wars in the Middle East.

You are missing the point. Most the arab countries citizens want freedom...do you think they like having ruling elites?

The state of israel is of little concern to those destitute, with little opportunity in most of the middle east.

Bingo bango bongo.

[retailguy]

You are missing the point. Most the arab countries citizens want freedom...do you think they like having ruling elites?

The state of israel is of little concern to those destitute, with little opportunity in most of the middle east.

Tyrone, while I'm not as much of a "free thinker" as you are, I didn't miss the point. I am not convinced that all arab's want "freedom". I think as Americans we all want to believe that everyone aspires to be like us, but I'm not convinced that's true.

Do they want ruling elites? No probably not, but, in fairness that's a different question. Many people of all races, and countries want strong leaders. I think they'll willing give up freedom for a strong fair leader.

Unfortunately, that doesn't happen. And for the record, I disagree that all/most arabs want freedom. Maybe you should spend a little time understanding their culture, and their religion. Freedom isn't high on the agenda.

[retailguy]

I should clarify that I was not referring to the Arab-Israeli issue alone. There are many other examples in that part of the world. Some are close "Allies" of ours.

The Arab-Israeli issue is something else entirely and one that we could really get throwing some haymakers over if we put the effort into it. :lol:

Completely agree. :) I want no part of that debate. Religious debates with the convinced never solve anything, and all it would do is turn you off even farther than you already are. I have no desire to contribute to that. I'll leave that to someone else, since I'm powerless to stop them. The older I get the more I try to bite my tongue... Sometimes I'm not very good at it, but it's not for lack of effort.

As to the rest of the world, I agree, people want freedom from oppression, but there are many examples where that freedom is different from our freedoms.... But, point taken.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

You are missing the point. Most the arab countries citizens want freedom...do you think they like having ruling elites?

The state of israel is of little concern to those destitute, with little opportunity in most of the middle east.

Tyrone, while I'm not as much of a "free thinker" as you are, I didn't miss the point. I am not convinced that all arab's want "freedom". I think as Americans we all want to believe that everyone aspires to be like us, but I'm not convinced that's true.

Do they want ruling elites? No probably not, but, in fairness that's a different question. Many people of all races, and countries want strong leaders. I think they'll willing give up freedom for a strong fair leader.

Unfortunately, that doesn't happen. And for the record, I disagree that all/most arabs want freedom. Maybe you should spend a little time understanding their culture, and their religion. Freedom isn't high on the agenda.

Get serious. All people want to be free..free to live, free to enjoy life, free to make a living or not make a living.

Really? If that is the case...then why are we involved in building democracies over there?

Funny, you might wanna talk to Prez bush about Iraq and Lebanon. He seems to disagree with you.

[Iron Mike]

The only thing you need to remember in November is this:

Quantum of Solace (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4jY8WxcFMo)




Fixed. 8-)

I saw it last night. I was entertained. :)