RESPECT

[mraynrand]

Re: RESPECT

I'm glad my past doesn't have to get looked into.

There is nothing wrong with arguing policies and issues but when people start .... playing down someones position on the Harvard Law Review it makes me sick.

Let's talk about the economy and foreign policy. Both canidates attack ads make me sick.

If you run for pres. your past should be looked into. Really, what else is there to go on? Sure, you could talk all day about what your policies will be, your position on foreign affairs and economics, etc. - but anyone can do that. How do we know what you will actually do, if we don't know what you've done? How do we know what you will care about if we don't know what you cared about in the past. Everyone who hires people looks at their resume and references at least as much if not way more than their interviews (it varies of course). With Obama's past being so thin and unknown, what are we to think. He did virtually nothing in the state senate, nor the national senate, and as a community organizer he worked with Bill Ayers to spend 50 million of Annenberg monies and 60 million more to radicalize students (that's not on his resume/bio, btw). Since Obama was an academic professor, aren't you curious what papers he wrote as a prof. Are you telling me that you are going to vote for Obama strictly based on the DNC platform and what he tells you (and how he tells you) what he is going to do when president? And if you are looking at his resume, what has he done specifically that really impresses you -tells you he will be a good president?

[Harlan Huckleby]

Recent president famous for their fidelity and long marriages:
Nixon, Carter, Bush

Recent presidents known to have had marrital affairs:
Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton

I don't see any value whatsoever in getting into tabloid politics.

McCain was seperated from his wife for many years, at a relatively young age, with tremendous personal trauma and change going on. It would have be more surpising if they had stayed together

[hoosier]

I think he's been a pretty marginal politician, and has run a pretty lousy campaign.

It is easy to criticize a candidate who is losing.

What Republican do you suppose could do better this election cycle? I seen none that wouldn't do worse than McCain has done.

I think McCain has run a reasonable campaign, Palin was a good choice politically. He has not run a particularly dirty campaign, unless you consider that a drawback.

Oh right, he's been a little prince....Ever since September, when the McCain campaign came to the conclusion that if it talked about the issues he was going to lose the election, McCain has done nothing but attach Obama, and the attacks have generally been dishonorable--based on embellishments of the facts, false insinuations about Obama's hidden "socialist" tendencies, and crotchety behavior during debates, hiring the same sleazy firms who helped organize Bush's despicable attacks on McCain in the 2000 primaries. In short, McCain's behavior has been a complete embarassment, both in its ineptitude and its cranky negativity.

[ThunderDan]

Re: RESPECT

I'm glad my past doesn't have to get looked into.

There is nothing wrong with arguing policies and issues but when people start .... playing down someones position on the Harvard Law Review it makes me sick.

Let's talk about the economy and foreign policy. Both canidates attack ads make me sick.

If you run for pres. your past should be looked into. Really, what else is there to go on? Sure, you could talk all day about what your policies will be, your position on foreign affairs and economics, etc. - but anyone can do that. How do we know what you will actually do, if we don't know what you've done? How do we know what you will care about if we don't know what you cared about in the past. Everyone who hires people looks at their resume and references at least as much if not way more than their interviews (it varies of course). With Obama's past being so thin and unknown, what are we to think. He did virtually nothing in the state senate, nor the national senate, and as a community organizer he worked with Bill Ayers to spend 50 million of Annenberg monies and 60 million more to radicalize students (that's not on his resume/bio, btw). Since Obama was an academic professor, aren't you curious what papers he wrote as a prof. Are you telling me that you are going to vote for Obama strictly based on the DNC platform and what he tells you (and how he tells you) what he is going to do when president? And if you are looking at his resume, what has he done specifically that really impresses you -tells you he will be a good president?

Maybe the Annenberg foundation should have been more deligent in their research before giving to such a horrible cause. Or maybe they really knew what they were doing!?!

I am going to vote for Obama because I too beleive in spreading the wealth. I am in the 33% tax bracket and thats fine with me.

The worst thing any society can do is build a larger and larger class of citizens in poverty. You start building an economic monarchy and eventually the have nots will riot and demand access to resources. It has occurred time after time in history.

As a resident of the state that founded the Progressive Party it is nice to finally have someone who represents what I believe.

[Harlan Huckleby]

hoozier, you really have to compare with past campaigns.

The campaign ads have been pretty tame.

(And what really is most effective is how the news media and entertainment industry spins things.)

[Harlan Huckleby]

false insinuations about Obama's hidden "socialist" tendencies, and crotchety behavior during debates, hiring the same sleazy firms who helped organize Bush's despicable attacks on McCain in the 2000 primaries.

This stuff is a joke. You call this dirt?

I'm really going to have to start reading your posts more often, you're a card.

[mraynrand]

Re: RESPECT

I am going to vote for Obama because I too beleive in spreading the wealth. I am in the 33% tax bracket and thats fine with me.

Go ahead and spread your wealth - that's admirable. But why would you want your money to go through the government? Much like the Annenberg challenge, your money - shifting and squeezing through the bowels of government - will be used for all sorts of things that do nothing to spread the wealth - it will go to all sorts of pet projects of politicians who just love to hear that there is a sucker born every minute.

[ThunderDan]

Re: RESPECT

I am going to vote for Obama because I too beleive in spreading the wealth. I am in the 33% tax bracket and thats fine with me.

Go ahead and spread your wealth - that's admirable. But why would you want your money to go through the government? Much like the Annenberg challenge, your money - shifting and squeezing through the bowels of government - will be used for all sorts of things that do nothing to spread the wealth - it will go to all sorts of pet projects of politicians who just love to hear that there is a sucker born every minute.

This is so humorous. I answered your last question so you change the topic one more time.

Now it's about wasteful spending and government.

Are you trying to tell me that I should trust the Republicans for 4 more years not to waste money. We have had a Republican president for the last 8 years and he couldn't find one bill to veto? Nothing came over his desk that was wasteful?

The next President is going to need a decisive government that is able to act quickly. McCain with his "terrorist" adds has pissed off the entire Democratic Party. How is he going to be able to get anything passed when both the Senate and the Congress are controlled by the Democrats? He will not get the cooperation that he has been telling us about to reach across the aisle after his campaign. He has burned up all goodwill he had with the Democrats in Washington will his campaign.

[mraynrand]

Re: RESPECT

I am going to vote for Obama because I too beleive in spreading the wealth. I am in the 33% tax bracket and thats fine with me.

Go ahead and spread your wealth - that's admirable. But why would you want your money to go through the government? Much like the Annenberg challenge, your money - shifting and squeezing through the bowels of government - will be used for all sorts of things that do nothing to spread the wealth - it will go to all sorts of pet projects of politicians who just love to hear that there is a sucker born every minute.

This is so humorous. I answered your last question so you change the topic one more time.

Now it's about wasteful spending and government.

Are you trying to tell me that I should trust the Republicans for 4 more years not to waste money. We have had a Republican president for the last 8 years and he couldn't find one bill to veto? Nothing came over his desk that was wasteful?

The next President is going to need a decisive government that is able to act quickly. McCain with his "terrorist" adds has pissed off the entire Democratic Party. How is he going to be able to get anything passed when both the Senate and the Congress are controlled by the Democrats? He will not get the cooperation that he has been telling us about to reach across the aisle after his campaign. He has burned up all goodwill he had with the Democrats in Washington will his campaign.

I'd rather have less passed than more. I'd rather have less spending than more. If McCain simply counteracts the overspending tendencies of the congress that would be enough. If you recall, McCain didn't vote for Dubya's tax cut because he wanted spending cuts to go with it. Now that it's in place it would be insane to get rid of it with a looming recession. McCain is much less likely to allow the Congress to have their way. They are already gearing up for 300 billion more in spending, in addition to the 1 trillion that Obama wants to spend, the over 1 trillion the congress has spent on various bailouts, and the 'massive' increases Barney Frank wants (one of the major architects of the current economic disaster). Why would you want a compliant Obama with a spend crazy Congress?



P.S. did you answer my question from before?

[oregonpackfan]

A basically good person like John McCain would not have had to endure all those years of torture if the United States had not chosen to enter that senseless Vietnam War.

Remember the fear-based rants of the "Domino theory" that if we did not "win" in Vietnam, that communism would spread throughout the Pacific? Eventually, communist troops would be storming California beaches.

Do you also remember the alleged "Gulf of Tonkin" incidents in August of '64? On two successive days, Vietnamese PT-type of boats attacked American ships in the Gulf of Tonkin. Years later, we discovered it was all a deliberate hoax by our civilian(President Johnson) and military leaders to ratchet up the numbers of American troops to Vietnam.

We lost over 58,000 American service people in that war. Tens of thousands more were wounded. Thousands more still carry the emotional scars of Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome.

We should also add that hundreds of thousands of innocent Vietnamese civilians died in that War.

Unfortunately, we Americans allowed ourselves to be swayed by the deceptions of our President into entering a war with Iraq--an invasion and occupational war based on falsehoods.

Our service people in the military are indeed brave. We owe it to them not to put them in harm's way for wars based on fear and lies.

This is a piece of shit post, I am sorry I can't let it go. McCain was a sailor/soldier he went where his country told him he had to and he did his job and upholding the constitution. It takes a real man to go through what he did and not be bitter at his country. Instead he turned himself over completely to his country, he knew first hand the terror of the communist and by what means they would set forth for victory.

I think we all know that Vietnam was more of a mistake than successful. I am not questioning that but it is over even for all of you hippies that want to compare the war in Iraq to the one 40 years ago in Vietnam, but this certainly is the place for this post.

Nobody made any comment one way or another about the righteousness of the Vietnam War but for whatever reason you believe that this was the thread express you displeasure and feelings not only on the Vietnam War but the war in Iraq.

I respect your feelings on it, but certainly not in this thread, your placement was highly disrespectful. Next time you want to spread your wonderful opinions and beliefs about how terrible the US intervention in Vietnam was why don't you also state the wonderful things the communist did in Vietnam especially to their own people that they were trying to save from the oppression of capitalism and democracy.

Regardless of your statement made about the men in the military in your last sentence this whole post would make Vietnam Veterans feel worthless. I am sure most of them didn't want to be there, but they believed then and most do know that it was their duty, their country asked them to be there.

For instance I would never tell my Father in Law that that what we did in Vietnam was a mistake. He was there for two years putting his life on the line. How could you tell a person like that after all they went through and put themselves throught that it was a mistake?

Nutz,

Go back and read my original posts. Both the Vietnam War and the Iraqi Wars were based on falsehoods and fear propagated by our leaders.

Neither Vietnam nor Iraq were a threat to the security of our country.

For the Iraq War, none of the 19 hijackers of the four planes for the 9/11 massacre were from Iraq. The President's own bipartisan 9/11 Commission also concluded that Hussain did NOT have "weapons of mass desctruction." They also claimed that there were NO al-Qaida in Iraq at the time of the American invasion.

For both wars, we seem as a nation to be fixated on primarily "winning" the war. The validity and/or morality of those wars seem irrelevant. To be a "patriotic" American, one has to support the war, whether it is morally justified or not.

Yes, we need a military to defend our country for "just" warfare( WWII certainly met the criteria of a "just" war for America).

What is unjustifiable is to be willing to sacrifice the lives of tens of thousands of American military service people for unjust wars like Vietnam and Iraq.

[bobblehead]

Re: RESPECT

I am going to vote for Obama because I too beleive in spreading the wealth. I am in the 33% tax bracket and thats fine with me.

Go ahead and spread your wealth - that's admirable. But why would you want your money to go through the government? Much like the Annenberg challenge, your money - shifting and squeezing through the bowels of government - will be used for all sorts of things that do nothing to spread the wealth - it will go to all sorts of pet projects of politicians who just love to hear that there is a sucker born every minute.

This is so humorous. I answered your last question so you change the topic one more time.

Now it's about wasteful spending and government.

Are you trying to tell me that I should trust the Republicans for 4 more years not to waste money. We have had a Republican president for the last 8 years and he couldn't find one bill to veto? Nothing came over his desk that was wasteful?

The next President is going to need a decisive government that is able to act quickly. McCain with his "terrorist" adds has pissed off the entire Democratic Party. How is he going to be able to get anything passed when both the Senate and the Congress are controlled by the Democrats? He will not get the cooperation that he has been telling us about to reach across the aisle after his campaign. He has burned up all goodwill he had with the Democrats in Washington will his campaign.

Mccain never had goodwill with dems..he had "I'll cave in and go against my entire party to help you pass your socialist agenda" goodwill....that is not the kind I wanted him to have as president anyway...Show me one piece of bipartisan legislation mccain passed that an honest conservative liked.

[bobblehead]

A basically good person like John McCain would not have had to endure all those years of torture if the United States had not chosen to enter that senseless Vietnam War.

Remember the fear-based rants of the "Domino theory" that if we did not "win" in Vietnam, that communism would spread throughout the Pacific? Eventually, communist troops would be storming California beaches.

Do you also remember the alleged "Gulf of Tonkin" incidents in August of '64? On two successive days, Vietnamese PT-type of boats attacked American ships in the Gulf of Tonkin. Years later, we discovered it was all a deliberate hoax by our civilian(President Johnson) and military leaders to ratchet up the numbers of American troops to Vietnam.

We lost over 58,000 American service people in that war. Tens of thousands more were wounded. Thousands more still carry the emotional scars of Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome.

We should also add that hundreds of thousands of innocent Vietnamese civilians died in that War.

Unfortunately, we Americans allowed ourselves to be swayed by the deceptions of our President into entering a war with Iraq--an invasion and occupational war based on falsehoods.

Our service people in the military are indeed brave. We owe it to them not to put them in harm's way for wars based on fear and lies.

Oregan...digging this up, cutting and pasting it on a thai computer was a pain in the ass so I hope you read it to understand Iraq a little better. I wrote it back in may or june on a thread tex started.
========================================
You however have figured out that the left isinherently wrong most of the time, but you fail to see when the GOP is wrong. And when they are wrong, people either don't vote, or vote the other way to "cleanse" the party. This is part of McCains problem, he wants to be "middle of the road" and most of america is actually conservative (fiscally). The referendum on him won't be favorable.

OK, starting with the war, first understand why we actually have to get involved....we aren't energy independent, but don't misread that as we are fighting for oil, read it as the middle east has oil and that equates wealth. First you have to realize that radical islam wants us dead, not just islam in the middle east, but in africa and even small pockets of asia too. The difference is that the radical muslims in the middle east has a valuable resource that we rely on and that equates wealth which equates the ability to make weapons of mass destruction....following? You don't see us taking out dictators in Africa who are just like saddam do you, cuz they have no wealth which equals ability to create nukes.

So what do we do, attack Iran? (the country closest to having a nuke, but much bigger than iraq) No, we make saddam out to be pure evil, take over his country, and build a MONSTER air base 12 minutes flight from Iran...get it, this whole war was about Iran (axis of evil and all). See Korea we could attack diplomatically, they have NOTHING we need, we merely cripple them economically (even worse than they are) and they can't afford to continue their nuclear proliferation (nor can any country not wealthy enough). Another difference is that korea isn't radical islam and actually worries about repercussions if they ever did nuke us.

Now liberals might think this is unacceptable, I personally don't, but I wish the debate had been formed honestly by bush from the start. He nor anyone else was ever worried about a terrorist attack killing 3000 people, they were worried about the attack on our financial systems. (how many people die heinous deaths every year without terrorism?) They were also worried about the next clinton selling iran the technology to actually get a nuke over here once they can create one, or nuking israel throwing the middle east into disarry choking off oil supplies.....WE CAN'T LET A RADICAL MUSLIM REGIME GET A NUKE!!

Ok, now lets look at it closer, what might have been a better strategy, but the leftists wouldn't let us take that course, and I'm not sure the rightys wanted to. How about instead of spending a ton of money on a war and inflating oil prices by not drilling here we drill like crazy, anwar, offshore, backyard everywhere. We also make a national innitiative to increase nuclear power dramatically. While we are at it we offer BILLION dollar prizes for certain benchmark improvements in solar, wind and any renewable energy source.

The purpose of drilling and going nuclear is to deflate the global price of oil NOW thus financially damaging the middle east in the short term thus reducing our need for them, while maintaining their need for us. The purpose of the benchmark prizes is to get us off dirty and non renewable power long term as demand for energy worldwide continue to climb. It also makes us the world leader in the most valuable resource on the planet.....ENERGY (always has been, always will be)

I have faith in the american people and I think if bush had framed the debate this way we never would have had to go to war and the people would have spoken loudly giving him a huge re-election and we would be nearly there already

[bobblehead]

Yes, we need a military to defend our country for "just" warfare( WWII certainly met the criteria of a "just" war for America).

What is unjustifiable is to be willing to sacrifice the lives of tens of thousands of American military service people for unjust wars like Vietnam and Iraq.

How was WW II any more just than iraq...I'm pretty sure less people died in pearl harbor than on 9/11 (just guessing, correct if I'm wrong). We were attacked by radical islam and saddam was certainly funding them. In WW II we intentionally pushed our ships towards Japans military until they retaliated...they were content to keep us out of it and dominate europe. We had about the same motive to get involved in both cases. In both cases we could have eaten the casualties and moved on.

[Deputy Nutz]

A basically good person like John McCain would not have had to endure all those years of torture if the United States had not chosen to enter that senseless Vietnam War.

Remember the fear-based rants of the "Domino theory" that if we did not "win" in Vietnam, that communism would spread throughout the Pacific? Eventually, communist troops would be storming California beaches.

Do you also remember the alleged "Gulf of Tonkin" incidents in August of '64? On two successive days, Vietnamese PT-type of boats attacked American ships in the Gulf of Tonkin. Years later, we discovered it was all a deliberate hoax by our civilian(President Johnson) and military leaders to ratchet up the numbers of American troops to Vietnam.

We lost over 58,000 American service people in that war. Tens of thousands more were wounded. Thousands more still carry the emotional scars of Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome.

We should also add that hundreds of thousands of innocent Vietnamese civilians died in that War.

Unfortunately, we Americans allowed ourselves to be swayed by the deceptions of our President into entering a war with Iraq--an invasion and occupational war based on falsehoods.

Our service people in the military are indeed brave. We owe it to them not to put them in harm's way for wars based on fear and lies.

This is a piece of shit post, I am sorry I can't let it go. McCain was a sailor/soldier he went where his country told him he had to and he did his job and upholding the constitution. It takes a real man to go through what he did and not be bitter at his country. Instead he turned himself over completely to his country, he knew first hand the terror of the communist and by what means they would set forth for victory.

I think we all know that Vietnam was more of a mistake than successful. I am not questioning that but it is over even for all of you hippies that want to compare the war in Iraq to the one 40 years ago in Vietnam, but this certainly is the place for this post.

Nobody made any comment one way or another about the righteousness of the Vietnam War but for whatever reason you believe that this was the thread express you displeasure and feelings not only on the Vietnam War but the war in Iraq.

I respect your feelings on it, but certainly not in this thread, your placement was highly disrespectful. Next time you want to spread your wonderful opinions and beliefs about how terrible the US intervention in Vietnam was why don't you also state the wonderful things the communist did in Vietnam especially to their own people that they were trying to save from the oppression of capitalism and democracy.

Regardless of your statement made about the men in the military in your last sentence this whole post would make Vietnam Veterans feel worthless. I am sure most of them didn't want to be there, but they believed then and most do know that it was their duty, their country asked them to be there.

For instance I would never tell my Father in Law that that what we did in Vietnam was a mistake. He was there for two years putting his life on the line. How could you tell a person like that after all they went through and put themselves throught that it was a mistake?

Nutz,

Go back and read my original posts. Both the Vietnam War and the Iraqi Wars were based on falsehoods and fear propagated by our leaders.

Neither Vietnam nor Iraq were a threat to the security of our country.

For the Iraq War, none of the 19 hijackers of the four planes for the 9/11 massacre were from Iraq. The President's own bipartisan 9/11 Commission also concluded that Hussain did NOT have "weapons of mass desctruction." They also claimed that there were NO al-Qaida in Iraq at the time of the American invasion.

For both wars, we seem as a nation to be fixated on primarily "winning" the war. The validity and/or morality of those wars seem irrelevant. To be a "patriotic" American, one has to support the war, whether it is morally justified or not.

Yes, we need a military to defend our country for "just" warfare( WWII certainly met the criteria of a "just" war for America).

What is unjustifiable is to be willing to sacrifice the lives of tens of thousands of American military service people for unjust wars like Vietnam and Iraq.

I really don't give a crap about this and AGAIN you would rather rant on the rights and wrongs then pay any sort of respect to the soldiers that put their lives on the line, instead your expression of those wars in this thread minimalizes those that served. These soldiers and warriors have no choice but to go where their Commander and Chief sends them, God willing, because whether you agree with it or not, you better get down on your hands and knees at night and thank God that he put people like John McCain on this planet to protect your civil liberities and your right to freedom, whether you think fighting a war in Vietnam is accomplishing those things are or not, McCain and millions of other soldiers are doing what they do following orders and believing with all their heart that they are protecting the constitution of the United States of America and all that fall under it, whether those orders send them to an unpopular war or an unjust war.

They sacrificed themselves willing and able for United States of America and they are doing it proudly and pretty goddamn effectively.

I see your still emotionally upset over the Vietnam war, and many from your generation still are, even the small precentage of the American Warriors that came back from Vietnam discouraged with the leaders of their country and military that the Liberal Mass Media decided to portray as the common majority of those that fought in the Vietnam Conflict. I see that you are stand fast against the War in Iraq, understandable, but I guess what I should have asked you point blank was to stick it in another thread, not this one.

[Harlan Huckleby]

oh my god, nutz & oregon are refighting the vietnam war.

where do you guys stand on korea? I think Brett Favre got screwed by the Packers.