Chant with me! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghSJsEVf0pU)

Hope and Change. O-Ba-Ma

The mind-numbed robots are chanting for change.

O-Ba-Ma

....must....vote....democrat....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sA-451XMsuY

this one is much better!

If you don't condemn this picture, then you are a racist!:eek:

OBummer, I mean Obama, is just starting to take a beating. If the media sees weakness in his bid, they'll throw him overboard in a second.

I'm feeling pretty good, as good as can be expected, about saying President McCain.

The bloom is coming off the Obummer rose.

Chant with me! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghSJsEVf0pU)

Hope and Change. O-Ba-Ma

The mind-numbed robots are chanting for change.

O-Ba-Ma

:eek: I'd like to teach the world to sing, in perfect harmony.....drink a coke!!:shifty:

"OH BOY"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Pass the reefer!

You guys are funny, but in a sad way. It's very simple, if your boy-toy George had done a better job as President and as a Republican, the middle-of-the-road people might not be swaying to the left, as much.

Face it, if Obama wins in '08, it's because of the guy you put in office the last two terms.

If you don't condemn this picture, then you are a racist!:eek:

Funny, Wahhabism is the main form of Islam in Saudi Arabia, our allies and some of GW's closest friends.

Face it, if Obama wins in '08, it's because of the guy you put in office the last two terms.Let's not forget to look at the facts.

If it wasn't for Ross Perot back in '92, Republicans would have swept since Reagan in '80.

America still only trusts a Republican to sit in the chair.

America figures let the left wingers have fun in the House and Senate and supports the Dem giveaway programs every time but when it comes to national security, America wants an adult in the chair.

This year it will never be more apparent.

An intellectual lightweight with no experience vs Mr. Gravitas.

Obama has only been getting 50% of the Left. That puts him at 25% of the voting block. He has a long way to go to convince the Hillary supporters that he is a better choice than McCain.

Don't get your hopes up too high. Obama hasn't been challenged yet. Let's see how he responds after he gets knocked on his arse a few times.

I've already forwarded to the RNC the OBummer attack plan.

Obummer only talks about his decision to vote against Iraq when in reality he was the only one that didn't have a clue.

How dangerous a muslim sympathizer would be sitting in the Oval Office. You can't tell me he demonstrated 'great wisdom' by voting no. I would say the exact opposite. The fact that he voted 'No' should immediately disqualify him for Pres. After all, ALL of the Clinton administration had been pounding the WMD drumbeat way back in '98.

To ignore the world community that was in harmory over Iraq being a danger in possession of WMD makes Obummer a dangerous person. He'll get a bunch of us killed if he is elected.

The way I see it is most republicans, and one in particular, ultra conservatine Shawn Hannity are just now jumping on the bandwagon to cause waves in the Obama campaign,, but in doing so, are only making Obama supporters more determined.
I think thay have not pushed the Obama issue before this time because they(the republicans ) in reality, want him to win the demo nomination.
I think there actions have an underlying adgenda.
For sure McCain would beat Obama, but it is doubtful he would beat Hillary in the general election, and the republiucans know this.
The republican effort to go after Obama now, is motivated by the knowledge their actions may well be the catalyst to push Obama to the front.
People always feel bad for the one being bashed, and that usually shows up in the voting booth as a sympathy vote.
The republican and Hannity bashing will continue, and they just may be successful in getting Obama nominated.
I find it strange that the bashing has just raised it's ugly face by the republicans.
Obviously they have a far different motive than most adverage people would grasp.
For those of us who take the time to read between the lines, it is a clear and unobstructed view of what the republicans are up too.
Just to clarify, I don't like Obama, or his lack of any positive direction.
Saying the time has come for change is becomming tiresome.
It would be refreshing to hear what his plans are, other than ending us involvement in Iraq.
Hillary will get my vote based on her domestic and international experience as first lady, and then state senator.
Bob.

http://counterpunch.com/green11242007.html
so much for conservatism
bushes resume
"George W. Bush
The White House, USA

Resume

Past Work Experience

I ran for U.S. Congress and lost.

I produced a Hollywood slasher B movie.

I bought an oil company, but couldn't find any oil in Texas; the company went bankrupt shortly after I sold all my stock.

I bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a sweetheart deal that took land using taxpayer money.

With my father's help and name, I was elected Governor of Texas.

Accomplishments as Governor
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I changed pollution laws in favor of the power and oil companies and made Texas the most polluted state in the Union.

I replaced Los Angeles with Houston as the most smog-ridden city in America.

I cut taxes and bankrupted Texas government to the tune of billions in borrowed money.

I set the record for the most executions by any Governor in American history.

I became U.S. President after losing the popular vote by over 500,000 votes with the help of major Enron money and my father's appointments to the Supreme Court.

Accomplishments as President
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I attacked and overtook two countries.

I spent the U.S. surplus and effectively bankrupted the U.S. Treasury.

I shattered the record for the largest annual deficit in U.S. history.

I set an economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12-month period.

I set the all-time record for the biggest drop in the history of the U.S. stock market.

My record for environmental issues is the least of my concerns.

I am the first president in U.S. history to enter office with a criminal record.

I set the all-time record for most days on vacation in any one year period.

After taking-off the entire month of August, I then presided over the worst security failure in U.S. history.

I am supporting development of a "Tactical Bunker Buster" nuke, a WMD.

I am getting our troops killed, under the lie of Sadam's procurement of Yellow Cake Nuke WMD components, then blaming the lie on our British friends.

I set the record for most campaign fund-raising trips by a U.S. president.

In my first year in office over 2-million Americans lost their jobs and that trend continues every month.

I set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12-month period.

I appointed more convicted criminals to administration than any president in U.S. history.

I set the record for least amount of press conferences than any president since the advent of television.

I signed more laws and executive orders effectively amending or ignoring the Constitution than any president in history.

I presided over the biggest energy crisis in U.S. history and refused to intervene when corruption involving the oil industry was revealed.

I presided over the highest gasoline prices in U.S. history and refused to use national reserves as past presidents have done.

I have cut health care benefits for war veterans and support a cut in duty benefits for active duty troops and their families in war time.

I have set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously protest me in public venues (15 million people) shattering the record for protest against any person in the history of mankind.

I've dissolved more international treaties than any president in U.S. history.

I've made my presidency the most secretive and unaccountable of any in U.S. history.

I'm proud that the members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in U.S. history.

My "poorest millionaire," Condoleeza Rice, has a Chevron oil tanker named after her.

I am the first president in U.S. history to have almost all 50 states of the Union simultaneously suffer massive financial crisis.

I presided over the biggest corporate stock market fraud of any market in any country in history.

I am the first president in U.S. history to order a pre-emptive attack and the military occupation of a sovereign nation, and I did so against the will of the United Nations and the world community.

I created the largest government department bureaucracy in the history of the United States.

I set the all-time record for biggest annual budget spending increases, more than any president in history.

I am the first president in U.S. history to have the United Nations remove the U.S. from the Human Rights Commission.

I am the first president in U.S. history to have the United Nations remove the U.S. from the Elections Monitoring Board.

I removed more checks and balances, and have the least amount of congressional oversight than any presidential administration in U.S. history.

I rendered the entire United Nations viewpoints irrelevant.

I withdrew the U.S. from the World Court of Law.

I refused to allow inspectors access to U.S. "prisoners of war" (detainees) and thereby have refused to abide by the Geneva Convention.

I am the first president in history to refuse United Nations election inspectors (during the 2002 U.S. election).

I am the all-time U.S. and world record-holder for receiving the most corporate campaign donations.
My largest lifetime campaign contributor, and one of my best friends, (Kenneth Lay, former CEO of Enron Corporation) presided over the largest corporate bankruptcy fraud in U.S. history. My political party used the Enron private jets and corporate attorneys to assure my success with the U.S. Supreme Court during my election decision.

I have spent more money on polls and focus groups than any president in U.S. history.

I garnered the most sympathy for the U.S. after the World Trade Center attacks and less than a year later made the U.S. the most resented country in the world, possibly the largest failure of diplomacy in World history.

I am actively working on a policy of "disengagement" creating the most hostile of Israel-Palestine relations in at least 30 years.

I am first president in history to have a majority of Europeans (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and security.

I am the first U.S. president in history to have the people of South Korea more threatened by the U.S. than by their immediate neighbor, North Korea.

I changed the U.S. policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts.

I set an all-time record for the number of administration appointees who violated U.S. law by not selling their huge personal investments in corporations bidding for U.S. contracts.

I failed to fulfill my pledge to capture Osama Bin Laden, dead or alive.


I failed to capture the anthrax killer who tried to murder the leaders of our country at the U.S. Capitol Building. Even after 18 months I have no leads and no credible suspects.
In the past 18 months following the World Trade Center attack I have successfully prevented any public investigation into the biggest security failure in the history of the United States.

I removed more freedoms and civil liberties for Americans than any president in U.S. history.

In a little over two years, I created the most divided country in decades, possibly the most divided since the Civil War.
I entered my office with the strongest economy in U.S. history and have turned every single economic category downward all in less than two years.


Records and References
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I have at least one conviction for drunk driving in Maine. My Texas driving record has been erased and is not available.

I was AWOL from the National Guard.

I refuse to take a drug test or even answer any questions about drug use.

All records of my tenure as Governor of Texas are now in my father's library, sealed, and unavailable for public view.

All records of SEC investigations into insider trading or bankrupt companies are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.

All records or minutes from meetings that I, or my Vice-President, attended regarding public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public review. "

just something i found from another forum. the author is unknown to me.

http://counterpunch.com/green11242007.html
so much for conservatism
bushes resume
"George W. Bush
The White House, USA

Resume

Past Work Experience

I ran for U.S. Congress and lost.

I produced a Hollywood slasher B movie.

I bought an oil company, but couldn't find any oil in Texas; the company went bankrupt shortly after I sold all my stock.

I bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a sweetheart deal that took land using taxpayer money.

With my father's help and name, I was elected Governor of Texas.

Accomplishments as Governor
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I changed pollution laws in favor of the power and oil companies and made Texas the most polluted state in the Union.

I replaced Los Angeles with Houston as the most smog-ridden city in America.

I cut taxes and bankrupted Texas government to the tune of billions in borrowed money.

I set the record for the most executions by any Governor in American history.

I became U.S. President after losing the popular vote by over 500,000 votes with the help of major Enron money and my father's appointments to the Supreme Court.

Accomplishments as President
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I attacked and overtook two countries.

I spent the U.S. surplus and effectively bankrupted the U.S. Treasury.

I shattered the record for the largest annual deficit in U.S. history.

I set an economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12-month period.

I set the all-time record for the biggest drop in the history of the U.S. stock market.

My record for environmental issues is the least of my concerns.

I am the first president in U.S. history to enter office with a criminal record.

I set the all-time record for most days on vacation in any one year period.

After taking-off the entire month of August, I then presided over the worst security failure in U.S. history.

I am supporting development of a "Tactical Bunker Buster" nuke, a WMD.

I am getting our troops killed, under the lie of Sadam's procurement of Yellow Cake Nuke WMD components, then blaming the lie on our British friends.

I set the record for most campaign fund-raising trips by a U.S. president.

In my first year in office over 2-million Americans lost their jobs and that trend continues every month.

I set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12-month period.

I appointed more convicted criminals to administration than any president in U.S. history.

I set the record for least amount of press conferences than any president since the advent of television.

I signed more laws and executive orders effectively amending or ignoring the Constitution than any president in history.

I presided over the biggest energy crisis in U.S. history and refused to intervene when corruption involving the oil industry was revealed.

I presided over the highest gasoline prices in U.S. history and refused to use national reserves as past presidents have done.

I have cut health care benefits for war veterans and support a cut in duty benefits for active duty troops and their families in war time.

I have set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously protest me in public venues (15 million people) shattering the record for protest against any person in the history of mankind.

I've dissolved more international treaties than any president in U.S. history.

I've made my presidency the most secretive and unaccountable of any in U.S. history.

I'm proud that the members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in U.S. history.

My "poorest millionaire," Condoleeza Rice, has a Chevron oil tanker named after her.

I am the first president in U.S. history to have almost all 50 states of the Union simultaneously suffer massive financial crisis.

I presided over the biggest corporate stock market fraud of any market in any country in history.

I am the first president in U.S. history to order a pre-emptive attack and the military occupation of a sovereign nation, and I did so against the will of the United Nations and the world community.

I created the largest government department bureaucracy in the history of the United States.

I set the all-time record for biggest annual budget spending increases, more than any president in history.

I am the first president in U.S. history to have the United Nations remove the U.S. from the Human Rights Commission.

I am the first president in U.S. history to have the United Nations remove the U.S. from the Elections Monitoring Board.

I removed more checks and balances, and have the least amount of congressional oversight than any presidential administration in U.S. history.

I rendered the entire United Nations viewpoints irrelevant.

I withdrew the U.S. from the World Court of Law.

I refused to allow inspectors access to U.S. "prisoners of war" (detainees) and thereby have refused to abide by the Geneva Convention.

I am the first president in history to refuse United Nations election inspectors (during the 2002 U.S. election).

I am the all-time U.S. and world record-holder for receiving the most corporate campaign donations.
My largest lifetime campaign contributor, and one of my best friends, (Kenneth Lay, former CEO of Enron Corporation) presided over the largest corporate bankruptcy fraud in U.S. history. My political party used the Enron private jets and corporate attorneys to assure my success with the U.S. Supreme Court during my election decision.

I have spent more money on polls and focus groups than any president in U.S. history.

I garnered the most sympathy for the U.S. after the World Trade Center attacks and less than a year later made the U.S. the most resented country in the world, possibly the largest failure of diplomacy in World history.

I am actively working on a policy of "disengagement" creating the most hostile of Israel-Palestine relations in at least 30 years.

I am first president in history to have a majority of Europeans (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and security.

I am the first U.S. president in history to have the people of South Korea more threatened by the U.S. than by their immediate neighbor, North Korea.

I changed the U.S. policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts.

I set an all-time record for the number of administration appointees who violated U.S. law by not selling their huge personal investments in corporations bidding for U.S. contracts.

I failed to fulfill my pledge to capture Osama Bin Laden, dead or alive.


I failed to capture the anthrax killer who tried to murder the leaders of our country at the U.S. Capitol Building. Even after 18 months I have no leads and no credible suspects.
In the past 18 months following the World Trade Center attack I have successfully prevented any public investigation into the biggest security failure in the history of the United States.

I removed more freedoms and civil liberties for Americans than any president in U.S. history.

In a little over two years, I created the most divided country in decades, possibly the most divided since the Civil War.
I entered my office with the strongest economy in U.S. history and have turned every single economic category downward all in less than two years.


Records and References
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I have at least one conviction for drunk driving in Maine. My Texas driving record has been erased and is not available.

I was AWOL from the National Guard.

I refuse to take a drug test or even answer any questions about drug use.

All records of my tenure as Governor of Texas are now in my father's library, sealed, and unavailable for public view.

All records of SEC investigations into insider trading or bankrupt companies are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.

All records or minutes from meetings that I, or my Vice-President, attended regarding public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public review. "

just something i found from another forum. the author is unknown to me.

This was already brought up in another thread, and disproven. It is nothing more then propaganda and lies, for the most part.

do you really look at a world view?
http://www.regressiveantidote.net/Articles/Getting_Past_Oh.html

Obama's resume:















.

do you really look at a world view?
http://www.regressiveantidote.net/Articles/Getting_Past_Oh.html

Do you ever cite legitimate sources? Stop drinkin the kool-aid, my friend. That piece is euro-trash america bashing propaganda with no substance.

Europeans also have a greater sense of history than Americans do – and, sadly, they’d be hard-pressed not to, of course – which gives them a larger wisdom about power and human nature.

The hugely dominate political philosophy in Europe, egalitarian liberalism (progressivism, socialist-lite, whatever you wanna call it) has a blatant misunderstanding of human nature; an exceedingly unrealistic view. You can't support the programs that they do without subscribing to that unrealistic (and disproven) view of human nature.

Just as shocking is the fact that everything about the present war in Iraq has been a lie, as well.

distortion

This was a war trumped up with zero necessity. This was a war of power and profit. This was a war of immense deceits. This is a disastrous war of epic proportions.


again, distortion. Overlooks many things, selectively chooses information and a self-serving interpretation of that info to reach those absurd conclusions.

My guess is that Americans simply can’t go there, just as many can’t possibly entertain the thought that 9/11 might have been done by their government, or at least perhaps allowed to happen.

Ok, this guy just marginalized himself. We are talking Micheal Moore credibility here.

The other thing is that Europeans have a more mature politics than Americans do – let’s just come right out and say it. You can see it in their attitudes toward sexuality, drugs and crime. You can see it in their wholesale rejection of nationalism and religion, humanity’s worst mythologies and twin curses, wherever they arise. You can see it in their rejection of the juvenile selfishness that characterizes the American style of raw capitalism and obsessive consumption. And you can see it, especially, in their foreign policies and attitudes toward war. In large part because they so heavily and repeatedly paid the consequences of their own prior immaturity about war, their understanding and approach to it today are far more advanced than that of Americans.

How can you read this paragraph and not conclude that this article is distortion and propaganda?! This argument of this paragraph is basically Europeans are more mature and enlightened then Americans because they are liberal and accept liberal points of view. By extention, the author is saying that American conservatives are simple-minded fools. To reject a major political point of view out of hand like that is exeedingly illogical, and a cheap arguing tactic to avoid even acknowledging (let alone debating) a substantive point of view that the author disagrees with. I have no doubt that this author couldn't coherently convey an accurate opposing conservative point of view. Instead he would just set up a trojan horse argument so he can shoot it down, if not just writing it off as foolish without even debating it at all (ad hominem logical fallacy).

The whole article is doin' nothing more then saying that Bush and america are bad and americans are unenlightened fools compared to europeans. It is basically elitist crap, nothing more.

You ask "do you really look at a world view?", and no. The whole "world view" thing is nothing more then to say an elitist view, and I am wiser and more humble then that. The "world view" demonstrated in this article is just cherry-picked information and spin to support an unrealistic conclusion. It is nothing more then self-serving distortion; the author trying to be clever and spin things to meet his end, not drawing a logical conclusion based on the relevant data. I take a realistic view of the world, and prioritize American interests over other nations. Something you should try sometime.:D

I think thay have not pushed the Obama issue before this time because they(the republicans ) in reality, want him to win the demo nomination.
I think there actions have an underlying adgenda.
For sure McCain would beat Obama, but it is doubtful he would beat Hillary in the general election, and the republiucans know this.


I have yet to see a republican who would not want Hillary to win the nomination over Obama. There are republicans going out in the primaries and voting for Hillary. Rush Limbaugh is encouraging this. Hillary's huge negatives nationally are far larger then you could ever hope for in a political opponent. She would be easy to beat. Obama may actually be a challenge.

You guys are funny, but in a sad way. It's very simple, if your boy-toy George had done a better job as President and as a Republican, the middle-of-the-road people might not be swaying to the left, as much.

Face it, if Obama wins in '08, it's because of the guy you put in office the last two terms.

Yeah, I can spin the truth to trash my political opponents too.:eek:

Europeans also have a greater sense of history than Americans do – and, sadly, they’d be hard-pressed not to, of course – which gives them a larger wisdom about power and human nature.
Europe's official language would be German if it weren't for America. So much for their "greater sense of history." :bowrofl:

Europe's official language would be German if it weren't for America. So much for their "greater sense of history." :bowrofl:

You fail to mention that Russia took the brunt of casualties and bogged the germans down during Hitler's winter offensive.

Russia suffered many millions of troop casualties vs Americas 280,000.
Hitler's real downfall was attacking Russia instead of co opting them.

Obama got beat up in Houston yesterday by of all people, Reuters and the Associated Press. Obama beat a hasty retreat after failing to convincingly lie. He didn't try to stand up and fight which is exactly what he will do as CIC. He will always surrender us to whomever threatens us.

The game is about over of Obummer.

Mr. Hubbard, you are so wrong about Republicans and who they want to run against.

While it is true that Republicans wished for Hillary to NOT be the nominee, when we wound up with Obummer, that really woke Repubs up. Republicans can beat Hillary no problem. She is the most galvanizing for the Republicans.

Obummer was receiving a free pass until Saturday Night Live. Now the press smells blood and Obummer is in trouble. Canadian Nafta, Rezko.

The media already has some choice sound and video bites of Obama that are going to hurt in the next week. Too bad it didn't happen 1 week ago.

At this point I am not worried about Hitlery or Obummer.

You can't put up a Clinton or the most liberal guy in the Senate and expect to win in the general.

Heck, we haven't even touched his voting record yet.

Wait till that happens.

So far this election has been all about Barack and his teleprompter speeches. There has been no substance.

Just watch, he won't get away with his Hope and Change speeches anymore. He will need to get dirty and when he does open up, the press and the right are going to pummel.

I voted for Hillary in an open primary long before Rush put it out there as a strategy. (I'm glad he read my email) ;)

Obummer is out there spouting about his 'good' judgement in voting against the war, (which shows poor judgement as far as I am concerned), and now wants a free pass when it comes to his 'poor' judgement working with Rezko. Not gonna happen Oblahblah.

We'll see what happens tonight in Texas and Ohio

You guys are funny, but in a sad way. It's very simple, if your boy-toy George had done a better job as President and as a Republican, the middle-of-the-road people might not be swaying to the left, as much.

Let's face it. The media is biased. Obama proves the liberal media bias.

The media beat up on George for 7 years. That helped to sway the lemmings. Sure George didn't help himself with his base supporting amnesty and doing the drug handout and nominating Harriet Myers, but in the end, history will view GW very favorably.

We haven't been attacked. We are winning in Iraq and Afganistan. We had Israel and the Palestinians to the table for awhile there. We used 6-nation talks to neuter North Korea. The economy has been strong for 5 years. Unemployment has been kept to historial lows. Even with $3.00 gas, the economy moved along. Kids are getting a better education (which stills leaves a lot to be desired). (Obama by contrast doesn't want to teach the 3R's. He wants to teach art and multi-culturalism):confused:

Let's face it, the media crucified Bush. Bush tried to play along with Liberals and that will never work.

There cannot be compromise. Obummer will not bring us together. IMHO, he will drive the greatest wedge between us not only on color, but on class. He talks of bringing America together but rails on 50% of the population as evil. That is not bringing us together. That is taking us apart. At least Bush didn't do that.

You fail to mention that Russia took the brunt of casualties and bogged the germans down during Hitler's winter offensive.

Russia suffered many millions of troop casualties vs Americas 280,000.
Hitler's real downfall was attacking Russia instead of co opting them.I don't fail to do any such thing. We pulled Europe's ass out of two World Wars and that's a fact. And if we hadn't stood up for Europe during the Cold War, everybody'd be speaking Russian over there.

Europe's official language would be German if it weren't for America. So much for their "greater sense of history." :bowrofl:

In fact, their "greater sense of history" allowed Nazi Germany to rise to a major threat that ran over France in WWII, Just two decades after the end of WWI! Their "greater sense of history" is nothing more then wishful thinking and ignoring reality. And what is this about understanding power and human nature? Should doesn't look like it. After WWI, we created a worthless international body to preserve peace that proved inept (League of Nations), after WWII, we did the same thing! Europe wholly supported this, too.

I don't fail to do any such thing. We pulled Europe's ass out of two World Wars and that's a fact. And if we hadn't stood up for Europe during the Cold War, everybody'd be speaking Russian over there.

Good point. While 04SCTLS is correct in the fact he points out, losing more lives in a battle or war hardly means you are more effective...in fact, it implies quite the opposite. Russia did bog down Germany, but did they push them back, or just slow and/or stall them? The fact remains that America's entry into the war added enough to the allied powers to give them the edge, abd ultimately turned the tide of that war. The Allied powers knew this would happen, which is why they were trying to get us into the war before Pearl Harbor (and Hitler was trying to avoid it).

We'll see what happens tonight in Texas and Ohio

That is a hilarious picture!

By 1945 the Russians had pushed the Germans all the way back to Berlin and Eisenhour was rushing American troops across Germany to keep the Russians from overrunning more German territory.
So yes we helped win the war on the european front but it wasn't a singlehanded effort like the war in the Pacific.
More like a combined British, Russian, American effort.

More to the point of this thread though:
That Whole Obama/Rezko Thing… (http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2008/03/that_whole_obamarezko_thing/)

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/wordpress/wp-content/themes/default/images/postby.gif (http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/index.php?author=28/) Alex Knapp (http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/author/aknapp/) | Tuesday, March 4, 2008


For those of you (like me) who haven’t honestly been paying too much attention to Obama’s business relationship with inidicted real estate developer Tony Rezko, Talking Points Memo (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/obama_rezko_purchase.php) has a nice summary of the whole situation. The key paragraph that caught my eye is here:And then there’s the other big question, whether Obama ever did anything for Rezko in return for his purchase of the side yard or all those contributions. Obama has said that Rezko “never asked me for anything” and “I’ve never done any favors for him.” No substantial evidence has surfaced to contradict that claim.
As far as I can tell, this appears to be correct. Having now read the whole story in several different places, I can say that this is barely even in the “appearance of impropriety” category, much less demonstrative of any actual impropriety on the part of Barack Obama.
Certainly, out of all of the three leading contenders, Obama has the least amount of issues with anything approaching a conflict of interest. Clinton has issues with her husband’s subversion of U.S. foreign policy in Kazakhstan (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1201813343-YMPQmUfEFQJC36TZ/O2UFg&pagewanted=all). And John McCain, the straight-talking ethical reformer, has a senior campaign staff that is heavily dominated by professional lobbyists (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/21/AR2008022101131_pf.html).
This is not to say that Obama’s relationship to Rezko wasn’t “bone-headed” (to use Obama’s own description of the situation), but it’s relatively minor compared to some major issues that the other candidates have in their closets.

...yes we helped win the war on the european front but it wasn't a singlehanded effort like the war in the Pacific.
More like a combined British, Russian, American effort.

I think that is pretty consistent with what I said. The big difference is, Germany was never a threat to us, and had no designs on attacking us. The same cannot be said for Russia and Britian, both of whom tried to appease Germany and had it thrown back in their face. They let him grow until he was a threat, if fact you can make the argument that through appeasment, they, in a way, helped him out by not enforcing their agreements and treaties since WWI, thus enabling him. Remember, the US wasn't part of the League of Nations, while both these nations were founding members.


As to the Tony Rezko thing, I don't know enough yet to comment on it, though I wouldn't be suprised if there was some legitimacy to the claims. I well let others more informed on this issue comment on it, until I know more.

more from the cartoonists

...Obama has the least amount of issues with anything approaching a conflict of interest. Clinton has issues with her husband’s subversion of U.S. foreign policy in Kazakhstan (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1201813343-YMPQmUfEFQJC36TZ/O2UFg&pagewanted=all). And John McCain, the straight-talking ethical reformer, has a senior campaign staff that is heavily dominated by professional lobbyists (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/21/AR2008022101131_pf.html).

Ties to lobbyists is part of the game if you are a Senator. Nothing terribly bad there, in and of itself, just par for the course. Obama having less ties to lobbyists in Washington is mostly due to (and an example of) his inexperience there.

Europe's official language would be German if it weren't for America. So much for their "greater sense of history." :bowrofl:

while american companies were supplying the germans through the war.
http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/53/rockefeller.html
america at first didn't want to get into the war and decrease profits of large corporations. then when the "communists" were finally turning the war around, u.s. steps in and takes all the glory. how quickly it's forgotten how many other countries outside of europe also stepped in before the americans showed up. notice gw's grandpas name in there as a nazi supplier.

Obama's resume:















.



nice

Do you ever cite legitimate sources? Stop drinkin the kool-aid, my friend. That piece is euro-trash america bashing propaganda with no substance.

Europeans also have a greater sense of history than Americans do – and, sadly, they’d be hard-pressed not to, of course – which gives them a larger wisdom about power and human nature.

The hugely dominate political philosophy in Europe, egalitarian liberalism (progressivism, socialist-lite, whatever you wanna call it) has a blatant misunderstanding of human nature; an exceedingly unrealistic view. You can't support the programs that they do without subscribing to that unrealistic (and disproven) view of human nature.

Just as shocking is the fact that everything about the present war in Iraq has been a lie, as well.

distortion

This was a war trumped up with zero necessity. This was a war of power and profit. This was a war of immense deceits. This is a disastrous war of epic proportions.


again, distortion. Overlooks many things, selectively chooses information and a self-serving interpretation of that info to reach those absurd conclusions.

My guess is that Americans simply can’t go there, just as many can’t possibly entertain the thought that 9/11 might have been done by their government, or at least perhaps allowed to happen.

Ok, this guy just marginalized himself. We are talking Micheal Moore credibility here.

The other thing is that Europeans have a more mature politics than Americans do – let’s just come right out and say it. You can see it in their attitudes toward sexuality, drugs and crime. You can see it in their wholesale rejection of nationalism and religion, humanity’s worst mythologies and twin curses, wherever they arise. You can see it in their rejection of the juvenile selfishness that characterizes the American style of raw capitalism and obsessive consumption. And you can see it, especially, in their foreign policies and attitudes toward war. In large part because they so heavily and repeatedly paid the consequences of their own prior immaturity about war, their understanding and approach to it today are far more advanced than that of Americans.

How can you read this paragraph and not conclude that this article is distortion and propaganda?! This argument of this paragraph is basically Europeans are more mature and enlightened then Americans because they are liberal and accept liberal points of view. By extention, the author is saying that American conservatives are simple-minded fools. To reject a major political point of view out of hand like that is exeedingly illogical, and a cheap arguing tactic to avoid even acknowledging (let alone debating) a substantive point of view that the author disagrees with. I have no doubt that this author couldn't coherently convey an accurate opposing conservative point of view. Instead he would just set up a trojan horse argument so he can shoot it down, if not just writing it off as foolish without even debating it at all (ad hominem logical fallacy).

The whole article is doin' nothing more then saying that Bush and america are bad and americans are unenlightened fools compared to europeans. It is basically elitist crap, nothing more.

You ask "do you really look at a world view?", and no. The whole "world view" thing is nothing more then to say an elitist view, and I am wiser and more humble then that. The "world view" demonstrated in this article is just cherry-picked information and spin to support an unrealistic conclusion. It is nothing more then self-serving distortion; the author trying to be clever and spin things to meet his end, not drawing a logical conclusion based on the relevant data. I take a realistic view of the world, and prioritize American interests over other nations. Something you should try sometime.:D

why would i want to priortize american interests over interests of other nations? i'm Canadian. i take a more world view of things rather than a self serving selfish centralist view. there is more to the world than just american. and you say a world view is "elitest?' you should stop drinking the kool-aid. you obviously missed the link at the top of my bush resume, or you would of been a little long winded in your reply.

while american companies were supplying the germans through the war.
http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/53/rockefeller.html
america at first didn't want to get into the war and decrease profits of large corporations. then when the "communists" were finally turning the war around, u.s. steps in and takes all the glory. how quickly it's forgotten how many other countries outside of europe also stepped in before the americans showed up. notice gw's grandpas name in there as a nazi supplier.

Who brain washed you?
You're history is so critically flawed it's sad.
What kind of American-hating propaganda do you read?

Is "The Coalition to Oppose the Arms Trade" you're only source?
There are plenty of us who can argue and teach you the history if you'd like.

But if you think burning down your country as you retreat is an example of "turning the war around," good luck to you. Had Hitler only had the judgment, he could have had recruited those reluctant Soviets in the West to fight Stalin with him.

why would i want to priortize american interests over interests of other nations? i'm Canadian.

opps, forgot. Then you should prioritize Canadian interests. Its called the "national interest".

i take a more world view of things rather than a self serving selfish centralist view.

Yes, we can't all be "enlightened" like you.

Also....centralist? WTH is that?

there is more to the world than just american.

Yeah, but we are the sole superpower. No one has the economic and military power we do. The world looks to us as a leader, and has accordingly, higher expectations of us. Yes there is more to the world then American, but no one has the role or responsibility that the world thrusts on America, and make no mistake, the world wants America to have that responsibility. It makes for a reasonably stable world system.


Plus, I live in america, it's priorities take precedent.

and you say a world view is "elitest?' you should stop drinking the kool-aid.

It isn't kool-aid drinking and you know it. the way you are using the term "world view" here further vindicates my claim. The term is dependent on how you define it. The way you use the term shows how you define it. You are trying to use it as a intellectual and social bludgeon to put down people who don't share your view, effectively raising yourself above them. It is nothing more then an elitist attempt at intellectual "peer-presure". No substance behind it. Just trying to label and mischaracterize the opposition to marginalize them. A good debate tactic, but based on a logical fallacy, and a sign of a weak argument. the sentiment behind that "world view" argument is nothing short of an ad homenum personal attack on anyone who doesn't hold that view.


Besides, I doubt you really have an informed (let alone realistic) view of the world. Your selective (and distorted) view of history says otherwise. I find it real interesting that I am the one with drinking the kool-aid here (and thus, just subscribing to dogma, and having and unrealistic and uniformed view), yet I doubt you have ever taken an International politics class, while I am currently taking my third.


you obviously missed the link at the top of my bush resume, or you would of been a little long winded in your reply.

Yes, that "Bush resume" was an absurd peice of propaganda that had no basis in reality. Since that was the majority of your post, the rest of the post is discredited, and I am not gonna waste time on it.

When ya gonna cite wikipedia, I'm waitin on that one.:)

Wow, is she full of hate. Talk about being a racist.

Michele Obama needs to keep talking (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/03/10/080310fa_fact_collins?currentPage=3)

Obama begins with a broad assessment of life in America in 2008, and life is not good: we’re a divided country, we’re a country that is “just downright mean,” we are “guided by fear,” we’re a nation of cynics, sloths, and complacents. “We have become a nation of struggling folks who are barely making it every day,” she said, as heads bobbed in the pews. “Folks are just jammed up, and it’s gotten worse over my lifetime. And, doggone it, I’m young. Forty-four!”

From these bleak generalities, Obama moves into specific complaints. Used to be, she will say, that you could count on a decent education in the neighborhood. But now there are all these charter schools and magnet schools that you have to “finagle” to get into. (Obama herself attended a magnet school, but never mind.) Health care is out of reach (“Let me tell you, don’t get sick in America”), pensions are disappearing, college is too expensive, and even if you can figure out a way to go to college you won’t be able to recoup the cost of the degree in many of the professions for which you needed it in the first place. “You’re looking at a young couple that’s just a few years out of debt,” Obama said. “See, because, we went to those good schools, and we didn’t have trust funds. I’m still waiting for Barack’s trust fund. Especially after I heard that Dick Cheney was s’posed to be a relative or something. Give us something here!”

She is on the rag.:eek:

Found the perfect quote for this and other nonsense.

I know it's from Shakespeare, but I hope someone can tell me which play. Something like: "Tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, but signifying nothing."

This is pretty good....

Presidential Candidate Thinks That's A Good Idea But We Should Go Farther

Check the link:
http://www.theonion.com/content/radio_news/presidential_candidate

Make sure your audio is on

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=57967

How to knock off Obama's halo

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: March 04, 2008
1:00 am Eastern

© 2008

To me, the greatest irony of the Democratic primary contest is that while Hillary Clinton has tried desperately to make herself more human, Barack Obama has basked in the efforts of others to make him less so.

Eventually, Obama will be brought back down to earth from his pseudo-divine perch. When that happens, there will be plenty of areas of vulnerability for his opponent – presumably, John McCain – to exploit.

Unhappily for Hillary, she hasn't been able to seize on Obama's weaknesses. This is because many of them she shares, and the others she can't politically afford to draw attention to. Obama's extreme liberalism across the board makes him ripe for attack from the right, or even the center, but Hillary is hardly in a position to make a credible case against him there, except possibly on national security and Iraq.

With cool, premeditated calculation, Hillary methodically positioned herself as plausibly hawkish enough for the general election. How was she supposed to know she would face such a formidable challenger in the primaries?

Her response hasn't helped. Instead of defending her position on Iraq and presenting Obama as irresponsibly dovish on foreign policy, she has distorted her vote on the Iraq war resolution to con the base into believing she was with them all along.

In trying to put that square peg into a round hole, she has succeeded only in making herself look John Kerryish, which is to say wishy-washy, unintelligible, deceitful and downright ridiculous on the issue. The net effect is that she has earned further contempt from the base and made no inroads with anyone else. Meanwhile, Barack has watched this delicious turn of events unfold while polishing his halo.

Belatedly, Hillary is now running ads suggesting Obama is unprepared and ill-suited to receive that 3 a.m. national security crisis call in the White House. But not having previously demonstrated Obama's lack of national security bona fides nor her own possession of them, her attack ads are likely falling flat. It would be like LBJ running the TV ad of the little girl picking daisies only to be incinerated in a nuclear attack without first having established – albeit fraudulently – that Barry Goldwater was a trigger-happy, sadistic warmonger. (And liberals talk about the politics of fear!)

But looking ahead, Obama will not escape scrutiny from John McCain in the general election, despite McCain's own liberal proclivities on too many issues. If I'm wrong and McCain treats Obama with kid gloves, he'll go the way of Bob Dole and Jack Kemp, who seemed to have more compliments than criticisms for Clinton and Gore in 1996.

You'd think Obama would be getting nervous about the artificial pedestal he's been placed on. As an object of idolatry with an aura of inerrancy, there is not much margin for error. But Barack Obama, like the rest of us, is mortal.

Even for McCain, Obama's liberalism is a target-rich environment. It's not only woefully out of sync with the center-right electorate, but it also belies his claim that he's an exemplar of bipartisanship. Talk is dirt cheap, though Hillary didn't succeed in exposing Obama's sophistry on this claim, either.

McCain would be well-advised to make Obama own his socialistic affinities – on taxes, spending, health care and more. He should also show how radical Obama is on abortion, where he's out of step with the majority of Americans.

And no matter how uncomfortable it may be to broach the issue, McCain should make Obama answer for membership in a church whose long-time pastor's magazine lauded the overtly racist and anti-Semitic Louis Farrakhan as "truly epitomiz[ing] greatness." People are missing the boat in thinking Obama's vulnerability here can be sidestepped with a semantic dodge over whether to denounce or reject Farrakhan's support.

The real question is why Obama would choose to be in a church whose leading spiritual authority holds such repugnant views. This is his pastor we're talking about, holding forth on a very important matter, not some tangential acquaintance discussing some inconsequential topic. On a related matter, Obama has explaining to do as well on his tepid support for Israel.

But where Obama is most vulnerable is on national security and Iraq, the very areas where McCain has the most credibility. Though Obama has received a pass from Hillary and the press on these subjects, and though he boasts prescience and wisdom on them, his record and statements make him a sitting duck.

Concerning Iraq, many of his predictions were wrong, his factual assertions false, his assessment and analysis erroneous, and his prescriptions reckless. If McCain is smart, before November he'll have Obama in that infamous tank with Michael Dukakis, wearing that same silly-looking helmet.

She is perpetually on the rag.:eek:
Fixed it for you. :D

Fixed it for you. :D

Thanks...though wouldn't that describe Hillary better them Michelle Obama?

Found the perfect quote for this and other nonsense.

I know it's from Shakespeare, but I hope someone can tell me which play. Something like: "Tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, but signifying nothing."
I'm not a Shakespearean, but Google found this:

"Out, out, brief candle! Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more: it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." Macbeth Quote (Act V, Scene V).

You fail to mention that Russia took the brunt of casualties and bogged the germans down during Hitler's winter offensive.

Russia suffered many millions of troop casualties vs Americas 280,000.
Hitler's real downfall was attacking Russia instead of co opting them.

Don't forget about lend-lease. Without U.S. supplies and trucks the Soviets most likely would have lost. At the very least their later advances would not have been as dramatic.

Good political cartoons, btw.

K-Bob,

I can't believe you are still lurking. Been a while stranger.

See me a PM and let me know how life is treating you and the kids.

Let's not forget to look at the facts.

If it wasn't for Ross Perot back in '92, Republicans would have swept since Reagan in '80.

America still only trusts a Republican to sit in the chair.

America figures let the left wingers have fun in the House and Senate and supports the Dem giveaway programs every time but when it comes to national security, America wants an adult in the chair.

This year it will never be more apparent.

An intellectual lightweight with no experience vs Mr. Gravitas.

Obama has only been getting 50% of the Left. That puts him at 25% of the voting block. He has a long way to go to convince the Hillary supporters that he is a better choice than McCain.

Don't get your hopes up too high. Obama hasn't been challenged yet. Let's see how he responds after he gets knocked on his arse a few times.

I've already forwarded to the RNC the OBummer attack plan.

Obummer only talks about his decision to vote against Iraq when in reality he was the only one that didn't have a clue.

How dangerous a muslim sympathizer would be sitting in the Oval Office. You can't tell me he demonstrated 'great wisdom' by voting no. I would say the exact opposite. The fact that he voted 'No' should immediately disqualify him for Pres. After all, ALL of the Clinton administration had been pounding the WMD drumbeat way back in '98.

To ignore the world community that was in harmory over Iraq being a danger in possession of WMD makes Obummer a dangerous person. He'll get a bunch of us killed if he is elected.


If yo're going to play the Perot card, then fat-boy "Global Warming" Gore would have clearly won Florida if it wasn't for Ralph "I killed the Corvair, yeah for me" Nader.

Long way or not, he's doing extraordinarily well, for a guy with little experience on his resume.

My hopes aren't up per se, I'm unimpressed with the three we're being handed.

The whole "muslim conspiracy" thing is rediculous and the rhetoric of the paranoid.

If yo're going to play the Perot card, then fat-boy "Global Warming" Gore would have clearly won Florida if it wasn't for Ralph "I killed the Corvair, yeah for me" Nader.

won't debate ya there

Long way or not, he's doing extraordinarily well, for a guy with little experience on his resume.

again, no debate there...

My hopes aren't up per se, I'm unimpressed with the three we're being handed.

That is called "electoral dysfunction" and anyone who has been paying attention to politics for more then 6 months seems to have it in this election.

The whole "muslim conspiracy" thing is rediculous and the rhetoric of the paranoid.

To throw that out, out of hand is hardly reasonable, but it is irresponsible. And few are saying it is an out and out "conspiracy", but asking questions about his ties to radical islam is only prudent if he is running for the head office, since we are at war with radical islam. The burden of proof is on him to convince us that his loyalties lay with america, and instead of doin that, he is dodging the issue. To ignore all the red flags is foolish.

The whole "muslim conspiracy" thing is rediculous and the rhetoric of the paranoid.

Is Barack a Muslim? I think it is still debatable. He never distanced himself from his church or his pastor. That is hugely troublesome to me.

Is he a Muslim sympathizer? Absolutely.

Will he treat Arab nations that support Islam and Sharia law with kid gloves? You betcha.

Will B. Hussein Obama let Islamic fundamentalists walk all over him? He sure will imho. All the while he is working with them on a 'political' solution, they will be plotting behind his back. He doesn't recognize evil. He thinks you can negotiate with it. You can't.

If we get attacked and he doesn't have the balls to stand up and defend America or any of our allies, he's toast. Bring on impeachment.

On the other hand Obama having lived abroad for a period and being exposed to other cultures will have a better understanding of the other 96% of the world's population than an ignorant simpleton like GW who didn't even know the difference between shiite and sunni muslums before launching his mission (un) accomplished.

On the other hand Obama having lived abroad for a period and being exposed to other cultures will have a better understanding of the other 96% of the world's population than an ignorant simpleton like GW who didn't even know the difference between shiite and sunni muslums before launching his mission (un) accomplished.

You're wrong on all counts. Your characterization of President Bush is entirely wrong.

And second, are you honestly saying that Obama has developed a fine understand of the world because he lived in Indonesia for a couple years when he was 6 years old?

*owned* On the other hand Obama having lived abroad for a period and being exposed to other cultures will have a better understanding of the other 96% of the world's population...

Just when you were beginning to accumulate some points for intellectual posting, you let this gem out huh!

Lets see. Obama lived abroad from the ages of 6-10 in a muslim school and that now counts as overseas experience and foreign policy credentials for a Democrat to be President?:lol: :lol: :lol:

You guys crack me up. How you guys can be serious with yourselves when you look in the mirror is beyond me.

Admit you just postulated a completely inane argument and I might let you pass. Otherwise, back to the end of the line for you.:D

Edit...Dammit Calabrio, you beat me to it but I earned the *owned*

04SCTLS...I would toss that back at you and say those tender years of 6-10 were a prime time to indoctrinate a young boy into the fanatical islamic hate religion.

On the other hand Obama having lived abroad for a period and being exposed to other cultures will have a better understanding of the other 96% of the world's population than an ignorant simpleton like GW who didn't even know the difference between shiite and sunni muslums before launching his mission (un) accomplished.

That is quite an intellectual leap. I could understand that his ties with muslims in his youth in Jakarta when he was younger may give him a little more credibility, in the eyes of the middle east, but to say that it would lead to a "better understanding" on his part is absurd. Having some experience living with a people from age 6-10 doesn't create a "better understanding" of them. Your argument would be stronger if he had lived with them in his 20's, but even then, experience isn't everything. You see soliders in Iraq who know their job and circumstances very well, but the bigger political picture is poorly understood by them. The facts are the facts, "experience" like what you are talking about just leads to an emotional investment, not an intellectual understanding. You are not enough developed, intellectually, at that age to understand what defines that culture as opposed to American culture. You function mostly on emotion. You are prime to be indoctrinated through emotional appeals at that age. Bryan does have a point there.

Also, where are you getting the 96% figure? The other 96% of the world isn't muslim. living in Jakarta for 4-5 years isn't gonna give him any understanding in that way either. Again, if you had gone for the credibility arument, that might have been more plausable, but not really. The part of the "other 96%" that hates us now will still hate us; Bush isn't the reason they hate us, it is just an excuse (one of many). The reason they hate us is also the reason they love us and want us "in charge", globally; we have the most powerful and free society on the planet with the most influence in the world and head up a reasonably stable world system. While they appriciate that, they are also very jealous of us, and resentful that we are so great in part because we, as a nation, subscribe to (and come from) a different political and ideological tradition then the rest of the free world.

Even though I don't think Obama will win against McCain if he is the candidate in the election I can respect the fact that he has raised himself to the level of a serious contender without the help of well connected family like Bush or having been married to a former president like Hillary.
I just can't buy this muslim fifth columnist arguement about Obama you are putting forth.
My opinion is that Bush has been the least worldly president in recent history.

You are prime to be indoctrinated through emotional appeals at that age.

Which is why I argue that he is a muslim sympathizer which I think weakens his resolve to keep this country safe from any all terrorists, especially those bred in muslim countries. He will take a softer stance and they will take advantage of our weakness, as every bully does.

It gets back to liberal ideology. Peace and love and tranquility are lofty goals but they are not reality. Even if we completely pulled out of their 'region', they will still hate us. They hate the West and what it stands for. They hate our filthy television. Our decreped music. Our sick and violent sexual appetites.

They want to continue living in the past. Not 20 years ago past, but hundreds of years ago past.

It is a clash of civilizations. There will have to be a victor.

Economic prosperity and freedom is the only solution. Turn their lack of opportunity and hate into growth, prosperity and freedom.

That is the only solution and why Bush was and is a great President. He understands that the only way for the 2 societies to co-exist is if the muslim society becomes a pro-democracy society. Look at every developing nation and you will see that as a people they become less prone to violence and care more about their family and protecting the people and things (possessions) around them as they prosper.

It is just human nature.

For many years I went out with a bunch of guys and we were almost guaranteed to be in a fight every night. We were young, single and didn't have anything to lose. All of a sudden we had wives, kids, houses, jobs. Those fight opportunities were still there when we went out but we no longer had nothing to lose. It changed all of us. Right now, arabs and muslims have nothing to lose because they haven't been touched by freedom and democracy. They have nothing to lose. Therefore, there will be no peace. One must always be willing to defend one's self, but when you have nothing to lose, fighting is always the easiest option.

Sorry if you don't like the analogy but there cannot be peace in the Middle East until all these people have a chance to taste freedom and democracy. That is what it is going to take and thank God President Bush understands that. If these people had good jobs and quality food in abundance on the table, trust me, they would be less angry, at us or at others.

... he has raised himself to the level of a serious contender...

Be careful there. 'He' raised himself or did the media? I would say the latter.

Just like the media raised McCain.

Even though I don't think Obama will win against McCain if he is the candidate in the election I can respect the fact that he has raised himself to the level of a serious contender without the help of well connected family like Bush or having been married to a former president like Hillary.

I would agree with Bryan that Obama was made (in large part) by the media, but that isn't to say he didn't work to get where he is. He didn't have some breaks that Clinton and Bush had. However, in there respective runs for president, it was mainly name recognition. That is a decided advantage over someone who's name is Barak Hussein Obama when we are at war (or have recently been at war) with people named Hussein and Osama. However, Bush did (and still does) have a media that is very hostile to him, and in this election, that same media has been rather hostile to Hillary too. So the advantages thing is really 1 for 1. In fact, while name recognition is good, support by the media is a lot better.

I just can't buy this muslim fifth columnist arguement about Obama you are putting forth.

I understand that. It is a hard pill to swallow. I am not totally sold on it. But you have to admit there are some red flags in his past that he needs to address (and he is currently dodging) if he is gonna be president. The media is supposed to be the ones to do that. That is why they are given special privillage in our founding documents. However, the media view Obama as the second coming of Christ, and have given him a pass. Anyone who is gonna vote should be concerned about these red flags and want Obama to address them. It is a legitimate question to ask.

My opinion is that Bush has been the least worldly president in recent history.

Worldly? How is that not just an elitist platitude and intellectual bludgeon? "he doesn't agree with my views on world politics, so he isn't 'worldly'". Basically, that is trying to marginalize him by impling that he isn't "enlightened". Bush has a much better understanding of the world and the way it works then Obama, that's for sure. Bush's understanding of human nature is much more accurate then Obama's too. The term "worldly" (just like "world view") is merely an attempt to smear and marginalize. All being "worldly" really means is that the you agree with the liberal elites, nothing more. Those same "elites" gave us the League of Nations and, ultimately WWII. Elites are usually wrong. I would much rather have a president who is a wise leader, and surrounded by other wise and well informed advisors, then someone who is "worldly" or has a "world view".

You claim that Bush has been the least worldly president is a plus. :)

All being "worldly" really means is that the you agree with the liberal elites, nothing more. Those same "elites" gave us the League of Nations and, ultimately WWII. Elites are usually wrong. I would much rather have a president who is a wise leader, and surrounded by other wise and well informed advisors, then someone who is "worldly" or has a "world view".

You claim that Bush has been the least worldly president is a plus. :)
And Shag lays the smackdown yet again. *owned*

Which is why I argue that he is a muslim sympathizer which I think weakens his resolve to keep this country safe from any all terrorists, especially those bred in muslim countries. He will take a softer stance and they will take advantage of our weakness, as every bully does.

I can't say he is a muslim sypathizer but the red flags disqualify him from office, unless he addresses them well, and logically proves they are nothing. The burden of proof is on him. Otherwise, we at the very least would get someone in office who, through a soft stance and lack of resolve would be an enabler, much the same way Neville Chamberlain and Edouard Daladier allowed and enabled Hitler to invade other countries and become a major threat.

Chamberlain today would be called "worldly" or said to have a "world view"

They hate our filthy television. Our decreped music. Our sick and violent sexual appetites.

Well I agree with them there. I hate reality TV, I hate Rap music, and I want to make it clear, I am decidedly against NAMBLA! :D

...See, I am "worldly", I can find some common ground with our enemies.:)


Economic prosperity and freedom is the only solution. Turn their lack of opportunity and hate into growth, prosperity and freedom.

That is the only solution and why Bush was and is a great President. He understands that the only way for the 2 societies to co-exist is if the muslim society becomes a pro-democracy society. Look at every developing nation and you will see that as a people they become less prone to violence and care more about their family and protecting the people and things (possessions) around them as they prosper.

It is just human nature.

I think you just spelled it out right there.

Let's just agree to disagree as to if Bush has been a wise leader.
Since we seem to want to project ourselves as a world power with bases in many parts of the world and deep water fleets, a leader with an interest for more knowledge about the rest of the world is something that would be a plus and fit in with the old axiom of keeping your friends close and your enemies closer.

Since we seem to want to project ourselves as a world power with bases in many parts of the world and deep water fleets...

It isn't that we want to, it is that we are the sole superpower and the world looks to us for leadership and to take responsibility, weather we like it or not. In fact, most of the country would like to see us less involved with the world. Bush did, but 9/11 changed the world dynamic for us and for Bush.

...a leader with an interest for more knowledge about the rest of the world is something that would be a plus and fit in with the old axiom of keeping your friends close and your enemies closer.

When have we had a leader who didn't have an interest for knowledge about the rest of the world? The problem is when US presidents don't prioritize their country's interests over other nations. Clinton was notorious for that, and was a very weak president on foreign policy. THAT is what the elites call "worldly". It has nothing to do with a level of knowledge or understanding, it is how you view America and the rest of the world and where your priorities lie. A "worldy" person should never be allowed to be president, as the position or the office and the persons priorities conflict.

Based on Shamnesty, I would argue that El Presidente Jorge Arbusto is too worldly. I'd rather he be more focused on America.

Based on Shamnesty, I would argue that El Presidente Jorge Arbusto is too worldly. I'd rather he be more focused on America.

You have a point there. When it comes to Mexico, Bush does have a "worldly" outlook; he prioritizes their interests over our own.