The VP Debate thread. [Archive] - House of Politics

View Full Version : The VP Debate thread.

pocketfullofshells

10-02-2008, 06:56 PM

Soooo where was the horrible bias ? I want to know what you think was so bias now that its actuly done.

2nd, Palin.. its a debate and she actually said I will not respond to that question, I will just talk about what I want anyway.

Biden talks about one thing asked , then Palin just said no i want to talk about taxes and says what she wants about taxes. Completely ignoring the question.

Overall She just could not give any details at all, ignored them , and just spouted rhetoric it seemed. I found her clearly lacking and anoying. I think telling was when asked how they would work to make DC less Partison...Biden talked about how he would not question the motives of those he did not agree with...Palin babled for a bit, then just attacked the Dems. SO she would cure it, but attacking one side?

Biden I though gave good clear responses, even to the questions asked, and seemed alot less talking in talking points then palin. I do wish he would have gone after her more for lacking any experiance in Nat Policy, and that she was compleatly ignoring the questions.....But It was clear the game plan going in was to ignore her , and focus on McCain..I think that was a good plan, but a small deture to attack her a bit would have been good...maybe it was fear of playing the sexist card becuse someone actuly questioned here.

On a issues, policy, and tact Biden won.
Palin I dont know , I found her a joke, and nothing but a walking talking point. But how her golly gee shucks ***** played with the public I am not sure. Biden gave me what I wanted, clear good policy and someone who acts like a President. ( for example no "SHout outs" in the middle of a Debate for VP of the US....this not not MTV Cribs

Palin showed me she is soooo not ready for prime time.
But Biden failed to knocked her down like expected, partly due to his going after McCain. I just hope the American public will see her just ignoring the questions , and responses....But I dont know if they will or not.

so my winner is Biden....as for How it will be viewed by the public as a winner...I think Biden but the Republican base will still be like it enough to be energized a bit still.

NO Obamanation

10-02-2008, 07:03 PM

pocketfullofshells

10-02-2008, 07:23 PM

I think the mod was very fair. I am pretty surprised. I think Biden won too but only by a small amount.

In the last debate all the libs said Obama won because McCain did not knock him out and the debate was on McCains topic FP. so using that same rule (that I think is STUPID) Sarah Palin won. But since I didnt play that retarded game in the last debate, I have no reason to play that game in this debate.

Biden did well, I like him and I think its fair to say he won.

Just because its dumb does not make it true, and that's what Americans are like. I think as someone who cares about details Biden won bye landslide, the only thing that makes her close in this debate is that , I want to have a beer with him/her effect.

I love Biden
I am OK with Obama
I am OK with McCain, though don't agree and very much hated his attacking Obama for wanting to win the election at the cost of Iraq.
Palin I think is a Joke and a sad one that scares me.

NO Obamanation

10-02-2008, 07:42 PM

pocketfullofshells

10-02-2008, 07:45 PM

Some of his facts were wrong 10 of them the news said and 6 could be debated. I have not heard yet what of her facts were wrong but I am sure some are. I know she got the last name wrong pf the general in Afganastan.

I like Biden
I like McCain
I like Palin
I cant stand Obama

lets just do a Biden McCain ticket :) and compromise :)

6 months ago I would have been fine with that, not today, McCain lost it for me. Will you trade McCain for Chuck Hagel?

top gun

10-02-2008, 07:47 PM

Just because its dumb does not make it true, and that's what Americans are like. I think as someone who cares about details Biden won bye landslide, the only thing that makes her close in this debate is that , I want to have a beer with him/her effect.

I love Biden
I am OK with Obama
I am OK with McCain, though don't agree and very much hated his attacking Obama for wanting to win the election at the cost of Iraq.
Palin I think is a Joke and a sad one that scares me.

The expectations of Palin were so low and she didn't fall off the stage or anything. She didn't answer a lot of the questions (even said she wasn't going to at one point) and fell back into that rambling Wasilla talk quite a few times.

I thought Joe Biden really came through for his ticket. I was really proud of the job he did. He wasn't condescending but he still kept the pressure on with actual dates & amounts & times & McCain's voting record & McCain's support of Bush.

He promoted his team well and really talked to middle class America directly. He was the Statesman hands down and looked every inch a Vice President... or President for that matter.

Palin just could not reach either of those two bars. She looked very credible as someone running for a small to medium size town Mayor down here in the lower 48. But that's not going to get it.

I was disturbed by her agreement with Cheney's opinion that the VP should have extra powers not set forth anywhere in the Constitution. And Biden nailed her good on that.

Oh and one the "Maverick" thing... come on!!! NO ONE CALLS THEIR SELF A MAVERICK! That's like some guy going on TV and calling themselves a STUD!

If others call you a Maverick or a Stud or if you're a girl a Fox that's one thing. But no one in their right mind that's not totally desperate for attention CALLS THEMSELVES THAT for Christ sake!!!

That's was embarrassing for her. I guess we just wait now and see what Saturday Night Live picks up on.

pocketfullofshells

10-02-2008, 07:56 PM

One thing that bugged me, and its the same thing McCain gets in trouble for was this

Palin "We cannot afford to lose against al-Qaida and the Shia extremists who are still there, still fighting us.""

al_Qaida is SUNNI For gods sakes no wounder we cant win a war against Bin Laden when the Republicans ( and yes I sure some Dems) if that they cant even get to know what Religion the Enemy follows.. Its like listening to someone act like they know what they are talking about in Ireland , how the Catholics need to get out and go back to the UK, becuse the are oppressing the Protestans. Get a damn clue and start useing the right terms, I know its Islam and people here dont show any respect to the Religion but even if you dont care, know youre Enemy.

al_Qaeda Hates the Shia, there are No Shia in the ranks ( maybe a few foot solders or something ,but even that I doubt is many)

Libsmasher

10-02-2008, 08:12 PM

NO Obamanation

10-02-2008, 08:17 PM

:D

Biden starts out with a snotty condescending grin in the beginning, that I'm guessing may have cost him a million women's votes:

http://www.foxnews.com/images/root_images/100208_veepsdebate3.jpg

Palin clearly identified the democrats as the party of surrender in iraq, with feeble response from Biden.

Biden also allowed himself to drop to the level of the leftwing slur blogs, with his sneer that Dick Cheney "one of the most dangerous vice presidents."

On issue after issue, Palin pointed out the inconsistencies, extremism, and doubletalk of the Obama campaign.

Too bad she was locked into McCain's call for more new "regulation", otherwise she could have stomped on Biden for the democrats' creation of the credit crisis. Also, it would have been nice to hear Biden's vaunted experience challenged - since he belongs to the democrat congress which has the lowest ratings in over 30 years, his experience is like that of a ball player on the worst team of the league. (However, if she DID say that, Katie Couric would have asked her "do you know which team that is?" :D)

Did Biden sweep all before him? Nope. He lost. :D

I thought he was nice to her.

NO Obamanation

10-02-2008, 08:19 PM

When Biden did not like something she said he just smiled. I think he has a great smile. its real. I dont like liberal politics but id still be tempted to vote for him just because he has a nice smile and seems like a regular guy. Unlike his running mate

Libsmasher

10-02-2008, 08:21 PM

I thought he was nice to her.

Look carefully at the photo - half smile, half grin. It's dripping with condescension.

NO Obamanation

10-02-2008, 08:29 PM

pocketfullofshells

10-02-2008, 08:37 PM

Also I just wanted to add, for all the attacks that the mod was bias ( who of course I doubt anyone can say now when it actually happened.) but I found she lacked, She was soooo damn weak on Palin for just dancing and saying what she wanted even if it had nothing to do with anything. Grow some balls and back her up and say answer the damn question and stop this crap.

Vyddo

10-02-2008, 08:40 PM

Soooo where was the horrible bias ? I want to know what you think was so bias now that its actuly done.

I pointed out in that thread that due to the fact the issue was out in the open for all to scrutinize, it'd likely be a non-issue and I'm glad that was the case.

2nd, Palin.. its a debate and she actually said I will not respond to that question, I will just talk about what I want anyway.

Biden talks about one thing asked , then Palin just said no i want to talk about taxes and says what she wants about taxes. Completely ignoring the question.

Be specific as to what questions were asked that you felt she didn't answer.

Overall She just could not give any details at all, ignored them , and just spouted rhetoric it seemed. I found her clearly lacking and anoying. I think telling was when asked how they would work to make DC less Partison...Biden talked about how he would not question the motives of those he did not agree with...Palin babled for a bit, then just attacked the Dems. SO she would cure it, but attacking one side?

I felt she was very personable, expressed herself well especially in regards to energy and amazingly did pretty well on foreign policy. She did have a tendency to bounce in an out of Campaign rhetoric, but overall I felt she did quite well.

Biden I though gave good clear responses, even to the questions asked, and seemed alot less talking in talking points then palin.

Joe is very likeable as well, but he banged on the same basic talking points.. I would have liked to have seen both Palin and him speak in a less practiced way on some issues..

I do wish he would have gone after her more for lacking any experiance in Nat Policy, and that she was compleatly ignoring the questions.....But It was clear the game plan going in was to ignore her , and focus on McCain..I think that was a good plan, but a small deture to attack her a bit would have been good...maybe it was fear of playing the sexist card becuse someone actuly questioned here.

Don't over exaggerate the ignoring the questions issues, most often she was simply readdressing the previous topic. Perhaps not prober debate procedure, but very human and I didn't get the sense she was avoiding anything.

On a issues, policy, and tact Biden won.

Issues and policy.. I think people will judge based upon there own tendencies towards republican/democrat. Tact, slam dunk for Palin.

Palin I dont know , I found her a joke, and nothing but a walking talking point. But how her golly gee shucks ***** played with the public I am not sure. Biden gave me what I wanted, clear good policy and someone who acts like a President. ( for example no "SHout outs" in the middle of a Debate for VP of the US....this not not MTV Cribs

totally disagree, Palin will resonate with the average joe and definitely shore up the republican base.

so my winner is Biden....as for How it will be viewed by the public as a winner...I think Biden but the Republican base will still be like it enough to be energized a bit still.

I think in the overall picture Palin won, but Biden didn't do anything to damage the Obama campaign.

You realize of course, your fail to make one criticism about Biden in your account of the debate.. Either Biden was perfect or perhaps you weren't open minded.. which do you think?

Libsmasher

10-02-2008, 08:40 PM

pocketfullofshells

10-02-2008, 08:44 PM

Vyddo

10-02-2008, 08:44 PM

He wasn't condescending but he still kept the pressure on with actual dates & amounts & times & McCain's voting record & McCain's support of Bush.

He actually got quite a few of his facts wrong and that'll show up when the debate reviews are in.

Vyddo

10-02-2008, 08:46 PM

I thought he was nice to her.

He conducted himself very well.

calidem411

10-02-2008, 08:52 PM

I'll give Sarah a B+. She was a little nervous at first, but she sure stepped up once she got going. She put Joe against the ropes a few times, but she went around the issue a couple of times. That's why I give a B+.

Joe was good, I'd give him a c+.

calidem411

10-02-2008, 08:53 PM

I pointed out in that thread that due to the fact the issue was out in the open for all to scrutinize, it'd likely be a non-issue and I'm glad that was the case.

yEAH, I agree with you on that...:D

pocketfullofshells

10-02-2008, 09:05 PM

I pointed out in that thread that due to the fact the issue was out in the open for all to scrutinize, it'd likely be a non-issue and I'm glad that was the case.

Be specific as to what questions were asked that you felt she didn't answer.

I felt she was very personable, expressed herself well especially in regards to energy and amazingly did pretty well on foreign policy. She did have a tendency to bounce in an out of Campaign rhetoric, but overall I felt she did quite well.

Joe is very likeable as well, but he banged on the same basic talking points.. I would have liked to have seen both Palin and him speak in a less practiced way on some issues..

Don't over exaggerate the ignoring the questions issues, most often she was simply readdressing the previous topic. Perhaps not prober debate procedure, but very human and I didn't get the sense she was avoiding anything.

Issues and policy.. I think people will judge based upon there own tendencies towards republican/democrat. Tact, slam dunk for Palin.

totally disagree, Palin will resonate with the average joe and definitely shore up the republican base.

I think in the overall picture Palin won, but Biden didn't do anything to damage the Obama campaign.

You realize of course, your fail to make one criticism about Biden in your account of the debate.. Either Biden was perfect or perhaps you weren't open minded.. which do you think?

I did say a few things about Biden as well, just no in this thread I think, that he was soft on her, but other then that yes I think he hands down did a great job.

And what questions did she not respond to? did you watch? like 2/3 of them? She even said she was not going to.

Libsmasher

10-02-2008, 10:04 PM

What Surender Libs? Realy tell me , I want to hear this.

You prefer a typical lib orwellian euphemism like "exit strategy"? Sorry, I speak english and tell it like it is.

Its surrenering to say you know what You can Do what we have spend years training you to do on your own now? 400,000 Iraq troops that we have trained for years now, who have been more and more battle tested, and they have a Econ.

Sorry, it's farrrrrrrr more complicated than your simple-minded formulation. Some provinces are pacified and some not. Some iraq units are well-trained, and some not. Some infrastructure working and some not. The iraq government is slowly getting past tribalism. Etc etc etc. What war ever proceeded along some pre-ordained schedule? Not one. The war is about 90% won, and to come into this situation and say "Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh ... were leaving for sure in 18 months, and you can take that to the bank. Listening al qaeda?" is as stupid as it gets - it's tantamount to a complete surrender. NO WONDER Hamas supports Obama - if he wins, one can just imagine all the IFs in the world jumping for joy. :rolleyes:

THE LEADER OF IRAQ WANTS US TO LEAVE>>>>>> So its not a White Flag to leave when the leader of the nation says they can do it now, and tell us to leave? I swear do you even think or do you just spew what ever dribble the party feeds you?

A weak prime minister, al maliki, who is probably on his way out, says something like that for local political consumption, and you don't get it? :D Suggestion: just stay with straight-forward appeasement and don't try to understand anything more complex.

pocketfullofshells

10-02-2008, 10:21 PM

You prefer a typical lib orwellian euphemism like "exit strategy"? Sorry, I speak english and tell it like it is.

Sorry, it's farrrrrrrr more complicated than your simple-minded formulation. Some provinces are pacified and some not. Some iraq units are well-trained, and some not. Some infrastructure working and some not. The iraq government is slowly getting past tribalism. Etc etc etc. What war ever proceeded along some pre-ordained schedule? Not one. The war is about 90% won, and to come into this situation and say "Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh ... were leaving for sure in 18 months, and you can take that to the bank. Listening al qaeda?" is as stupid as it gets - it's tantamount to a complete surrender. NO WONDER Hamas supports Obama - if he wins, one can just imagine all the IFs in the world jumping for joy. :rolleyes:

A weak prime minister, al maliki, who is probably on his way out, says something like that for local political consumption, and you don't get it? :D Suggestion: just stay with straight-forward appeasement and don't try to understand anything more complex.

You know nothing makes me feel better then knowing your mindless posts for for the Right, cuz they only make my side look better.

Why don't you tell me when we can leave? when is it a win? Should we stay after the Democracy elected government tells us to leave? Nooo you want to stay right? And say screw you your not really in charge, we are, your Democracy is a joke and you don't even have power in your own nation...so the people revolt against his leadership and it all falls apart and you can fight your war all over again in the streets, and watch the US dead rise more and more again. I guess you think the US have a bottomless pit of cash to just sit on our ass , and wait for ever in Iraq spending billions until its a Utopia or something? maybe you should join up and go over, becuse you seem to think nothing about the fact out troops are overextended, been there for way to long , and that we dont have a major need to have troops in Afghanistan that we don't have because they are babysitting Iraq so we can fight the war on terror...that war of course that really is in Afghanistan where those people known as al Qaeda ( you may recall them) are based now, with Bin Laden and his top people all there not in iraq.

Your lack of knowledge about what is going on over there is amazing for how much you talk.

reverse

10-02-2008, 11:57 PM

Mr. Shaman

10-03-2008, 04:02 AM

GenSeneca

10-03-2008, 07:20 AM

I guess you think the US have a bottomless pit of cash

Its all you Socialists who think the US has a bottomless pit of cash from which we can build the NEW U.S.A - Utopian Socialist America

Obama's plans for the US, will set us on the fast track for complete economic failure, lower the quality of life, services and products dramatically and lower everyones standard of living. Thats Socialism - Equal distribution of misery.

Democrats have ONE answer for every problem: Big Government and Big Taxes are said to be able to solve everything.

Pick the issue, its true for all of them....

pocketfullofshells

10-03-2008, 07:48 AM

Biden, McCain, and Obama are all responsible for the financial crisis. They all need to be Voted Out of Office...this whole situation came at us too late to affect the current election but now we must all mobilize to take our Country back.

www.mikecarlinforpresident.info

Realy why was did one of them have the power to change it all? Obama was pushing them to do something about it, McCain helped try to go after fannie mac fannie may though while he claims to have "lead agaisnt them" what he realy did was signed on later to co sponsor that bill, I want to say Lugar or Hagal put the Bill out first, but I cant recall who off the top of my head.

How about that guy, you know BUSH and the White House who ignored it all, and actuly have some power themself to do anything about it? What ever happend to the Buck stops here? With Bush it seems to be, what buck, we dont know about the buck...someone else must have screwed it up.

pocketfullofshells

10-03-2008, 07:51 AM

Its all you Socialists who think the US has a bottomless pit of cash from which we can build the NEW U.S.A - Utopian Socialist America

Obama's plans for the US, will set us on the fast track for complete economic failure, lower the quality of life, services and products dramatically and lower everyones standard of living. Thats Socialism - Equal distribution of misery.

Democrats have ONE answer for every problem: Big Government and Big Taxes are said to be able to solve everything.

Pick the issue, its true for all of them....

Dems , Clinton 1992 -2000
Bush , Republicans 2000-2008

tell me what side did a better job actually paying for spending? Who actually put a debt in the Debt and who made it 10 times bigger ( not a relay number just saying 10)

And since when was I "socialist" now?

Dawkinsrocks

10-03-2008, 08:48 AM

Oh come on, Bush has done a great job

Of ****ing up the USA

Andy

10-03-2008, 09:54 AM

What Surender Libs? Realy tell me , I want to hear this. Its surrenering to say you know what You can Do what we have spend years training you to do on your own now? 400,000 Iraq troops that we have trained for years now, who have been more and more battle tested, and they have a Econ.
THE LEADER OF IRAQ WANTS US TO LEAVE>>>>>> So its not a White Flag to leave when the leader of the nation says they can do it now, and tell us to leave? I swear do you even think or do you just spew what ever dribble the party feeds you?

Yes it is surrender to put in a time table. The very moment you put in a time table, you have given the enemy exactly what it needs... a date to start an attack.

If you are the enemy, and you know that the local governments backing is the US, and that they have set a specific date to leave, what are you going to do? You are going to lay low, build your resources, until the time they leave, then start your counter offensive.

We need to do, exactly as we have planned and are doing. Namely, we need to pull out only as the government is capable of taking over control, and not one moment sooner, and without any messages to our enemies of the exact time they should attack.

In case you have missed it, we have turned over province after province to their control. We have withdrawn our troops as the land under our protection has dwindled. Every month, more areas are subdued and returned to local control. Now why do you want to wreck a perfectly good, working and successful system, in order to score political points and give the enemy a time table to restart and offensive? The politics of surrender is disgusting.

Andy

10-03-2008, 10:37 AM

Dems , Clinton 1992 -2000
Bush , Republicans 2000-2008

tell me what side did a better job actually paying for spending? Who actually put a debt in the Debt and who made it 10 times bigger ( not a relay number just saying 10)

Why don't you research this a little bit? Under Clinton, our national debt went from $4 Trillion to more than $5.8 Trillion. The national debt increased every year under Clinton. There was not ONE year in which it did not increase. Not exactly a stunning example of fiscal responsibility is it? Not only that, but it wasn't Clinton or the Democrats that caused the second half of his administration to be better at book keeping.

It was the republican take over of congress, and the "Contract With America" that stated a balanced budget as a goal. If it wasn't for the Democrats attacking them at every turn, there would have been a "Balanced Budget Amendment" that stated if Government doesn't have a Balanced budget, then congress doesn't get paid.

Did government over spend in 2001 - 2008? Yes absolutely. Remember that unlike the do-nothing former president, who allowed a dozen terrorist attacks, Bush has actually done something about it. Unlike Clinton, who used the military repeatedly, without funding it, Bush has rebuilt our military to be able to fight when we need them. Clinton who fired off $1 Million dollar missiles, without replacing them, Clinton who sent troops into Mogadishu without proper support, Clinton who bombed aspirin factories, is nothing like Bush.

Lets not forget the democrats were in control of congress for the first 2 and last 2 years of Bush's administration. Some of the largest bloated pork filled bills to pass during Bush's administration, have been democrat bills. For example, the Farm Subsidies bill. The bill was labeled by CAGW as the new record for the most irresponsible spending bill in history. The bill completely violated the Senates own Pay-Go rule. Bush veto'd it. The Senate over-turned his veto. So who is to blame for massive debt, when democrats are over riding veto's on the most bloated pork filled bill in history?

Let's also not forget that we are still paying for some of the problems caused by Clinton. The brilliant CEO of Fannie Mae, quoted below, was CEO because of Clinton. The housing bubble can be traced to Clinton policies that wanted to expand the number of people able to get loans for homes, despite their lack of credit.

Stop giving simplistic answers to complex questions. Life isn't as simple as...OoooOOooo Clinton caused debt, lower than Bush.

GenSeneca

10-03-2008, 10:47 AM

Dems , Clinton 1992 -2000
Bush , Republicans 2000-2008

tell me what side did a better job actually paying for spending? Who actually put a debt in the Debt and who made it 10 times bigger ( not a relay number just saying 10)

And since when was I "socialist" now?
By your own admission.... By your support of Socialist policies... By your support of a Socialist Dictator, oops, I mean Messiah.

Republicans came in and took over Congress while billy boy was in office, THEY pushed the welfare reform act that Clinton begruginly signed - and he got all the credit when it worked - and that lead to the fiscal solvency of the Clinton administration.

Contrast that with Bush and the Democrats taking over Congress in '06... We were on track for fiscal solvency until DEMOCRATS began spending zillions of dollars knowing it would be blamed on Bush:

In January 2007, the same month Democrats took control of Congress, CBO projected an $800 billion surplus over the 2008-2017 period. The new report projects a $2.6 trillion deficit over the same period and thus represents a $3.4 trillion projected deterioration of the nation’s finances in 20 months.

Now, you were saying what?

pocketfullofshells

10-03-2008, 11:10 PM

By your own admission.... By your support of Socialist policies... By your support of a Socialist Dictator, oops, I mean Messiah.

Republicans came in and took over Congress while billy boy was in office, THEY pushed the welfare reform act that Clinton begruginly signed - and he got all the credit when it worked - and that lead to the fiscal solvency of the Clinton administration.

Contrast that with Bush and the Democrats taking over Congress in '06... We were on track for fiscal solvency until DEMOCRATS began spending zillions of dollars knowing it would be blamed on Bush:

Now, you were saying what?

A socialist Dictator now? is it any reason the republican party is such a worthless pile of **** right now? thats the kinda dumb retarded statement that just makes me think more and more its not even worth looks at the Republican party anymore as even a option.

Andy

10-03-2008, 11:39 PM

A socialist Dictator now? is it any reason the republican party is such a worthless pile of **** right now? thats the kinda dumb retarded statement that just makes me think more and more its not even worth looks at the Republican party anymore as even a option.

I don't see anything that makes the republican party bad. They at least support freedom and capitalism. Obama would support more government control of every aspect of our lives.

I don't think he's a dictator, although there was talk within the democratic party for removing term limits so Clinton could run again, and with Obama clearly trying to pass himself off as the second coming, that's a bit spooky.

What exactly is it about the republicans you are so against?

Bunz

10-03-2008, 11:42 PM

The man who Palin beat in the gov race is at her party in Alaska and said she was right, she proved him wrong about being qualified to be gov of alaska. its so strange, I thought she was hated in alaska now, but the man she beat is at her party singing her praises with a ton of people.

HUH? Id like to know how you drew this conclusion. Please provide a link as this is certainly news to me. She beat out 4 guys for the Governor spot, none of them are publicly supporting her that I am aware of.

GOP Primary:
Frank Murkowski: hasnt been seen or heard from since his loss in 2006 except for one brief appearance to show his distain for the AGIA process. While he will probably support the GOP ticket as a life long Republican, I think it is safe to assume he despises Sarah.
John Binkley: He is busy working on the campaign for Senator Ted Stevens, while he is on trial. He will likely support the GOP ticket like Frank, but he has shown himself to NOT be a Sarah supporter in-state. This came from him being snubbed for a cabinet position, and probably being a sore loser from 2006. Either way, he has not come out in support of her.

General Election:
Tony Knowles: Former Democratic Governor, a man I also know from playing hockey with his son, Luke. He has basically come out in support of Obama, as one can imagine.
Andrew Halcro: Independant Candidate for Governor in 2006, he has been the main Sarah detractor since her election. He is the one who broke the TrooperGate scandal, questioned the AGIA process and although he is a former GOP State LawMaker and local businessman, has shown to be no friend of Sarah and vice-versa.

So Obamanation, unless there is something you know that I dont, please share it.

GenSeneca

10-04-2008, 05:31 AM

A socialist Dictator now? is it any reason the republican party is such a worthless pile of **** right now? thats the kinda dumb retarded statement that just makes me think more and more its not even worth looks at the Republican party anymore as even a option.

I corrected myself and referred to him as the Messiah... :rolleyes:

I gave up on you.... You are looking for ANY piss, poor, reason to HATE the Republican party and in the process are supporting the corruption that the Democrats are getting away with because of all the Bush Derangement.

Can you DEFEND ANY of the Democrat policies or Legislation that I put in my thread about the JUNK they are passing? I haven't seen it.... Yet you want to give these people the Messiah and a rubber stamp congress - effectively making him dictator of the MOST corrupt and unaccountable CONGRESS IN HISTORY!

To each his own....

NO Obamanation

10-04-2008, 08:11 AM

HUH? Id like to know how you drew this conclusion. Please provide a link as this is certainly news to me. She beat out 4 guys for the Governor spot, none of them are publicly supporting her that I am aware of.

GOP Primary:
Frank Murkowski: hasnt been seen or heard from since his loss in 2006 except for one brief appearance to show his distain for the AGIA process. While he will probably support the GOP ticket as a life long Republican, I think it is safe to assume he despises Sarah.
John Binkley: He is busy working on the campaign for Senator Ted Stevens, while he is on trial. He will likely support the GOP ticket like Frank, but he has shown himself to NOT be a Sarah supporter in-state. This came from him being snubbed for a cabinet position, and probably being a sore loser from 2006. Either way, he has not come out in support of her.

General Election:
Tony Knowles: Former Democratic Governor, a man I also know from playing hockey with his son, Luke. He has basically come out in support of Obama, as one can imagine.
Andrew Halcro: Independant Candidate for Governor in 2006, he has been the main Sarah detractor since her election. He is the one who broke the TrooperGate scandal, questioned the AGIA process and although he is a former GOP State LawMaker and local businessman, has shown to be no friend of Sarah and vice-versa.

So Obamanation, unless there is something you know that I dont, please share it.

The night of the debate Gretta did a sattelite feed to Wasilla (spelling) for the Palin Party. Palins sister hosted the party, a friend from grade school said she brought the drinks and though I dont remember the guys name he was one of them men she debated to be Gov. he was at the party. I dont have his exact words but he said I thought she did not have the experience to be Gov. I am glad to say I was wrong, she has proved us all wrong. He was at her familys party and cheering for her at the debate. He then went on to talk about how well she debated in the Gov. Race

I can try to find a youtube clip of it, but I just saw it on the news after the debate was over.

Mr. Shaman

10-04-2008, 08:25 AM

Why don't you research this a little bit? Under Clinton, our national debt went from $4 Trillion to more than $5.8 Trillion. The national debt increased every year under Clinton. There was not ONE year in which it did not increase.
Lemme guess......that's what they say (http://www.lafn.org/politics/gvdc/Natl_Debt_Chart.html), right? :rolleyes:

How "odd"! It's lookin' like Reagan/Bush/Bush OWN the Federal-Debt prize (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms)!!!

Another guess.....you forgot to post any facts to support your position.....right? :rolleyes:

The oddities just-keep-comin'!!!

How 'BOUT allllllllllll-o'-those-jobs Republicans have "created" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms#Job_cr eation_by_term).

NO Obamanation

10-04-2008, 08:42 AM

HUH? Id like to know how you drew this conclusion. Please provide a link as this is certainly news to me. She beat out 4 guys for the Governor spot, none of them are publicly supporting her that I am aware of.

GOP Primary:
Frank Murkowski: hasnt been seen or heard from since his loss in 2006 except for one brief appearance to show his distain for the AGIA process. While he will probably support the GOP ticket as a life long Republican, I think it is safe to assume he despises Sarah.
John Binkley: He is busy working on the campaign for Senator Ted Stevens, while he is on trial. He will likely support the GOP ticket like Frank, but he has shown himself to NOT be a Sarah supporter in-state. This came from him being snubbed for a cabinet position, and probably being a sore loser from 2006. Either way, he has not come out in support of her.

General Election:
Tony Knowles: Former Democratic Governor, a man I also know from playing hockey with his son, Luke. He has basically come out in support of Obama, as one can imagine.
Andrew Halcro: Independant Candidate for Governor in 2006, he has been the main Sarah detractor since her election. He is the one who broke the TrooperGate scandal, questioned the AGIA process and although he is a former GOP State LawMaker and local businessman, has shown to be no friend of Sarah and vice-versa.

So Obamanation, unless there is something you know that I dont, please share it.

I found part of the party interview on grettas website but they only posted what her brother and sister said. If you can give me the full names of the people she debated in the Gov race I can keep looking.

I did not know I was going to need to prove that I saw him being interviewed so remembering his name was not on my short list. I am sure though that I can find what he said if I have his name. If not I will email gretta and ask where I can find a link.

pocketfullofshells

10-04-2008, 06:36 PM

I corrected myself and referred to him as the Messiah... :rolleyes:

I gave up on you.... You are looking for ANY piss, poor, reason to HATE the Republican party and in the process are supporting the corruption that the Democrats are getting away with because of all the Bush Derangement.

Can you DEFEND ANY of the Democrat policies or Legislation that I put in my thread about the JUNK they are passing? I haven't seen it.... Yet you want to give these people the Messiah and a rubber stamp congress - effectively making him dictator of the MOST corrupt and unaccountable CONGRESS IN HISTORY!

To each his own....

yes my piss poor reasons
The Iraq war being missmanaged and based in tell that they at least hyped, at worst lied about.
Massive overspending, while cutting taxes for the Rich
Failing to stop al Qaeda, Bin Laden still alive, and Afghanistan getting worse.
The patriot act
The outing of a CIA Op, and the Republicans in large did not care
They have done nothing at all for health care
Trillion dollar bail out...Pushed by who? That's right Bush and the white House...sadly supported by the Dems and then the Republicans as well when they got tax cuts.

Look at the last 8 years, under your president, and in large Under Republican Rule. Now why in the hell should I want more of that? I gave McCain a shot because I have always respected him, and felt he could be strong on National Security, and help at least some on the Environment...But no again it ended with the Republican Bull about calling the other guy Unamerican, and now basically calling anyone who does not Vote McCain , a blind follower of Obama, and supporting him a a dictatorship. Screw that, if anyone seems to want a one party system where descent is attacked its you and the some Republicans. Im sorry my party does not have a guy running for president, and you only have 2 real choices, and your guy is not it. But feel free to just act like I support everything he says , bow to him and warship him.

pocketfullofshells

10-04-2008, 06:59 PM

I don't see anything that makes the republican party bad. They at least support freedom and capitalism. Obama would support more government control of every aspect of our lives.

I don't think he's a dictator, although there was talk within the democratic party for removing term limits so Clinton could run again, and with Obama clearly trying to pass himself off as the second coming, that's a bit spooky.

What exactly is it about the republicans you are so against?

There was talk from the Republicans about Letting Arnold Run, both where just talk and amounted to nothing. None issues

Why I don't like them? First its not all of them, its just the ones that seem to have taken over the party now. Bible Thumpers, Republicans who spend like, "drunken Sailors" but also want tax cuts all the time , even when we cant pay for what we are spending. Use to be a time when republicans wanted less government, less spending, and to keep the government out of peoples business. Now instead of keep government out, government is in your bedroom. Cut spending? how about record Spending instead? Republicans want to stay out of other nations business unless it was a threat to the US...now we invade for no reason and nation build ..poorly. I guess I just have lost any faith I had left in the party this last 8 years under Bush. I liked Bush I, Voted Perot against Clinton and Dole, and I did not like Gore. Kerry was worth it to get rid of Bush.

And of course the thing that always make me pissed, is the constant attacks by Republicans that somehow not agreeing with them, or being liberal is UnAmerican, and that we don't love America. Just pisses me off to no end.

NO Obamanation

10-04-2008, 07:47 PM

And of course the thing that always make me pissed, is the constant attacks by Republicans that somehow not agreeing with them, or being liberal is Un-American, and that we don't love America. Just pisses me off to no end.

This is the biggest load of crap that has ever spewed out of your mouth. It is a flat lie and if you ever even for a moment tried to be honest about it you would admit its total BS

No conservative has ever said someone voting for Ross Perot was anti American, no conservative or republican said voting for Ralph Nader was anti American or the constitution party so on and so on.

It’s when people are voting for someone that even HAMAS endorsed, someone that is loved even by terrorist nations that people get called anti American. Hamas endorsed Kerry 4 years ago and Obama this year. Many creepy terrorist connected groups came out for Kerry and come out for Obama. It is totally fair to question when someone who could run our country is endorsed and loved by America hating groups.

When people sing praises and vote for guys who have more support from our enemies than do our friends what do you expect Americans to say…

Talk about crying and whining, that is all you have done since I have come to this place, cry cry cry, people say obama is not a good American cry cry cry people are upset that terrorists endorse him like he can help it or something. Then accuse everyone else of crying.

If you are going to support someone that terrorists supports expect some Americans to say something is wrong with that. And stop for a second and LOOK No one ever called Ron Paul supporters Un-American, no one ever called Nader supporters un-American and so on… they only say that about people who endorse and support candidates who ARE endorsed and supported by TERRORISTS!!!! DUH!!

Andy

10-04-2008, 08:50 PM

This is the biggest load of crap that has ever spewed out of your mouth. It is a flat lie and if you ever even for a moment tried to be honest about it you would admit its total BS

No conservative has ever said someone voting for Ross Perot was anti American, no conservative or republican said voting for Ralph Nader was anti American or the constitution party so on and so on.

It’s when people are voting for someone that even HAMAS endorsed, someone that is loved even by terrorist nations that people get called anti American. Hamas endorsed Kerry 4 years ago and Obama this year. Many creepy terrorist connected groups came out for Kerry and come out for Obama. It is totally fair to question when someone who could run our country is endorsed and loved by America hating groups.

When people sing praises and vote for guys who have more support from our enemies than do our friends what do you expect Americans to say…

Talk about crying and whining, that is all you have done since I have come to this place, cry cry cry, people say obama is not a good American cry cry cry people are upset that terrorists endorse him like he can help it or something. Then accuse everyone else of crying.

If you are going to support someone that terrorists supports expect some Americans to say something is wrong with that. And stop for a second and LOOK No one ever called Ron Paul supporters Un-American, no one ever called Nader supporters un-American and so on… they only say that about people who endorse and support candidates who ARE endorsed and supported by TERRORISTS!!!! DUH!!

Wow.... I was going to respond... but I can't think of anything you didn't cover....

Nicely done! :D

Andy

10-04-2008, 09:18 PM

Bible Thumpers

Ok, what did the evil Bible Thumpers do exactly? Or is it just religious people you dislike? (which is ok! I just don't want to talk about pointless things)

Republicans who spend like, "drunken Sailors" but also want tax cuts all the time , even when we cant pay for what we are spending.

This is too wide an issue for a quick answer, but here's a stab.

If we follow a line of thinking that we should not cut taxes, and always hike taxes, in order to cover what our government spends... then politicians will always over spend, and just stick us tax payers with the bill. After all, they spent it, and we have to cover it. A republican (base, not always leadership), believes it's the governments job to be restrained and only spend the money that they have. Not blow as much money as they choose and then pass tax hikes to cover their bloated budget.

Moreover, it is universally true that taxes and the economy have an adverse relationship. Any in depth detailed study of cutting taxes will show the economy is helped by them. When Bush came into office, he inherited an economy in recession from the prior president. The tax cuts were to help pull our economy out of that recession, and it did.

Now instead of keep government out, government is in your bedroom.

I do not know what that refers to.

Cut spending? how about record Spending instead? Republicans want to stay out of other nations business unless it was a threat to the US...now we invade for no reason and nation build ..poorly.

As for cutting spending, I agree. But I have 2 options. I can vote for the ones who say they support fiscal responsibility, or the ones who openly support more spending. Obviously I have to go for the ones who say they'll cut spending, and hope they follow through. Plus as I have documented before, democrats have had a very large hand in the over spending.

As for the war... sigh... I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. I have shown facts and reports, posted links, and all to no avail. It is conclusive that we had good, real, documented intel for going into Iraq. Clinton said it prior to Bush. Bush said it. Hillary said it. The Germans said it. Australia said it. In order for you to not believe what is clearly documented... you basically have to assume half the planet was lying. If you assume that... then clearly I won't be able to convince you of the obvious truth either.

As for rebuilding it poorly... obviously you have not been there. My brother in law was, and he tells how much better and improved things are. Their economy is growing, their government is taking over more and move locations, and their people are very happy with us.

So I really don't know what you are all bent about, except that you just bought a pack of lies, and refused to let go of them.

<omitting the un-american comment since... NoObama did a fine job>

pocketfullofshells

10-05-2008, 05:25 PM

I have no issue with religious people, well ok some but not most. I have problems with those who run around trying to make the bible the law of the land, act like anyone who does not believe is immoral.

Personally I think anyone who runs around saying the world is 6000 years old, and man was walking around with T+rex...is a idiot. I'm sorry that basic science wins over, literal readings of the Bible. But at least that's not making US Policy ( does make me question there logic though)

And as for Government out of your lives, but now in your bedroom..I ment why do Republicans care who someone sleeps with? I don't care if you want to ban gays from the church marriage, but they should have legal rights to things like medical visitation rights, child custody if other dies, and other legal rights a married couple should have....And the tried to take some old laws off the books, that basically banned some sex acts...family values republicans came out against it, ( I think here they lost so screw them but still ) To often they are trying to make laws out of Values...thinks you learn from family , church, or what have you, but they want in law. Thinks like having the 10 commandments outside a court...how can anyone from some other religion, on a court case that could be Religious, expect a fair hearing if they are not Christian and see that on the court?

As for spending, 2000-2008 ...do I really need to say anything more? Republicans in charge and man could they spend, and spend and spend. what was the debt in 1992 to 2000...then what was it from 2000 till now? I don't want to hear republicans ***** about spending till they show me then can actually cut it, and cut the deficit. Only thing I see them do is cut taxes, and mostly not taxes that effect me.I recall the econ in the 90's I know it today, its not a hard choice ( and yes Clinton gets to much credit for it, but I think Bush's policy are just as much to blame for our bad econ now.

As for Iraq, I Said the intl was bad, I said the Niger Report was a fake when Bush used it as proof, I knew he at best was giving a large exageration about the Tubes ( most said they could not be used for Nukes, only some still said maybe....Bush took those few maybes and made it a clear case for them being correct ) I said Iraq would get in on this, and the did ( I felt it possible they would get alot more involved then they have so far though) They said it would be easy, some said the sunni and shia would not go to civil war, I said that we would be stuck in the middle of a Ethinic/Religion war ...we did and we where lucky that the Sunni in time turned on al Quida, or we still would be. I would have loved to have been wrong about Iraq, but more or less it went down how I said it would, maybe a bit better then I guessed .

And as far as rebuilding? Im sure some areas are, but other areas are still just as bad if not worse then they where when Saddam fell. But it is very lacking still, and its even worse in Afganistan where the attacks of Sept 11 actuly where based, and things are getting worse there.

I was never out on the streets yelling no war, I fully supported Afganistan, if only attacking our not going in harder with more troops and to much letting afgans who we could not trust do alot of the work. Iraq I said if we did , it had to be done all out, not half assed and with a very good plan for securing Iraq after Saddam fell, what i saw was a make it up as we go plan that was lacking troops to maintain security. I said we ran a great risk giving power to Iran, and pushing a greater conflict of Iran vs the Sauds...( so far this has been mild, thank god)

and as for the UnAmerican ....well lets see
McCain said Obama would rather win the election and loss the war...to me that is calling into quesion the Dem Leaders Patriotism.

Because I happen to support Obama, now I am Supporting Dictatorship. Something I would call very UnAmerican. ( well ok the US loves its Dictators ...but not for our self )

And I would love to have had you sit and listen the the **** I was called, and others with me, for not supporting the war on Iraq, or in my case, simply questioning it and asking questions. It was sad really. To me, it seems like when ever the Right does not agree with the left anymore, it just brands what ever idea or position ...as somehow UN American. Maybe you don't see it because its not aimed at you, I don't know, but trust me, I have seen it many times. Way to much .

I may attack someone as partisan, as not knowing the facts, as even just being a idot...But never once have I ever attacked anyone for being UnAmerican or Unpatriotic simply because I don't agree with them.

Andy

10-05-2008, 06:37 PM

Personally I think anyone who runs around saying the world is 6000 years old, and man was walking around with T+rex...is a idiot. I'm sorry that basic science wins over, literal readings of the Bible.

There is actually quite a bit of basic scientific evidence that supports this theory. But I can understand that is your view since science education in America sucks pretty bad.

I ment why do Republicans care who someone sleeps with? I don't care if you want to ban gays from the church marriage, but they should have legal rights to things like medical visitation rights, child custody if other dies, and other legal rights a married couple should have....And the tried to take some old laws off the books, that basically banned some sex acts...family values republicans came out against it, ( I think here they lost so screw them but still ) To often they are trying to make laws out of Values...thinks you learn from family , church, or what have you, but they want in law.

I understand that since you are a non-believer. Unless you ever know God and his truth, I would not expect you to understand trying to uphold his laws.

Thinks like having the 10 commandments outside a court...how can anyone from some other religion, on a court case that could be Religious, expect a fair hearing if they are not Christian and see that on the court?

Is government supposed to represent us? Do the people of any city or town, whose money funds all government buildings, have rights to those buildings? I think they do, and that if the public wishes to have the 10 commandments on a building, they should be allowed. It's their building. Unless you can find something so horrible in the them, I don't see what the problem is.

You are basically saying that a Hindu might be offended by "you shall not murder?" Or don't lie? Or don't commit adultery? Is there something unfair about these? Don't steal?

As for spending, 2000-2008 ...do I really need to say anything more? Republicans in charge and man could they spend, and spend and spend. what was the debt in 1992 to 2000...then what was it from 2000 till now? I don't want to hear republicans ***** about spending till they show me then can actually cut it, and cut the deficit. Only thing I see them do is cut taxes, and mostly not taxes that effect me.I recall the econ in the 90's I know it today, its not a hard choice ( and yes Clinton gets to much credit for it, but I think Bush's policy are just as much to blame for our bad econ now.

As I've said before, our economy is growing. When Clinton left, it was in recession. This is established fact. So you might have 'felt' the economy was better under him, but in reality, it is better under Bush.

Like I said, it was the republicans in 1994, that curtailed over spending, and held the democrats in check. And in case you missed it, the democrats passed massive over spending bills. How can you entirely blame Bush for things the democrats passed? Can I blame you for things Shaman said? Or perhaps blame Obama for Fannie Mae failing, when it was Franklin Raines who drove it into the ground?

As for Iraq, I Said the intl was bad, I said the Niger Report was a fake when Bush used it as proof, I knew he at best was giving a large exageration about the Tubes ( most said they could not be used for Nukes, only some still said maybe....Bush took those few maybes and made it a clear case for them being correct ) I said Iraq would get in on this, and the did ( I felt it possible they would get alot more involved then they have so far though)

There is no indication that the intel was bad. Both the rockefeller report, and the post-war Iraq commission, both indicate that the unconventional weapons were moved, or destroyed without being told. Even the UN had a report from UNSCOM that they were concerned that the WMDs were not recovered. How could they be concerned about things the American left claims never existed?

Further, Iraq did buy uranium from Niger (http://www.slate.com/id/2139609/), as stated. This was not made up, and it was widely supported. Iraq had purchased uranium from Niger before. See, you bought into some left wing lies. They are not true when you simply do some research on the topic.

They said it would be easy, some said the sunni and shia would not go to civil war, I said that we would be stuck in the middle of a Ethinic/Religion war ...we did and we where lucky that the Sunni in time turned on al Quida, or we still would be. I would have loved to have been wrong about Iraq, but more or less it went down how I said it would, maybe a bit better then I guessed .

This is true. The administration did claim that it would be a quick and clear cut defeat. I grant you that. The people in charge were looking at the short term victory over Saddam. The troops were demoralized. The public fed up. His internal chain of command, ready to give up at a moments notice. In 2003, prior to the war starting, a group of Iraqi military heard some explosions, and assuming the war had started, marched to a British bunker and surrendered. The Brits sent them back, because they were not ready.

From this angle, the administration was absolutely correct. The war against Saddam was over in one month. However, what the administration misjudged was the post-saddam iraq. The power vacuum was not filled by a quickly formed remains of the government. Instead everyone was at a loss as to the next step, and infighting sprang up. To complicate matters, Iran and Al Qaeda began pushing their influence.

That said, taking out Saddam was clearly and obviously a needed thing. Clinton said it had to be done, but didn't have the guts to do it. All the democrat leadership said the same. Hillary said the same. Bush said the same. The other nations said the same. Again, you have to assume the half the planet was lying, in order to claim it was all made up. Well... it just wasn't. Sorry.

And as far as rebuilding? Im sure some areas are, but other areas are still just as bad if not worse then they where when Saddam fell. But it is very lacking still, and its even worse in Afganistan where the attacks of Sept 11 actuly where based, and things are getting worse there.

Which is why it is so important that we keep at it. That's the whole point. We can't pull out before the mission is complete. If we leave before they are able to stand, they will fall, and then not only will we have made a mockery of all those who died for this cause, but we also will have doomed the entire country which will not forgive our treachery for leaving them high and dry.

and as for the UnAmerican ....well lets see
McCain said Obama would rather win the election and loss the war...to me that is calling into quesion the Dem Leaders Patriotism.

Well let's see.... When Obama first heard about us going to Iraq, he was against it. Then when we captured Saddam, and the people were dancing in the streets at his capture, and the rest of his government had been killed or fled the country... he was for it. Now that his parties base is against the war, he's against it and demands a time table for withdrawal. When his polls showed he was losing on the issue, now he just wants a specific plan for leaving Iraq.

Point being... Obama has taken a number of stands on this issue, to align with whatever is the most politically advantageous. When it will benefit him to be for it, he's for it. When it will benefit him to be against it, he's against it. When a time table gains political points, he'll support it. When a time table will lose him points, he's against it.

So yes... I question his patriotism. Especially when he came from a church saying "g-d damn America". If that offends you, sorry, but I have good clean documented evidence for my views, and I stand by them.

And I would love to have had you sit and listen the the **** I was called, and others with me, for not supporting the war on Iraq, or in my case, simply questioning it and asking questions. It was sad really. To me, it seems like when ever the Right does not agree with the left anymore, it just brands what ever idea or position ...as somehow UN American. Maybe you don't see it because its not aimed at you, I don't know, but trust me, I have seen it many times. Way to much.

I may attack someone as partisan, as not knowing the facts, as even just being a idot...But never once have I ever attacked anyone for being UnAmerican or Unpatriotic simply because I don't agree with them.

Well, I hate to tell you this... but I know many democrats who actually believe being unpatriotic is a plus. To some it's a badge of honor. Now, apparently you do not. I respect that. But the fact is, there are many democrats who actually hate the USA and what it stands for. They hate the things that made America great. They support the enemies of the US.

I'm sorry you are being lumped into that group by republicans, but if you had heard half the things I've been accused of, being called unpatriotic is the least insulting. That isn't to minimize it to you, just maybe you should see what leftist call republicans.

pocketfullofshells

10-05-2008, 08:37 PM

There is actually quite a bit of basic scientific evidence that supports this theory. But I can understand that is your view since science education in America sucks pretty bad.

I understand that since you are a non-believer. Unless you ever know God and his truth, I would not expect you to understand trying to uphold his laws.

Is government supposed to represent us? Do the people of any city or town, whose money funds all government buildings, have rights to those buildings? I think they do, and that if the public wishes to have the 10 commandments on a building, they should be allowed. It's their building. Unless you can find something so horrible in the them, I don't see what the problem is.

You are basically saying that a Hindu might be offended by "you shall not murder?" Or don't lie? Or don't commit adultery? Is there something unfair about these? Don't steal?

As I've said before, our economy is growing. When Clinton left, it was in recession. This is established fact. So you might have 'felt' the economy was better under him, but in reality, it is better under Bush.

Like I said, it was the republicans in 1994, that curtailed over spending, and held the democrats in check. And in case you missed it, the democrats passed massive over spending bills. How can you entirely blame Bush for things the democrats passed? Can I blame you for things Shaman said? Or perhaps blame Obama for Fannie Mae failing, when it was Franklin Raines who drove it into the ground?

There is no indication that the intel was bad. Both the rockefeller report, and the post-war Iraq commission, both indicate that the unconventional weapons were moved, or destroyed without being told. Even the UN had a report from UNSCOM that they were concerned that the WMDs were not recovered. How could they be concerned about things the American left claims never existed?

Further, Iraq did buy uranium from Niger (http://www.slate.com/id/2139609/), as stated. This was not made up, and it was widely supported. Iraq had purchased uranium from Niger before. See, you bought into some left wing lies. They are not true when you simply do some research on the topic.

This is true. The administration did claim that it would be a quick and clear cut defeat. I grant you that. The people in charge were looking at the short term victory over Saddam. The troops were demoralized. The public fed up. His internal chain of command, ready to give up at a moments notice. In 2003, prior to the war starting, a group of Iraqi military heard some explosions, and assuming the war had started, marched to a British bunker and surrendered. The Brits sent them back, because they were not ready.

From this angle, the administration was absolutely correct. The war against Saddam was over in one month. However, what the administration misjudged was the post-saddam iraq. The power vacuum was not filled by a quickly formed remains of the government. Instead everyone was at a loss as to the next step, and infighting sprang up. To complicate matters, Iran and Al Qaeda began pushing their influence.

That said, taking out Saddam was clearly and obviously a needed thing. Clinton said it had to be done, but didn't have the guts to do it. All the democrat leadership said the same. Hillary said the same. Bush said the same. The other nations said the same. Again, you have to assume the half the planet was lying, in order to claim it was all made up. Well... it just wasn't. Sorry.

Which is why it is so important that we keep at it. That's the whole point. We can't pull out before the mission is complete. If we leave before they are able to stand, they will fall, and then not only will we have made a mockery of all those who died for this cause, but we also will have doomed the entire country which will not forgive our treachery for leaving them high and dry.

Well let's see.... When Obama first heard about us going to Iraq, he was against it. Then when we captured Saddam, and the people were dancing in the streets at his capture, and the rest of his government had been killed or fled the country... he was for it. Now that his parties base is against the war, he's against it and demands a time table for withdrawal. When his polls showed he was losing on the issue, now he just wants a specific plan for leaving Iraq.

Point being... Obama has taken a number of stands on this issue, to align with whatever is the most politically advantageous. When it will benefit him to be for it, he's for it. When it will benefit him to be against it, he's against it. When a time table gains political points, he'll support it. When a time table will lose him points, he's against it.

So yes... I question his patriotism. Especially when he came from a church saying "g-d damn America". If that offends you, sorry, but I have good clean documented evidence for my views, and I stand by them.

Well, I hate to tell you this... but I know many democrats who actually believe being unpatriotic is a plus. To some it's a badge of honor. Now, apparently you do not. I respect that. But the fact is, there are many democrats who actually hate the USA and what it stands for. They hate the things that made America great. They support the enemies of the US.

I'm sorry you are being lumped into that group by republicans, but if you had heard half the things I've been accused of, being called unpatriotic is the least insulting. That isn't to minimize it to you, just maybe you should see what leftist call republicans.

there is a great deal that says its not even close to 6000 years , and the same proof use for that, is often the same that's used to proof documents and things are from the time of Jesus...yet later the same people often seem to throw them out as not accurate.

No I am not a believer, I find nothing in the story of the bible that is believable. honestly to me the story seems , just about as unlikely as that of Scientology ( of course not quite that bad, man that is just a dumb idea they have...I try to respect other Religions...but not that one lol) But my point about the laws and Court house is, this nation is build on laws, and those laws should be held by everyone, and not based on Religion as this is a nation where you are free to be christian, I am free to not believe in any god, and others are free to believe in other gods. To have outside a proclamation of support of one Religion destroys the idea of neutrality of the courts in any case that may have some other Religion in it. Think about the Debate for VP, while in the end no one could say it was bias...everyone on the right here went in thinking it was bias...because of her book. Anyone walking in that church who is not Christian would think that the court was bias, and we don't want our court system to be that do we?

The econ is better now then under clinton? Tell that to anyone I know, anyone on the street, any cust I talk to, any one I work with, ...NO one thinks its better. I don't know where you see it, maybe in the lines of the very riches pocket books, but everyone I know is hurting. If you wish to keep thinking its better, then fine, but just like McCain who kept saying the same thing, when you lose the election, don't think you have to look hard for why. I don't know when having to bail out the banks at maybe a trillion bucks was a good econ, but you can have it. I don't recall doing that in the 90s.

As for republicans in 90's you know what I recall them doing, one think. talking about Bill Clinton's penis and what it was doing. I don't recall them doing anything about cutting spending at all, or fighting terrorism ( only attacking Clinton when he attacked afghanistan targeting Bin Laden)Fact iw Bill was the man at the top, **** was good. Bush is the man at the top , **** is bad. Under Republicans before Clinton, things where not good again..( hence why he lost to clinton) even though I liked Bush I.

Bush in the state of the Union gave named to things of evidence,....Both where not correct. Iraq already had yellowcake, I know, and we knew. it was actually part of the reason we knew the story and the document he talked about to be fake. It was a known fake, I knew it was a fake, I knew that our intel people said it was fake, I knew that the signature was said to be clearly forged and child like. Bush stood up and use it anyway. Now if you knew that , and you watched Obama get up and use that document for a war, what would you think about it? The you saw him talk about something else, as proof that you also knew to not be true ...even if you had other intel you had seen from years before...would you not start to question , that if this is the best he has to tell us and its not true, and he should know its not? that maybe there is something up here? I had read those reports before, I believed Iraq had WMD ( it was one thing I was really glad I was wrong about going into Iraq. I was up all night fearing that they would use them against us or Israel....I should add some **** at fox stated they hoped they used them ...to prove liberals wrong...) But I started to more and more doubt bush the more he talked...In the end I found more and more intel that showed he he most likely did not have any, some suggestion he did but got rid of it in 1998 when out inspectors left...our source for that was killed by Saddam after we got this intel.

pocketfullofshells

10-05-2008, 08:39 PM

cont

As for your next part about hot the first part went easy in a month, I agree, but I said that would happen most likely, it was always the after part I heard. the tanks where just target practice, it was the fact that we had reports of Iraq special forces with US troop uniforms ready, and that that I knew to be the issue. And I anyone with half a brain had to know you take Saddam out of power, there was going to be a vacuum and to Religions who had basically been just ready for a bloodbath at each other for Revenge waiting. That we went in like we did, and had planned as poorly as we did, told me a lot about Bush's idea of the war...It was geopolitics ( no not oil) and Democracy was really a small part, or he would have taken more care to understand the people, nation, and what needed to be done to secure it. But for the most part I agree with what you said.

As for the stuff said about you, I am sure I have heard it, the Hitler crap and Nazi Bull....you notice that when ever any liberal here has said it, I have attacked them for it just as well. I think both sides are to full of Partisan crap, and that's why nothing gets done. But my overall views fall more on the liberal side, with sprinkles of old school conservative and Libertarian ...but that's why I am a member of the IP Party, if we had someone for President I would not support Obama most likely, but given my choice is McCain who has failed to show me he would change anything for the better...I see no reason for the Republican party to get 4 more years. And the reason I attack the Right more, is I just think they are wrong on the issues more, if I dont agree with the Dems, I attack them as well. And also its far more often the Republicans or right wingers are the ones who I find insulting me, or my views...rather then useing facts and debating. Thus yes, I do go off on them more....LIke Libs....Libs is a worthless troll me, and shame to you side . I some of you on the right I have never had issue with and just simply gave my view of the facts...And of course I go after NoObama, because I have never seen someone so Bias against someone. Hell I have said more nice things about Bush ....I think its well known where I stand on Him.