Originally posted by FlyersFan
Sir? I'm a girl. Just FYI.

Yipes! My bad, I never checked your profile. Sorry about that.

I can't stomach people who spew racist hate. I can't stomach people who blame a different race for all their problems. I can't be around them. I avoid them. So how on earth does this make me 'continue the problem'???????

The extreme position you just showed. I don't mean to single you out, of course. I am simply attempting to point out that whenever we, as a society, or as a race, or as a group condemn someone without regard to even trying to understand what caused their hatred, we continue the hatred.

I would hazard to guess that Rev. Knight has never had a good experience with a white person. I would also hazard to guess that if he did indeed have good experiences with whites, his outlook would be different and we would have one less hate-monger to deal with. It's a crazy idea, but think it over.

Changing his position based upon what is going on at the time. He was never 'always against the war'. For him to say so is wrong. His position changed with the tide.

I see it more as changing with the facts. Bush changed his position as well when he agreed with Petreus on the surge. Correctly, IMO. But if you want to split hairs, then yes, he did soften his opposition at one point.

Blame for bad intelligence (oh .. we could make a few comments, couldn't we! ) goes straight to the State Department AND to the Bush administration. It doesn't rest with the senate.

LOL, I see we do have similar feelings on some issues. Yes, the final responsibility for bad intelligence rests upon the shoulders of Bush. But wait... that does mean Hillary changed her mind about the war as well, more so than Obama, based on changing conditions. Are you arguing that Obama changed his position, or that you think he should acknowledge it more?

If he was unaware of those things then he had his head in the sand. And that's something you don't want a POTUS to do. Frankly, his claims of ignorance are unbelievable.

Well, it looks like we'll have to agree to disagree on this subject. I will say this: If Obama is lying about his knowledge of either situation (Rezco or Knight), I feel certain the Republicans will bring it out in the general election. And if it is proved to my satisfaction, that will be a huge black mark on Obama's character as far as I and my vote are concerned. Someone wake up McCain and tell him so he can start digging.

Those on the right are going to vet Obama and Clinton. Vetting is supposed to happen. The left will be vetting McCain, once they figure out which of their own party they want to put forward for the general election.

You do have a point. I think my present problem is trying to decide which party os going after Obama. Anyone have a scorecard I can borrow?

Nit-picking words - Words are very important. There is no 'nit-picking' of words. The POTUS has to be very clear (something Bush43 has a hard time with - eh?? ) Everything a president says will mean something to someone. Everything a president says will have an impact at home and overseas. There is no 'nit-picking'. It's vetting. It's important.

I am referring to a spot on Beck's show where he was micro-analyzing whether a word was intended to be in the present tense or the past tense. I doubt the CIA analyzes Osama Bin Laden's tapes that carefully. As for complete words, of course they're important. That's why I listen to them. Even Obama's.

Alleged rumors - like what? Obama being gay? I don't think anyone believes that or cares.

You forgot a few... Obama being a terrorist, Obama being a Muslim, Obama being gay, Obama being ashamed of the American flag, Obama swearing his oath on the Koran, Obama being a communist sympathizer... and I think these things without proof are just silly. I much prefer arguments like yours, where the facts are relevant.

Oh, and there are some people who believe and care, I know some personally.

Lieberman comes the closest to being an 'honest' politician these days.

No argument here on Lieberman (or on politicians in general). Obama appears to me to be the most trustworthy of the three viable candidates at this time. Lieberman isn't running.

Obama's proposed polcies. Lets see ... Economics. Promise the moon and not be able to pay for it without breaking the economy completely. That about sums up his economic policy. Border Security - they all have policies that stink.

I hear that from some, and the opposite from others. I sincerely wish we could get this Primary over with so we could get down to policies. At this point, I honestly don't know who to believe. So I'll wait and see.

I just hope that you don't have buyers remorse if he gets in.

Arrrrg, and I was starting to like you until you placed that burden on me. I already have plenty of remorse from a vote for Bush in 2000.

You don't sound like an Obamatron who uses messianic rhetoric and who views Obama as Christ-like. I'm glad to see that you are open to seeing his faults. Many of his disciples are not.

That would possibly be because I'm not an Obamatron (new word? I like it). I'm not a Repubictron, nor a Demotron, etc. I am an American who wants the best for his country, be it Obama, McCain, or Hill... well, let's not get carried away here.

Seriously, as I have pointed out many times, I am still not completely decided about Obama. I know that I will not, under any conditions, vote for Hillary in any capacity. I truly believe the woman is evil. And I have a hard time trusting McCain. I will review the links you posted, and I hope you will consider what I said about the racism (as a suggestion and not a challenge, please). One thing I discovered in my old age was just what a mess I made in my youth. It behooves us all to occasionally look at our views from a fresh perspective.

TheRedneck

earth2, a good man and a good orater, as several have pointed out, but the true test of greatness would come after he is elected.
Already he has started to close the divide, heal the wounds, of a divided nation. And, for posters from around the world, thank you for your hopes of a president to bring back America's great reputation among its many friends.

I offer this for your thread, sent to me by a friend:
Senator Clinton, who has served only one full term - 6yrs. - and
another year campaigning, has managed to author and pass into law - 20
- twenty pieces of legislation in her first six years.
These bills can be found on the website of the Library of Congress
www.thomas.loc.gov ttp://www.thomas.loc.gov>
1. Establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site.
2. Support the goals and ideals of Better Hearing and Speech Month.
3. Recognize the Ellis Island Medal of Honor.
4. Name courthouse after Thurgood Marshall.
5. Name courthouse after James L Watson.
6. Name post office after Jonn A. O'Shea.
7. Designate Aug. 7, 2003, as National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
8. Support the goals and ideals of National Purple Heart Recognition
Day.
9. Honor the life and legacy of Alexander Hamilton on the bicentennial
of his death.
10. Congratulate the Syracuse Univ. Orange Men's Lacrosse Team on
winning the championship.
11. Congratulate the Le Moyne College Dolphins Men's LacRose Team on
winning the championship.
12. Establish the 225th Anniversary of the American Revolution
Commemorative Program.
13. Name post office after Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda.
14. Honor Shirley Chisholm for her service to the nation and express
condolences on her death.
15. Honor John J. Downing, Brian Fahey, and Harry Ford, firefighters
who lost their lives on duty. Only five of Clinton's bills are more
substantive.
16. Extend period of unemployment assistance to victims of 9/11.
17. Pay for city projects in response to 9/11 18. Assist landmine
victims in other countries.
19. Assist family caregivers in accessing affordable respite care.
20. Designate part of the National Forest System in Puerto Rico as

[For] Obama's

, [d]uring the first - 8 - eight years of his elected service he sponsored
over 820 bills. [Among them] He introduced

233 regarding healthcare reform,
125 on poverty and public assistance,
112 crime-fighting bills,
97 economic bills,
60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills,
21 ethics reform bills,
15 gun control,
6 veterans' affairs and many others.

His first year in the U.S. Senate, he authored 152 bills and
co-sponsored another 427. These included:

the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 - became law
The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons
Threat Reduction Act, - became law
The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, passed the Senate
The 2007 Government Ethics Bill, - became law
The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill, In
committee, and many more.
In all, since entering the U.S. Senate, Senator Obama has written 890
bills and co-sponsored another 1096.

I submit these for comparison of "experience".

As I have stated elsewhere, Obama is an MP4 player to Clinton's cd and McCain's cassette. He is a person ready to lead in the 21st century.

FlyersFan, hey how are you doing today. I have noticed that you have alot of PTS, ATS, BTS, SAT, ACT scores, very high indeed. I just wanted to point out that since you pointed out some of the negatives of Obama, if we done that with Hillary this post would be the longest post on the net and prolly wont have enough space (with all the harddrives in the world) to store just her lies alone!!

No disrespect, FlyersFan.


Also wanted to point out that she admitted to not reading the intelligence report. So how can she had made the right decision on going to war? From my time in Iraq and Afgan, i have to say that the reason they give the american people for going to war was some what false and the part that wasn't false was just part of the agenda since we were going over there, i.e Iraqi Freedom. I work Parris Island, sc and we go there often.

[edit on 30-3-2008 by rakillah]

Originally posted by desert
Already he has started to close the divide, heal the wounds, of a divided nation.

No he hasn't. Seriously man .. read the thread.

Watch the Rezco films. The guy is dirt. Obama claims to have been campaigning to help improve living conditions for people in Chicago-land .. all the while he was cozying up with the slum lord and taking campaign contributions from him.

Obamessiah is just another Jim Jones. The press had been giving him a free ride and still fails to call him on his short comings. His glassy-eyed disciples fail to see that he's just a cult persona. Nothing more.

- He's on Judicial Watchs Top 10 most corrupt politicians list. That's a rather big negative accomplishment considering how very short a political career he's had. (Hillary is on the list too)

- REZCO. Illegal land deals. Contributions to campaigns. Obama claimed the guy was his friend for more than a decade - and then claimed he had no knowledge that Rezco was a criminal. ALL of Chicago -land knew. Obama is either incredibly stupid and doesn't know what's going on around him - or he lied.

- He's a racist. Yep. He hates whites (we are all typical whites ) and hates jews and pretty much hates America. If he didn't, then he wouldn't have stayed at that racist and anti-american cesspool of a 'church' for 20+ years and he wouldn't have donated tens of thousands of dollars to it for them to continue their hate-fest. Again he claimed no knowledge of what was going on - but he made other statements that showed he LIED when he made that claim. Obama is either incredibly stupid and doesn't know what's going on around him - or he lied. Evidence says he lied.

This past week he got on The View and lied again. To cover his own butt he claimed that Rev. Wright said he was sorry for his racist and anti-american rants but the fact is that WRight NEVER said he was sorry and even Obama's own people say Wright isn't sorry. Obama is just telling lies to get votes (again).

Originally posted by rakillah
if we done that with Hillary this post would be the longest post on the net

Sure. I'd be adding examples of Hillary telling lies to the list.
Hillary is a shrew. So what's your point?

she admitted to not reading the intelligence report.

Please post a link to that. I'd like to read it.
I know she was at least briefed on the intelligence report.

So how can she had made the right decision on going to war?

The information provided by the State Dept and the Bush Admin all pointed to the fact that going to war was the right thing to do. The Senate made the right decisions based on bad evidence. The fact that the evidence wasn't good is NOT the fault of anyone in the senate. The fault lies directly with the State Dept and the Bush Admin.

Originally posted by Sublime620
O'Reilly ... Limbaugh?

Actually, I don't like either of them. Rush too. Can't stand 'em.

Are you a Clinton supporter

Nope. I'm a nobody supporter at this time.

I bet a lot of countries out there are hoping Obama will win.

Sure .. a anti-american countries who understand that Obama means a weaker America. A lot of anti-american terrorist groups as well.

we're tired of people, like FlyersFan, threatening our lives with "terrorists groups".

hey buddy - it's the TERRORIST GROUPS that are threatening your life .. and your way of life. Not me. (actually, I served in the US Military for 5 years - to keep American lives from being threatened!)

And as far as people being 'tired of FlyersFan' exposing Obama for what he is .. wrong! I'm getting plenty of stars and applauses for posting the facts.

He

I'm a girl. And learn how to spell terrorists will ya?

It starts with the word "pundit", and we're in a politics forum.

Hey kiddo - pundits discuss politics. AND the information was correct.
The FARC terrorists are madly in love with Obama. So is the Syrian Govt.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Sure .. a anti-american countries who understand that Obama means a weaker America. A lot of anti-american terrorist groups as well.

If he can turn the economy around, just that alone makes America stronger. Despite the awesome facade we portray, we are not doing incredibly well as a country right now. We are spending far more money than we have.

As a business... this country fails. F-

Originally posted by FlyersFan
hey buddy - it's the TERRORIST GROUPS that are threatening your life .. and your way of life. Not me. (actually, I served in the US Military for 5 years - to keep American lives from being threatened!)

And as far as people being 'tired of FlyersFan' exposing Obama for what he is .. wrong! I'm getting plenty of stars and applauses for posting the facts.

Which terrorists groups plan to attack us after Obama takes office? Have any stated this?

Do you realize that Obama would probably make us safer from al Qaeda with the use of no military force?

Diplomacy can do wonders, and with Obama in office, you can rest assured that our relations with other countries will improve.

So to sum up:

• Hopefully Obama can help turn the economy around. When he takes our troops out of Iraq, we'll hopefully save enough money to reinvest in our own country.
  
  
• He will undoubtably improve our foreign relations (which will also help our economy)
  
  
• The country will be more safe from terrorists, without fighting a war or deploying our troops. We can only hope Obama will know what many of us informed American's know:
  
  No one wants to attack America due to our freedom.
  
  If we don't want to be threatened by Middle Eastern terrorists, the solution is simple:
  
  Quit sanctioning Muslims while supporting their enemies. Quit controlling their education system. Quit occupying their territories. Quit spreading Western propeganda to a country that disagrees with our values.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
I'm a girl. And learn how to spell terrorists will ya?

My bad, I assumed due to the whole hockey thing. Anyway, clearly I was misspelling terrorists to mock the whole redneck pronunciation.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Hey kiddo - pundits discuss politics. AND the information was correct.
The FARC terrorists are madly in love with Obama. So is the Syrian Govt.

Yes this "kiddo" also knows that pundits spew more biased, bipartisan garbage than anyone else. When I hear the word "pundit", I know it means change the channel, because some dumb jerk is going to get on TV so that he/she can mudsling some useless garbage that has nothing to do with anything.

Fact^^

How do you suppose FARC or Syria's approval will be detrimental to the US? Can we get some more facts besides:

"OMG the terrists are gunn git us!!!"?

Sigh...Sublime, maybe I do want to go back to the "golden time" of my childhood, when Republicans did share their wealth. When my Dad worked hard at his non-union job, helping the business owner towards greater profit, and was rewarded at the end of the year with his "profit sharing" check. That owner was a wealthy conservative businessman who would be appalled and insulted to be called a Marxist.

I wish every American could have a job and get a profit sharing check, loyally helping business to grow, rather than having to accept a government handout to stimulate the economy.

Yes, yes, I understand globalization...but even Friedman's insights into what globalization means to Americans are touted in MSM without his antidotes. No, those antidotes would be too progressive, a dirty word.

It is greed, pure and simple. Keep it all to myself. Or, I am afraid of losing it. So acting out of greed or fear is what will keep this great nation down. What was wrong when my Dad's conservative business owner did not act out of greed or fear? It seemed to work for him.

Americans are tired of business as usual.

[edit on 30-3-2008 by desert]

FlyersFan, "Do you realize that Al Qaeda and muslim extremists were attacking us and our interests LONG BEFORE we went into Iraq and Afghanistan? Remember 9/11? The USS Cole? The Embassy bombings? etc etc"

FlyersFan, you have to realize that for every action, there is a reaction. This hold true if you consider the fact DUE to the US Government's INTEREST in the OIL over there, and the CIA dealings with Bin Laden fighting the Russians. Remember, USA is not apart of OPEC, USA basically "had" the Middle East oil producing country by the balls by trading and all sales done in US dollars. Oh Yeah, By the way....The British government Built the OIL RIGS in the middle east when The British government, because of British businessman William D'Arcy, DISCOVERED OIL there around the 1901 and beyond, and USA goverment followed. THE MIDDLE EASTERNS DID NOT EVEN KNOW THEY WERE SITTING ON OIL...lol

[edit on 31-3-2008 by rakillah]

Originally posted by Sublime620
I'm not sure I can even justify continuing to debate with him.

Again - I'm a girl.

He clearly has no background of our actions in the Middle East.

Coming from you - that's beyond funny.

Anyone who actually believes we were attacked for our "freedoms" has really just bought into another buzz phrase, and a pretty lame on at that.

Anyone who refuses to understand the truth about radical islam - that we are ALL just infidels to kill - has really just bought into another left-wing PC buzz phrase, and an pretty lame one at that.

Originally posted by desert
15 gun control

Is this a selling point? I guess our forefathers were wrong about the right to bear arms as being unalienable. No, wait, they were right - and Obama is wrong.

Ron Paul anyone? Constitution = more important than rhetoric of "uniting the country".