It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by TheRedneck
Then I submit to you, sir, that you are continuing the problem that made them into hateful people in the first place.
when that situation changed, he quickly reverted back to his original opinion,
So what does that make Hillary?
Tony Rezco is not running for President.
there is no evidence Obama was even aware of Rezco's shady dealings, as Obama has steadfastly claimed he never heard the sermon Knight's comments were taken from while attending his church.
Show me where Obama has agreed with Knight, or assisted Rezco in anything illegal; that will sway me.
I speak of ... Limbaugh, Hannity, ... Glenn Beck,
I don't see personal friendships, nit-picking words, or alleged rumors as accomplishing those goals.
1) Can I trust them?
GREAT! 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.
2 )What are their policies?
At this point I believe it is Obama.
Originally posted by FlyersFan
Sir? I'm a girl. Just FYI.
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'???????
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Alleged rumors - like what? Obama being gay? I don't think anyone believes that or cares.
Lieberman comes the closest to being an 'honest' politician these days.
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 just hope that you don't have buyers remorse if he gets in.
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.
Originally posted by desert
Already he has started to close the divide, heal the wounds, of a divided nation.
Originally posted by rakillah
if we done that with Hillary this post would be the longest post on the net
she admitted to not reading the intelligence report.
So how can she had made the right decision on going to war?
Originally posted by Sublime620
Obama is an amazing speaker.
Experience aside, he should be a great diplomat to other countries, ...
Still, Obama has indicated greater interest in promoting a comprehensive peace settlement, acknowledging that the "Israeli government must make difficult concessions for the peace process to restart." And, unlike the Bush administration, which successfully pressured Israel not to resume peace negotiations with Syria, Obama has pledged never to block an Israeli prime minister from the negotiation table. (See my article: Divide and Rule: U.S. Blocks Israel-Syria Talks.)
6. The gringos will ask for an appointment with the minister to solicit him to communicate to us his interest in discussing these topics. They say that the new president of their country will be Obama and that they are interested in your compatriots. Obama will not support "Plan Colombia" nor will he sign the TLC (Colombian Free Trade agreement). Here we responded that we are interested in relations with all governments in equality of conditions and that in the case of the US it is required a public pronouncement expressing their interest in talking with the FARC given their eternal war against us.
Originally posted by Sublime620
O'Reilly ... Limbaugh?
Are you a Clinton supporter
I bet a lot of countries out there are hoping Obama will win.
we're tired of people, like FlyersFan, threatening our lives with "terrorists groups".
He
It starts with the word "pundit", and we're in a politics forum.
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.
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.
Originally posted by FlyersFan
I'm a girl. And learn how to spell terrorists will ya?
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.
Originally posted by Sublime620
If he can turn the economy around, just that alone makes America stronger.
Do you realize that Obama would probably make us safer from al Qaeda with the use of no military force?
No one wants to attack America due to our freedom.
How do you suppose FARC or Syria's approval will be detrimental to the US?
Originally posted by Sublime620
"OMG the terrists are gunn git us!!!"?
Originally posted by FlyersFan
You must have missed all this about Obama being a DISASTER to American Economics. Here .. I'll repeat it for ya' ..
What exactly is wrong with an optimistic president who has confidence in the long-run future of the American economy?
President Bush took this stance in a recent interview with me and at the Economic Club of New York. He told me, “Like any free market, there’s also downturns, and we’re in one. But I am confident in the long-term strength of our economy.”
Las Vegas Review-Journal Called Obama's Plan "A Recipe For Economic Disaster." "Obama wants to raise the tax rate on the top income bracket from 35 percent to 39.6 percent, nearly double the tax rate on capital gains and dividends, and eliminate all tax breaks for the gas and oil industries and private equity firm managers. Talk about a recipe for economic disaster." (Editorial, "More Class Warfare," Las Vegas Review-Journal, 9/20/07)
Originally posted by FlyersFan
The US Chamber of Commerace gave Obama a rating of 55. That’s an F
Originally posted by FlyersFan
Citizens Against Government Waste gave Obama a score of ‘13’. That’s an F. Heck, that’s an F minus!
Originally posted by FlyersFan
The National Taxpayers Union gave Obama an F on spending issues.
Originally posted by FlyersFan
The Watch Dog on Wall Street states that Obama’s economic manifesto is called a bunch of ‘campaign rhetoric’ by Quentin Hardy – a close apostle of Obamas who is involved in the campaign.
Originally posted by FlyersFan
USA Today Obama admits he’s going to raise income taxes to pay for his tax and spend policies. Higher taxes means less money for the average American which HURTS the economy. And no – he’s not just going to soak-the-rich, he’s not just going to penalize the productive. Last week he voted to raise taxes for everyone all the way down to those making $31,000 a year. The Chicago Sun Times discusses that.
Originally posted by 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
Originally posted by FlyersFan
In bold eh?
Yes they do. Our freedom of religion. We are infidels. We should all be dead according to the muslim extremists. Live by shiria law - like they are trying to push in England. That's definately an attack upon our freedoms.
Originally posted by Sublime620
I'm not sure I can even justify continuing to debate with him.
He clearly has no background of our actions in the Middle East.
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.
Originally posted by desert
15 gun control