Obama And His Thoughts

Fuzzbuster: Please reread my comment, particularly the first line. I did not use "ago", which would have implied a measurement from the present, which is what you apparently did.

I was making a policy strategy statement, not a historical overview.

(refer to me calling you retarded)

No, you don't get it. Republicans absolutely suck at economics. There's been a recession or depression during a every republican presidency since Taft (since fucking TAFT!) You guys su-huck at domestic policy. You guys spend the money that our children haven't earned yet.

You guys spend the money our children haven't earned yet. You guys su-huck at domestic policy. Please get out of office. Your fantasy about trickle down economics being a solution is arguable...promoting it as a long-term strategy is a lie you sell the american people. You steal money from children and give it to rich people. That's insanely stupid and evil. You have no leg to stand on.

Oh yeah, and as bad as you guys are at foreign policy, you're even worse at domestic policy.

That's what you're missing. Multiple empty rationalizations aside, we don't take enemy leaders out. Enemy leaders take themselves out. Hussein was eventually going to do something to merit an international response, but Bush's private military constituents could risk sharing the gravy train of contracts, so he initiated a "pre-emptive" war without congress' nor the world's approval.

It's not even about "military mechanics", which you guys suck to the tune of a trillion dollars at. It's diplomacy, as well. You guys have sucked complete ass at diplomacy and foreign policy since after nixon, and even he fucked up big multiple times in just 2 years.

"Over in the Middle East where terrorism originates, I'm sure they're not bored at all. The ragheads just don't yet know that we really need an occasional hit to keep us focused and motivated."

That's when I know I'm dealing with a complete moron. Terrorism isn't regional, racial, religious, or anything else. Terrorism is an action. The members of the boston tea party were terrrorists. Tim McVey was a terrorist. Certainly there are middle eastern terorists, but terrorism is just a tactic. Just how many middle eastern lives have the USA taken by puppet regimes, arming enemies, or just directly killing? How many civilians and children?

If you don't see why they have reason for resentment, I can't help you. Killing more middle easterners isn't going to stop terrorism just like jailing more pro-life psychos isn't going to stop terrorism. You guys are fucked up on a fundamental level and you have this childish view of foreign policy which is easy to communicate, but completely untreue and dangerously stupid.

I'll say this once and I'll say it again. Get the fuck out of politics. You may be good at elections, but you guys fucking suck at running a country and we just can't wait for you morons and thieves to develop a consciousness.

I think that Americans have changed some, but not as much as the author of the article either believed or just wanted us to believe. I think that the difference is their access to information. An illuminating parallel is the Spanish American War, the only conflict we’ve had that can vie with Iraq in irresponsibility. In both cases there were dictators, human rights abuses, and an outraging spark: The Maine exploding and 9/11. As it turns out, the Maine quite possibly blew from a coal bunker fire near a magazine, and Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11, but the only truth that is important is the population’s perceived truth, a truth carefully cultivated from above.

And this is where the difference begins. In the earlier case, the press was actually urging us along the path to war, printing sensationalized descriptions of purported Spanish atrocities. One artist dispatched to Cuba reported back to William Randolph Hearst that the rumors were largely unfounded, to which Hearst replied, "You furnish the pictures and I'll furnish the war."

True, the media were initially almost criminally complicit in the Iraq war, obediently believing everything they were told so as to maintain their cozy relationship with the White House, but they soon began to note discrepancies, and the perceived truth began to change. Was some of this reporting biased? Most likely. But the basics of the perceived and actual truths (or, more accurately, the closest we can come to the actual truth), e.g., the lack of operational links to Bin Laden, no WMD’s, etc., began to come closer to a match. And Americans, being somewhat sentient beings, began to realize the errors both in the prosecution of the war and the necessity of it to begin with. And the criticism began.

If the author would prefer to return to the days of old, that would mean not so much a change in our attitudes, but returning to our dark caves and being fed shit by our government and the press.

A two parter – my apologies in advance!

SugarDaddy: This criticism is not entirely the new thing that the author of that article would like us to believe:

The Revolutionary War wasn’t terribly well received in many circles, and not just Tory ones: The majority of the population was either loyal to the crown or neutral, although a plurality was pro-independence.

The War of 1812 was terribly unpopular in the North, and the Federalist Party railed against it.

Among many others, Lincoln, the first Republican president, was strongly against the Mexican War, demanding to be shown the spot where a disputed skirmish that provided the spark occurred (the administration was not obliging).

Ironically, he himself was later pilloried in the press for both his belief in the necessity of the Civil War and his rather inept handling of it (sound familiar? The difference is that I doubt history will smile upon the current boob). He was seriously challenged for reelection by McClellan, running on a peace platform.

World Wars I and II were largely supported, especially the latter. Why? Because there were adequate casus belli, particularly in WWII. These were significantly lacking in Iraq, but more on that later. This is not to say that there wasn’t opposition to how the wars were conducted. There was, for example, some uneasiness about the “Europe First” policy, given that Pearl Harbor was in the Pacific.

There was some opposition to Truman and the Korean War, but he was helped from across the aisle by Joe McCarthy: Few wanted to face the wrath of the Red Witch Hunt.

The author writes that Bush’s mistake “…came in his belief that this country is the same one his father fought for in WWII.” This confirms that he spent his formative years drunk in Texas and Alabama and was, as such, unaware that more than a few people were not enthusiastically backing the Vietnam War. Perhaps his spotty attendance at his ANG unit wasn’t such a bad thing after all – do we really need

USSF: So, how long BEFORE 9/11 was the previous "effective terrorism" in the U.S.? About 6 and a half years or so. Wait! That wasn't by a "raghead", that was by a good American boy! Previous Islamic attack: Eight and a half years. Seven years doesn't mean shit.

from which rag did you pull that article, sugardaddy? just curious

When it cost 1 trillion dollars to enter a war based on lies (fear-mongering lies). When that trillion dollars was stolen from our descendents to pay for private, no-bid military contracts. I believe that's when we had to distinguish between real threats and potential threats.

I guess I could encapsulate what you fail to perceive as the difference between fear-mongering and the truth.

"When electing the next President, the only decision you have to make is who you want sitting in that seat in the White House when - not if - WHEN we get hit again and millions of American lives are lost or put at risk!"

That is not true. It isn't the only decision you have to make. You also have to make sure you are not voting for some religious extremist who isn't threatening the security of our country...like the neo-cons have been for 8 years.

The military industrial complex has been stealing from the american people for generations. The parallels between the climate of fear generated during the communist scare of the 40's and 50's and the fear-mongering that I still hear from some today would be laughable for its ignorance if it wasn't so dangerous for the consequences of such gullibility.

The republicans are too irresponsible to be trusted with the security of this nation.

I just remember you guys voted twice for a guy who lied to get us into Iraq, cost our children 1 trillion dollars for private, no-bid military contracts, and squandered the real threat of afghanistan. All the while he was fucking up, you guys were spewing this same fear-mongering shit. Please do the right thing and go away.

THINGS WERE DIFFERENT - part 3

Hitler and Tojo combined never had nearly that many potential recruits.

So, we either win it - or lose it - and you ain't gonna like losing.

America is not at war. The military is at war.

America is at the mall, or sitting on their fat ass at a computer or watching TV.

Remember,,, Obama said in his book "Audacity of Hope",

'I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction'.....

What better place for the Muslins to control our country than in the oval office of the President of The United States.

THINGS WERE DIFFERENT - part 2

You never heard prominent people on the radio belittling the President. Interestingly enough in those days there were no treasonous actors and entertainers who ran off to

visit and fawn over dictators of hostile countries and complain to them about our President… Instead, they made upbeat films and entertained our troops to help the troops' morale and many even enlisted.

And imagine this, if you can: Teachers in public schools actually started the day off with a Pledge of Allegiance, and with prayers for our country and our troops!

Back then, no news person would have dared point out certain weak spots in our cities where bombs could be set off to cause the maximum damage. No news person would have dared complain about what we were doing to catch spies. A newspaper would have been laughed out of existence if it had complained that German or Japanese soldiers were being mistreated by being forced to wear women's underwear, or subjected to interrogation by a woman, or being scared by a dog or did not have air conditioning.

There were a lot of things different back then. We didn’t have legions of crack heads, dope pushers, and armed gangs, roaming our streets.

No, President Bush did not make a mistake in his handling of terrorism. He made the mistake of believing that we still had the courage and fortitude of our fathers. He believed

this was still the country that our fathers fought so valiantly to preserve.

It is not the same country, although we did unite for a short time after 9/11, but our attitude changed when we found out that defending our country would require some sacrifices.

We are in great danger. The terrorists are fanatic Muslims that believe that it is okay,

even their duty, to kill anyone who will not convert to Islam. It has been estimated that about one third, or over three hundred million Muslims, are sympathetic to the terrorists cause...

> continued <

THINGS WERE DIFFERENT – part 1

When electing the next President, the only decision you have to make is who you want sitting in that seat in the White House when - not if - WHEN we get hit again and millions of American lives are lost or put at risk!

President Bush did make a bad mistake in the war on terrorism. But the mistake was not his decision to go to war in Iraq. His mistake came in his belief that this country is the same one his father fought for in WWII. It is not.

Back then, they had just come thru a grinding depression. The country was steeled by the hardships of that depression, but they still believed fervently in this country. They knew that the people had elected their leaders, so it was the people's duty to back their leaders.

Based on that tradition, when the war broke out the people came together, rallied behind, and stuck with their leaders, whether they had voted for them or not and whether the war

was going badly or not.

War was just as distasteful and the anguish just as great then as it is today. Often there were more casualties in one single day in WWII than we have had in the entire 5 years of the Iraq war.

But that did not matter, people stuck with the President because it was their patriotic duty. Americans put aside their differences in WWII and worked together to win that war.

Everyone from every level of society, from young to old pitched in. Small children pulled their little wagons around to gather scrap metal for the war effort. Grade school students saved their pennies to buy stamps and war bonds to help the effort.

Men who were too old or medically 4F lied about their age or condition, trying their best to join the military. Women doubled their work to keep things going at home. Harsh rationing of everything from gasoline and soap, to butter was imposed, yet there was very little complaining.

> continued <

40 MILLION!!

NEW YORK (AP) - Barack Obama's audience for his acceptance speech likely topped 40 million people, and the Democratic gathering that nominated him was a more popular television event than any other political convention in history.

More people watched Obama speak from a packed stadium in Denver on Thursday than watched the Olympics opening ceremony in Beijing, the final "American Idol" or the Academy Awards this year, Nielsen Media Research said Friday. (Four playoff football games, including the Super Bowl between the Giants and Patriots, were seen by more than 40 million people.)

His TV audience nearly doubled the amount of people who watched John Kerry accept the Democratic nomination to run against President Bush four years ago. Kerry's speech was seen by a little more than 20 million people; Bush's acceptance speech to GOP delegates had 27.6 million viewers.

Through four days, the Democratic convention was seen in an average of 22.5 million households. No other convention - Republican or Democratic - had been seen in as many homes since Nielsen began keeping these records for the Kennedy-Nixon campaign in 1960. There weren't enough television sets in American homes to have possibly beaten this record in years before that.

i found it interesting to hear the white commentators so enthused about obama's speech and the electricity in the air. one of the greatest acceptance speeches in history, they were saying. whether that is true or not can be argued.

and then later, many black commentators were saying obama was running from history by not actually saying the name "martin luther king" but instead simply referring to "the preacher from georgia".

just interesting dynamics there..

There's nothing really wrong personally with Palin or her character.....

But it's painfully obvious she doesn't have the experience or qualifications to be Vice President, and DEFINATELY NOT the Presidenct of the United States, should, God forbid, that become necassary.

It's simple....party and political affiliation aside....both Obama and McCain are worthy of presidency....so, look at the VP's

ask yourself "Would I vote for this person to be President?"

Biden-Yes

Palin-No

By picking Biden, Obama showed he's thinking ahead to how he's going to lead the country and who he needed to help him do it.

McCain was thinking about how to win the election, and who he needed to help him do it.

What and who is best to lead our country was sacrificed for an election advantage. McCain only needs an election advantage for another 8 weeks....but we need a President, and a worthy Vice President for 4 to 8 years!

McCain's choice shows he's more concerened about becoming President than BEING President

i don't have the heart to post the picture of mccain's choice for VP but to quote another "mc", YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS!! :D

Smart move....why be first mate on an old sinking ship?

Lieberman already declined it.

the moderators on pbs, whom i have great respect for, said last night after biden's speech that obama's choice for VP will compel mccain to choose lieberman as his running mate, as a means of cancelling out biden's effectiveness. i will laugh out loud if that happens!! :D

I agree with you about Biden....he was an excellent choice. I also believe he'll be a great source of experience and help to Obama and his administration.

I also think that his choice of Biden is a good example Obama's wisdom and leadership ability.

Even if Hillary MAY have been the better choice (and that's arguable IMO) I think she would have taken Obama as VP....and that would have been for the votes to win the election.

Obama could have done the same by choosing Hillary as VP....but instead of picking a VP to easily win the election, he risked losing support by choosing one to help better lead the country.

That says alot about Obama's seriousness and sincerity to be a good President...and his integrity to what's wise and right for the country....not just what's popular and/or beneficial to him.

You guys missed out on Clinton, but you might have made up the difference with Biden. I won't be able to agree on a lot of his issues, but he is an absolutely great American.

after last night, i still say hillary should have been the nominee. i like barak enough, but he's no clinton. at least he is a fresh face..

amusing to me that the biggest knock on democrats by republicans or "foes of the democrats" is that they want to provide services for ALL AMERICANS. the republicans have, for 7 1/2 years, stripped us of our privacies, created bigger government and have gone out of their way to spend billions of american tax dollars on foreigners - including, but not limited to, illegal wars overseas and protection of illegals living in, or currently crossing into, our country.

to knock democrats in a republican-controlled administration (which is also the most devious, unethical and secretive in history) is, to me, plain silly.

We'll pay for it with the increased tax revenue of a healthier, better-earning work force. They'll pay more taxes than the sick, untrained work force we have today. We'll save a lot of money by not having to pay for corporate health insurance in everything we buy.

If we do ever enter another war, we better start limiting contracts to companies that exist in the US , so the industry generated by military contracts stay in the US. Haliburton's HQ is in Dubai. Bush basicaly fleeced us to big oil and the middle east with the Iraq war. I hope that douchebag rots in hell.

Did you ever see a Democrat you didn't like OZnBrat? I will be watching off and on to see if anything substantiative comes from this convention. If I'm not too disgusted, I will watch the Republicans.

The theme tonight seems to be labor and jobs. As the second highest corporate taxed country in the world (citation needed), It's a real surprise that companies are going overseas.

Dubya and congress added plenty to the deficit. The rhetoric tonight says that we will get "Free" education through college. "Free" healthcare. And a tax cut for people that vote for democrats. Even if we pull out of Iraq, and only bomb Pakistan a few times, how are we going to pay for that? I hope the answer isn't China.

Yes, I did.....but I should have edited the entire line.

I'm sure Laura is "proud" in some way or form......but knows she has no reason to be with her husband in office.....and I doubt her pride....no matter how long or constant.....doesn't come close to comparing with Michelle Obama's sincere renewed hope and pride

Who knows......if the story that Laura's marriage is in shambles and she's going to leave W. when his term is up is true (and it must be.....the tabloids put it "out there", and Neo/Cons say that's when it should be very publicly exposed and investigated).....and now that she knows W's time is almost up,.....

I bet Laura's "finally" feeling some real pride too

I will probably avoid watching McCain's wicked witch of a wife (she will turn you to stone if you let her too close!).

OZnBrat, did you edit out the word "finally" on purpose? I don't remember Laura saying that she was not proud of this country.

i don't like these conventions, i don't care for michelle obama but i give her some credit - she is not a public speaker and i would have tremendous difficulty standing in front of the world to give a speech. the clinton's made it look easy.

oz, i look forward to seeing republifacist type the same comment after day one of the republican convention. do you think he will? i hope so :)

Let's use that eloquent description, with the mere change of two words and one letter.....

Laura had a decent speech at the RNC. People were crying, and showing displays of ecstasy. One can only assume that Laura is proud of her country.

We got a healthy dose of beautiful family memories in concert with carefully scripted ideas of hope. To top it off we saw his beautiful and charming daughters paraded in front of us on the stage. If that doesn't give you warm fuzzies, you might as well go vote for an old white guy.

change the name of the spouse giving the speech and the letter of the party... specify the daughters/sons/number.....

you just described every speech from a candidate's spouse at every convention from either party for the last 200+ years....McCain's will be the same....

What's your point?

Michelle had a decent speech at the DNC. People were crying, and showing displays of ecstasy. One can only assume that Michelle is finally proud of her country.

We got a healthy dose of beautiful family memories in concert with carefully scripted ideas of hope. To top it off we saw his beautiful and charming daughters paraded in front of us on the stage. If that doesn't give you warm fuzzies, you might as well go vote for an old white guy.

USShulkbuster [don't make me angry, you won't like me when I'm angry!]: Along with modesty, you obviously set aside intelligence and honesty as well.

I quote you from your nonsense only when I respond to you.

As yet another example proving that you do not actually READ any factual information, your second sentence has nothing whatsoever to do with http://www.alternet.org/election08/89686/?page=entire "The 10 Most Awesomely Bad Moments of the Bush Presidency"

Never a surprise.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200802280018 "Will MSNBC devote as much coverage to McCain's embrace of Hagee's support as it did to Obama's rejection of Farrakhan?"

http://mediamatters.org/action_center/corsi_freddoso/archive?f=h_top "Jerome Corsi & David Freddoso Archive"

USShulkbuster [don't make me angry, you won't like me when I'm angry!]: Oh, wow, Obama said "57" instead of "50". If almost 2,000,000 people die because of this error, only then will this be newsworthy.

"The 10 Most Awesomely Bad Moments of the Bush Presidency" http://www.alternet.org/election08/89686/?page=entire "In a lot of ways, choosing the Bush administration's 10 greatest moments -- disastrous failures, all -- is about as pointless as picking out your 10 least favorite hemorrhoids: There are entirely too many of them, and taken together they all add up to a throbbing mass of pain."

Yes, let's take time for the truth.

http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/94322/?page=entire "Unfit for Publication: Swiftboater Book 'The Obama Nation' Filled with Falsehoods"

"Media denounce Corsi's anti-Obama book" http://mediamatters.org/items/200808150015?f=h_top "Summary: Many in the media are challenging Jerome Corsi's The Obama Nation, noting its numerous falsehoods and its author's track record. Their reaction stands in stark contrast to coverage of Corsi's 2004 book, Unfit for Command. The media were sharply criticized for taking too long to challenge that book's numerous smears and falsehoods."

That`s interesting, but backround checks, I mean a person could claim to be anyone I dont place much stock in it but like I said before a test and distinguishing ones self added to what we already have is of no harm! and only improves it.

Sorry to hop back to old business, but MonkeyMan, do you know the requirements for being granted citizenship? I know many people, including some here, who would not qualify, yet are blessed with it simply because Mom & Dad had it. Among other things, they are required to read, speak, and write English, be of good moral character, know, understand, and believe in the principles of the Constitution, and have a favorable disposition towards the United States. None of those are required of someone who accidentally got citizenship by birth.

Can they lie their way in? No doubt. But I know first hand that there are background checks performed: My father was involved in them as a U.S. Consul and Consul General in several countries.

Now, one thing that might be confusing you is citizenship itself: Those criteria apply to citizenship alone. There are a lot of other legal ways (visas) for your dreaded foreigners to enter the country, and generally their standards are lower.

Nah Republicans are only wussies when it comes to dealing with Liberals, you wont find McCain take any harsh stance against Obama but Liberals, like Obama, will take a strong stance against McCain.

Like I said....love the new conspiracy theory....

If what you say about Rep/Cons being so easily intimidated and scared of liberals is true, well, that makes them some of the biggest, weakest, wimpiest little pussies ever.

NOT the kind of people that should be in charge of, or making decisions for us and our country.

That means Liberals are patriotic heros for exposing conservatives for the spineless, danger to America wimps they are, huh? LMAO!!

got room in your mouth for your other foot?

I don't think he'll ever make it.

Yeah! yeah! oz, and McCain dosent kiss Liberal butt!. All Liberals do is bitch! about anything and everything! yelling and screaming! about any little insignificant! nothing!, that Republicans do!, truning Republicans into henpecked husbands! who are afraid to say anything anymore for fear that you Liberals will jump on them like some crazy woman with a rolling pin in hand and curlers in her hair.

And now we have the latest Liberal legislation giving the same rights!, that Americans have, to your terrorist friends! at Gitmo!.

So where am I wrong!?..............did I not just state in another post that Liberals side with bad people!......huh! didnt I?......

LMAO!!! So, now you're even trying to blame liberals when Rep/Cons say something that doesn't go along with your paranoid delusions??

Let me guess, ANYTHING the Rep/Cons are proved of doing wrong, dishonest or criminal was because they were brainwashed into doing it by liberals?

Call Mulder and Scully! Monkey's exposed and X-File worthy conspiracy! LMAO!!

Sadly, your thought process is as disjointed and confused as your writing

Well for one it could be required of them that they must have distinguished themselfs in some way, another, a psychological test of some kind? I think that`s enough.

(Bush`es comments on Putin) Im sure it`s just a part of his being influenced by Liberals that would make him make such a statement because it is the sorta statement Liberals would make, and it`s just diplomacy as well. I mean what do you expect him to say?

"Dam!, dirty, Liberals!" is that better?........

Alright so my writing is terrible.

MonkeyMan - "What would you do to give the process more "meaning"?" - Still waiting.

But I see you made a stab at it - a test to look into the applicants' hearts. Short of highly invasive surgery, how would that be done? Would you admit Vladimir Putin? He probably knows more about the U.S. than you do, and our president looked into his soul and found him a good man.

But here are more questions: Can a child molester or terrorist be of good moral character? What if the terrorist was fighting for one of "your" causes?

By the way - a "dam dirty Liberal" would be someone who was soiled when a dam blew up. Is that what you meant? No? Then do you think U.S. citizens should be required to know English? If so, what is your excuse?

Like I said it carrys little meaning any criminal can learn what they need to become an American citizen, in addition to this test your talking about we need another test that looks into the heart of the individual in question.

Nothing wrong with that! no violation of anyones rights! to not allow a child molester to become an American citizen or some Arab terrorist, because im sure "You dam dirty Liberals" would make an issue outa this, as Liberals always seem to side with criminals, terrorrist, and every other (what do I callem?) bad people?

I bet you anything if some Republican politican brought this up that we would see this behavior from Democrats!, as under the guise of some violation of ones rights!, and would fight against any changes that would keep undesirables from becoming American Citizens.

Especially if it was Bush`es idea! LOL!

Now does that make any rational sense cause Oz says I make no rational sense.