Barack Obama

[Ogryn1313]

The day Americans give up their decision making to foreigners is the day this is no longer America and just another lamb in the EU or Useless Nations.

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by SluttyShemaleAnna

Well, with a net worth of 1.3 million, he's not the average chap, but compare that to McCain with 200 million and you can see who's closer.

Well, that's not actually true. It's all a financial shell game, as you would expect with people having money. For example, John McCain isn't worth $200 million -- however his WIFE is, but even there it's money she inherited from a beer distributorship that her father started. Plus, it's not $200 million -- it's actually HALF that. Her wealth is estimated to be $100 million (though obviously that's still a lot). McCain himself makes 169,000 a year for being in the Senate and 56,000 a year as his Navy pension. So technically the argument could be made that he only makes $220,000 a year.

As for Obama, sorry, but I won't cry any tears for him either since his finances are a real shell game in motion. The public disclosure for him is that his NET worth is $1.3 million -- but that's a number you get ONLY if you start deducting money from things that he owns or has equity in and start deducting mortgage payments, etc. So he's actually far RICHER than that number lets on. Plus, let's assume he gets elected. Look at the Clintons. They claimed to be "average people" when they got into office, but within 10 years of leaving office...between public appearances, speeches, book deals, etc...they're now worth over $100 million too -- which means Hillary is every bit a rich as McCain. And if Obama wins, within a few years of being out of office he stands an excellent chance of joining the $100 million club too.

My problem with talking about finances is that it's not fair to compare them. The McCain fortune was built up over decades of time, versus Obamas money is now just starting to pile up. So it's an apples and oranges kind of things. Plus, the Obamas like to say they're "only worth 1.3 million" -- but the truth is they own a $2 million dollar home, but they deduct the mortgage payments to drive the number down to 1.3. At the same time, if you are going to stick Cindy McCain's fortune onto John McCain, then fair is fair and you have to do the same for Michelle Obama. Up until the start of the summer, Michelle Obama was raking in $320,000 a year for a PART TIME job as a "community affairs consultant" attached to the University of Chicago. I don't know about the rest of you, but I can't remember the last time I worked a PART TIME job and it paid 300 thousand a year! So let's be honest -- they're not hurting in the least.

I saw a talk show host interviewed on TV recently and they really summed it up perfectly by noting: "Look, I realize it's election time and people will choose sides. But for once could we just cut the crap? The truth is NONE of these people are "average Americans" like you or me. As much as politicians love to say "I'm one of you," the truth is by the time you get to THIS level of running for office...such as President...you either came from a very privileged family and background OR you made some SERIOUS money along the way and NOW you're pretty freakin' rich. Either way, you're NOT like the average person."

To be honest, the one who made me laugh the most over this was John Kerry when he ran for President 4 years ago. I seriously cracked up every time Kerry would say in a speech that he was just an "average" American like me or you given that his personal worth at the time (by being married to heiressTeresa Heinz) was something like 3/4 of BILLION dollars.

So a tip to the guys here: get out more and find yourselves a sexy sugar mama. Or should I say a sexy sugar TS mama!

Hmm...I wonder what Areeya is worth?

[hankhavelock]

Originally Posted by Ogryn1313

The day Americans give up their decision making to foreigners is the day this is no longer America and just another lamb in the EU or Useless Nations.

wouw! hot shit, mano! as spoken by a true neocon... ;-) that's the stuff, george bush and john mccain are truly made of...

[Ogryn1313]

Such bullshit. I'm not a neocon. What I said I said out of a sense of patriotism. Since when should one nation allow the people of another to make decisions for it? That's stupid. That's the borderless world concept. What if Americans made the decisions for Brits? Frenchies? Canadians? How'd they like it if they didn't have say so over who becomes their leaders and government officials? Or couldn't have any say over things like taxes and property rights?

If you're going to reply to me with such a jackassed comment and insult don't bother. Anyone of any nation with half a mind would agree with me. You don't let foreigners elect your officials.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by Ogryn1313

Since when should one nation allow the people of another to make decisions for it? That's stupid.

You tell'em Ogryn. I'd really like to hear hanghaveock explain why the US leaders should be chosen by other countries? Is that the way it's done in Indonesia?

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

If I was walking in the woods and I met McCain and Palin, I would slit their throat and throw them in a ditch.

That pretty much sums it up for me.

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

See? They don't even know. Google Obama and socialism.

Sister, you need to learn what socialism is. You have no fucking clue.

[Ogryn1313]

Originally Posted by SluttyShemaleAnna

If I was walking in the woods and I met McCain and Palin, I would slit their throat and throw them in a ditch.

That pretty much sums it up for me.

Well, aren't you just the informed and socially concerned voter? Comments like that really diminish any argument for or against a thing. Shame on you. Shame shame shame Anna..everyone know's your name.

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

Originally Posted by Ogryn1313

Well, aren't you just the informed and socially concerned voter? Comments like that really diminish any argument for or against a thing. Shame on you. Shame shame shame Anna..everyone know's your name.

You know what, I wasn't putting forward any argument, I was stating the conclusion I have reached. I am well informed as to McCain and Palin, and that's what had led me to this conclusion.


If you met Palin in the woods one day, what do you think she would think of you? You're a fag, deny it all you like, but you like dick, and that makes you a faggot, and Palin doesn't like faggots. I'm glad I'm not American, I don't have the risk of this fucked up bitch taking away my rights.

[Ogryn1313]

Aww. You're so mean calling me names. Sniff...faggot. So what if she thought of me as a fag? I don't care of the ignorance of others and I will condemn people for their flaws. She could call me a fag. But if I see value in here just the same I'll respect it.

I find it hilarious outsiders think they know anything about rights in the nations. Let alone how this nation works. Most foreigners who run their mouths don't have much of an informed opinion. Even the ones who trot out "well I've visited America."

I've been here all my life. And I have the same rights I did when I was born today. I've not lost a single one. It doesn't matter who is in the White House or not. Why? It's not the president who has the most impact on our day to day lives in America. Not at all. So get it right Anna. It's fucking Congress who has the most daily impact. They're the ones who make the decisions that effect the citizens most. Not the president. But I don't think you'd be able to see this through your bias tinted glasses.

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

Originally Posted by Ogryn1313

Such bullshit. I'm not a neocon. What I said I said out of a sense of patriotism. Since when should one nation allow the people of another to make decisions for it? That's stupid. That's the borderless world concept. What if Americans made the decisions for Brits? Frenchies? Canadians? How'd they like it if they didn't have say so over who becomes their leaders and government officials? Or couldn't have any say over things like taxes and property rights?

If you're going to reply to me with such a jackassed comment and insult don't bother. Anyone of any nation with half a mind would agree with me. You don't let foreigners elect your officials.

Yea, imagine if the US decided that it was going to make decisions for Iraqis, or Afghanis!


<Alternate>

Yes, only the people who are in the nation controlled by a government should vote for that government. So only Americans, Iraqis and Afganis should vote for the US president.

[Ogryn1313]

The Iraqis elected their own leaders you know. Made possible by removing Saddam Hussein. And, it seems the Iraqi's were quite happy being able to elect their own leaders. So much so that Kurds in the north even ran a television ad thanking the Americans for making it possible.

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

Originally Posted by Ogryn1313

The Iraqis elected their own leaders you know. Made possible by removing Saddam Hussein. And, it seems the Iraqi's were quite happy being able to elect their own leaders. So much so that Kurds in the north even ran a television ad thanking the Americans for making it possible.

The Iraqi parliament voted that the US should leave, the US are still there, that pretty much sums it up.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by SluttyShemaleAnna

Sister, you need to learn what socialism is. You have no fucking clue.

This from someone who would slit someone's throat and toss them in a ditch.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by SluttyShemaleAnna

If you met Palin in the woods one day, what do you think she would think of you? You're a fag, deny it all you like, but you like dick, and that makes you a faggot, and Palin doesn't like faggots. I'm glad I'm not American, I don't have the risk of this fucked up bitch taking away my rights.

She's against gay marriage. You mean you have that right in your country? You're in the UK. My source says Holland, Belgium, Canada, Spain, and South Africa allow it. It may be outdated though. If you don't have that right in the UK, then I'm not sure how the right to gay marriage can be taken away from you.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by SluttyShemaleAnna

Yea, imagine if the US decided that it was going to make decisions for Iraqis, or Afghanis!

Wasn't it the UK that redefined the borders of countries in the Mid East? That turned out real well.

[Ogryn1313]

Originally Posted by SluttyShemaleAnna

The Iraqi parliament voted that the US should leave, the US are still there, that pretty much sums it up.

Because if we left precipitously Iraq would be in full civil war and likely invaded by Iran. Or at the lest Iran would install a puppet regime.

That's the typical comeback of a person who refuses to look at the big picture but rather complain about certain points.


On my other site people like you are in the majority. You might like it there. And in particular all the Brits do as you do. Every Brit I've ever encountered seems to have some kind of ignrance driven obsession with hating this nation. I've yet to find one Brit say one positive thing about America.

And I'm left to conclude it is because of two possible things: Brits are, by nature arrogant assholes who love to bitch and moan. Or, and I do hope this one is the reason, the people of England are bashing the United States to mask their insecurities about their own less than perfect nation. After all, it isn't as if England has a spotless and unblemished history and has always been the paragon of a virtuous nation. And as Tracy pointed out, England has had more effect on the Middle East than America.

So, could it be that the people of England, who bitch about America while ignoring their own "fuckeduppery" simply being insecure? Makes them feel a little better about their smile island nation?

Why is America having more effect now? Because America has more power, wealth and influence. It's no wonder when the shit hits the fan nations call on America long and pass on England.

Then consider history. England is sore they lost their colonies. And who stood to benefit the most from the Industrial Revolution? Not England. America. Because we made this our country. England lost its superpower status. And so when the Industrial Revolution happened all the vast resources of this nation were ours. England, on the other hand, by this time was a shrinking empire who depended, and still does, on trade from other nations to survive. England lacks the agricultural capacity and manufacturing capacity to be self-sufficient. Whereas, if America so desired, we could sever ties with other nations in the form of trade and be able to survive on our own resources with the exception of oil.

In other words: America is the big dog on the porch while England is the little waiting for scraps.

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

Originally Posted by Ogryn1313

Because if we left precipitously Iraq would be in full civil war and likely invaded by Iran. Or at the lest Iran would install a puppet regime.

You are an American, what business do you have in telling the Iraqis what is good for them?

[Ogryn1313]

Can't you do any better than that?

What business did the Brits have of forcing opium on China during the Opium War? Invading other countries and then colonizing them? And many other historical blemishes. How about criticizing merry old England for a spell?

You're proving me right, in regards to my previous comment. Even more so with useless equivalency.

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

The answer is of course none. You are the one using useless equivalence. Your only argument in defence of the US is Britain did it first. When you're using the British empire as your justification, you're really getting desperate.

I'm against all imperialism, I'm not the one blowing smoke up the ass of my government, I hate them, I'm not looking to defend them.

You can carry your white man's burden alone, you will get no help from me.

[sesame]

Anna, I was expecting more from you. Fiery, eloquent, geeky Anna being slammed by 2 "patriotic" americans who are blind to all atrocities done by USA!!! All the bossing, tampering, exploiting by the US are justified by profitable "peacekeeping"! Baah!

[sesame]

In other words: America is the big dog on the porch

Ogryn, just because US is the big dog in the worldscape now, is it justified for you to bash, bite, bully and destroy all others?
The US is a nervous wreck. Constantly in fear of losing control.
So it had to destroy Vietnam, USSR, Afghanistan, Iraq... whatever is next on the list.

[Bionca]

Perhaps the Brits you see posting on the Internet have a common "feel" to them because England (and France, and Holand, and Spain) have a history of fucking up foreign countries for their particular benefit, having that blow up in their face, and causing tremendous harm to actual living breathing people and being called out for it.

It's also about perception - What you may see as the US going in and helping another country remain stable is seen by others as America acting as like a bully on the world stage. Since no action taken in a foreign country is ever fully altruistic, having motives questioned by our allies keeps the "big dogs" in check.

As far as McCain/Palin and their social politics....

Lots of Conservative gays and trans*people and the guys who like us love to talk about how their main focus is foreign policy and/or economics. Well bully for you. The Real ID Act the McCain and Palin support will make it EVER HARDER for pre and non- op gals to get a basic job that doesn't involve sex work. Do you get the economic impact of that?

The current Patriot Act (I love how Conservatives are so dismissive about how no actual Americans have anything to worry about with the PA) outs Transfolks every time they get a non-sex work job, with a recommendation (initially an INSTRUCTION) to fire/not hire that person because their gender documentation doesn't match, thus they are a security risk. Again, Conservative economics on a micro hitting me in the purse level.

[Be_my_nude]

So - ignoring all the somewhat petty imperialist / anti-imperialist sniping rampant in the first half of this thread, it seems to me that projected image supported by selective ' facts ' is the principal Driver of Western politicians today, not any true or honest virtues that they may possess. ' Honest Abe ' is an anachronism and a fantasy in today political world. So we get more and more headline-grabbers, ambtious politicians who ' talk the good talk', but when it comes to ' walking the good walk ' they are very much found wanting and only cover up their own incompetence and ineptitude by the reckless compounding of promises upon promises, none or few of which are delivered.
Tony Blair in the UK of the ready smile and bountiful bag of political hot air is a prime example, and those who have followed him without the advantage of charm even more so. What little I know of Obama makes him equally as unknown a quantity. IF he gets elected he will a hard job to maintain integrity with progress. But what do we Brits know except what we read in the Gutter Press and in Forums ?

[Marine_N41_432]

Politically-aware women make me uneasy. Fanatical ones make me panic. And why do politicians always present themselves as right by virtue of their appointment ? Not sure that comparisons between the economic / exploitative empires of Britain and America serve any real purpose in this thread. That way I agree with Bella. But Bionca has some very valid points too.

[hankhavelock]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

You tell'em Ogryn. I'd really like to hear hanghaveock explain why the US leaders should be chosen by other countries? Is that the way it's done in Indonesia?

Please, guys and girls, calm down a bit... no need to scream outta ur hat here... I was merely trying to be funny and friendly.

But you missed the point and apparently, American socalled PATRIOTISM (by defined by George Bush and his hoods) is becoming as "holy" as muslim "patriotism". And that is basicly why, it's too dangerous to leave the election of the American president to the American people... ;-)

Oh well, the Chinese have awoken and will make this their century anyways.

But be PROUD! And just send MacDonalds and your marines... and if we don't bend to your PATRIOTIC way, then just send the missiles... you always wanted isolationalism... so why not take it to the limit and kill off anything that cannot be labelled as God's own American PATRIOTISM?

These are the policies that Barack Obama will not follow...

[just102]

we desperately need a third party

as far as Obama and McCain go I really think McCain is the lesser of the two idiots

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by hankhavelock

But be PROUD! And just send MacDonalds and your marines... and if we don't bend to your PATRIOTIC way, then just send the missiles... you always wanted isolationalism... so why not take it to the limit and kill off anything that cannot be labelled as God's own American PATRIOTISM?

These are the policies that Barack Obama will not follow...

I can think of dozens of countries who do not "bend to our patriotic way", and no missiles are being sent. What countries are you talking about who we've fired missiles at because they simply did not "bend to our patriotic way"? And don't say Iraq because if you've studied the situation at all you'll know there's a bit more to it than not bending to our patriotic way.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by just102

we desperately need a third party

as far as Obama and McCain go I really think McCain is the lesser of the two idiots

Unfortunately that will usually not work. The vote will usually be split among the top 2 candidates and the 3rd choice will get the majority of the votes.

[Ogryn1313]

Originally Posted by Bionca

Perhaps the Brits you see posting on the Internet have a common "feel" to them because England (and France, and Holand, and Spain) have a history of fucking up foreign countries for their particular benefit, having that blow up in their face, and causing tremendous harm to actual living breathing people and being called out for it.

It's also about perception - What you may see as the US going in and helping another country remain stable is seen by others as America acting as like a bully on the world stage. Since no action taken in a foreign country is ever fully altruistic, having motives questioned by our allies keeps the "big dogs" in check.

As far as McCain/Palin and their social politics....

Lots of Conservative gays and trans*people and the guys who like us love to talk about how their main focus is foreign policy and/or economics. Well bully for you. The Real ID Act the McCain and Palin support will make it EVER HARDER for pre and non- op gals to get a basic job that doesn't involve sex work. Do you get the economic impact of that?

The current Patriot Act (I love how Conservatives are so dismissive about how no actual Americans have anything to worry about with the PA) outs Transfolks every time they get a non-sex work job, with a recommendation (initially an INSTRUCTION) to fire/not hire that person because their gender documentation doesn't match, thus they are a security risk. Again, Conservative economics on a micro hitting me in the purse level.

I'm conservative and Republican in case you've not noticed by now. But surely nobody would lump me in with the right wing element. Your generalizations don't acknowledge those like me. And there's more than you'd think Bionca. I assure you my main focus isn't foreign policy in the least. I've stated I want this nation to return to an isolationist stance and have little dealings with foreign nations friend and foe alike.

As for my focus on the economy. I'll be honest: I don't give a shit about it. See, I live in one of the poorest regions in America. When the national economy is booming guess what? Appalachia is still poor! The average household income is about 6,000 to 13,000 a year. It's always been this way for the mountain folk and always will. As such, I don't give a damn about the economy in the rest of the nation.

The Patriot Act? I'm simple minded about it. It's not harmed my life. I've not lost a single right since 9/11. People must adjust to the demands and dangers of the times. We did in WW2 without much complaint. I see what's bad about the act but I don't care. Because law abiding legal citizens don't suffer under it.

Trans issues? Well, I really don't know much about their issues. I'll need to research the Real ID Act. If it presents inequality for the trans community then I will not approve of it. But if it doesn't unduly burden them any more so than everything else I can't really complain. See, although I support minorities and equality I keep my eye on the greater good: the majority. So, I'm all for equality and fairness for everyone. But if at any point the good for the minority begins stripping away at the rights of the whole I oppose it. The majority rules. The majority comes first. Ideally, everyone should have a fair break. And please never doubt me on this. But I'll not compromise what is best for all just to please the few, no matter who they are. My people are a minority of sorts. We could use Uncle Sam's help. Financially mainly. But we're a minority. I would not expect the majority to be diminished at our expense.

Furthermore, this may offend people, but one thing I oppose about the idea of national healthcare is that taxpayers would be paying for everyone. This means the gender reassignment surgery as well. Please, I don't want you Bionca, or any other person, to think I oppose your rights. But to me, paying for this isn't fair to the tax payer. Nor would be the taxpayer paying for my illness if I got lung cancer because I do indeed smoke like a freight train. The problem with national healthcare is it would be easily abused. Before you know it people who wanted plastic surgery would be having taxpayers paying for it. And they'd use some kind of depression angle to justify it. I'm of the mind that national healthcare should only be for the usual things: injuries from accident, disorders, disease, medicine, etc, not elective surgeries.

Anyway, I hope I've not offended you nor made an enemy out of you for my views. I support anyone within reason. But as I said, my loyalty lies with the majority. That is, to me, what democracy is.

[hankhavelock]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

And don't say Iraq because if you've studied the situation at all you'll know there's a bit more to it than not bending to our patriotic way.

There certainly is... a sinister amount of a bit more... ;-)

[hankhavelock]

Originally Posted by Ogryn1313

I'm conservative and Republican in case you've not noticed by now...

Indeed you are, my good friend :-) So here's a special treat for you... ;-)

I admit it... (s)he's a lill conservative HOTTIE.. one starts to understand why George Bush is always smiling and squint-eyed when he appears in public... he has this suprema Goddess on his lap every day...

Peace, my man!

Barack

PS: All Power to the Black Panthers!

[jimnaseum]

If I were a Republican I'd have Republican views too. Bush has not only spent or stolen every cent Clinton saved, he's borrowed our future from China and blown that too. You can thank George Bush, millionaire brat oil businessman, for electing the first black man president.
Obama will be the best thing that has ever happened to the American middle class. He has the energy and vision to do it. It has been his direction from Day one.
the 2006 elections showed that the republican's time is up. take that to the bank.

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

Originally Posted by jimnaseum

You can thank George Bush, millionaire brat oil businessman, for electing the first black man president.

Woah, don't count your chickens!

Never underestimate the stupidity of the average American voter.

Then recall that half of them are dumber than that!

EEK!

[jimnaseum]

God help us all, Anna
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=511_1220605235

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by SluttyShemaleAnna

Woah, don't count your chickens!

Never underestimate the stupidity of the average American voter.

Then recall that half of them are dumber than that!

EEK!

You've gone too far and I've had about enough of your crap. Where do you get off insulting us like that?

[Ogryn1313]

It astonishes me how blind people are to history. Clinton wasn't the economic miracle worker. Our economy was mainly driven by a specific trend at the time. And though we had good times and more money, he left us in a recession. It spiraled from there.

As for Ann, I chalk Anna up to being just another spiteful and decidedly biased European who can only bash America, often will ill informed opinions and little knowledge of the issues and facts. And, with the insults and hate Anna diminishes the value of any intelligent conversation. Very impressive for those oh so superior Europeans who are so much more intellectual and enlightened than we horrible Americans.

A pity we have no ignore feature here.

[SSL]

Originally Posted by Ogryn1313

A pity we have no ignore feature here.

http://forum.transladyboy.com/profile.php?do=editlist

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

You've gone too far and I've had about enough of your crap. Where do you get off insulting us like that?

Sorry, I just calls em like I sees em...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDIsOqq6yko



I never said the average voter was any smarter anywhere else mind.

[buuren11]

Anything is better than Bush

[Ogryn1313]

Originally Posted by Shemale Sex Lover

http://forum.transladyboy.com/profile.php?do=editlist

Oh, well then...I'll bear this in mind.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by SluttyShemaleAnna

Sorry, I just calls em like I sees em...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDIsOqq6yko

Yeah me too LOL
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...olmes-did.html

I never said the average voter was any smarter anywhere else mind.

Look, there's stupid people in every country. Trust me, I have no respect for the growing bible thumping masses in my country. But for the most part this country doesn't suck. I'm just tired of all the anti-america crap going on when the actions America took that everyone is griping about were unanimously endorsed by the UN.

There is plenty of revisionist history going on in the US too. I'm sure you've heard all the 'Bush Lied about Iraqi WMD' BS.

The democrats were agreeing on the WMD intelligence up until the 2004 elections. Then they conveniently found fault in the intelligence and it all suddenly became Bush's fault.

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America�s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

And what do we say today? It's aaaaaaaall Bush's fault. Forgive me if I don't put much stock in people like yourself and

Originally Posted by buuren11

Anything is better than Bush

who have no grasp of the big picture.

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

There is plenty of revisionist history going on in the US too. I'm sure you've heard all the 'Bush Lied about Iraqi WMD' BS.

The democrats were agreeing on the WMD intelligence up until the 2004 elections. Then they conveniently found fault in the intelligence and it all suddenly became Bush's fault.

You know there is a difference between the government party and the opposition party don't you?

The government party is in direct control of hte intelligence services, the president has pretty much hte highest security clearance there is, he can see everything. The opposition party only sees what is released to them by the security services controlled by the government party.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by SluttyShemaleAnna

You know there is a difference between the government party and the opposition party don't you?

The government party is in direct control of hte intelligence services, the president has pretty much hte highest security clearance there is, he can see everything. The opposition party only sees what is released to them by the security services controlled by the government party.

You know the opposition party was in power when many of the quotes above were made don't you?

When Clinton was president he also had direct access to intelligence services. Hillary also spoke of intelligence reports that she has seen. Al Gore, Tom Daschle, Ted Kennedy and Sandy Berger also had access. Go back and read the quotes. Those were the assessments of the intelligence community that Bush inherited.

[Ogryn1313]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Yeah me too LOL
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...olmes-did.html



Look, there's stupid people in every country. Trust me, I have no respect for the growing bible thumping masses in my country. But for the most part this country doesn't suck. I'm just tired of all the anti-america crap going on when the actions America took that everyone is griping about were unanimously endorsed by the UN.

There is plenty of revisionist history going on in the US too. I'm sure you've heard all the 'Bush Lied about Iraqi WMD' BS.

The democrats were agreeing on the WMD intelligence up until the 2004 elections. Then they conveniently found fault in the intelligence and it all suddenly became Bush's fault.




And what do we say today? It's aaaaaaaall Bush's fault. Forgive me if I don't put much stock in people like yourself and


who have no grasp of the big picture.

Clearly you have little knowledge of how the American government works. It is a two party system and there's always one in control until the other claims control. The control is in Congress, not the Presidency. It is not as if when a new president takes office all the work, intelligence, and other things from the previous administration are discarded.

Quite the contrary. Each successive president inherits everything from the previous. They take on their responsibilities, unfinished business, crisis, war, recession, whatever. And while in office they add to it.

See, it is a growing body work building on the past. And in some cases undoing the past. The point being that the man in office is essentially a caretaker. Picks up where the other left off. Continues the work or goes in a new direction.

The man in office is powerful. And much responsibility is on his shoulders. "The buck stops here." Problem is, in any government everyone wants to pass the buck.

What you fail to understand is that it is Congress that has more direct influence and actual impact on the daily lives of Americans. Congress is where the true power is. It is easy to pass the buck and blame on the president. Especially since he does have real power. But often, his failings stem from Congress, as Congress is in a perpetual feud with itself for control. Democrats want it. They get it. Reps want it. They get. Whoever is in office often has to wade through lots of red tape. Congress is the real problem in America. Especially the current one.

You, have much to learn about how this government works. Yet you don't want to learn. You want to complain. And the more you do the more evident your ignorance of the issues is apparent.

[hankhavelock]

Ogryn, my friend, I allowed my self to move your answer from another thread to this one, where I believe it's more appropriate if you don't mind.

You wrote:

I couldn't agree more with you.

Aside from only one thing:

Obama.

I'm of the opinion social change must come slowly. It cannot be rushed because of loose ends and the impact it has on people. America is an extremely diverse nation. We have every type of person imaginable and ever difference imaginable found here. Perhaps more so than most nations. And it is always a battle. I believe in serving the whole, the greater good, thus the majority rules. Minorities are a secondary consideration. This does not mean I support oppressing them or denying them their fair treatment and rights. Only that any sweeping change in our society should be carefully thought out, all options and ramifications considered and then eased into. Rapid and sudden change creates unforeseen issues.

And this is my problem with the far left and Obama's of the world.

The Europeans can sit and smugly condemn my nation for being backwards and less socially progressive. Europeans are exceptionally arrogant. Yet they forget something important:

European nations are older than America. They have had the benefit of several hundred years of time to "perfect" themselves. America is a baby in comparison.

Because I believe such change requires time, logically it stands to reason America has not had the time to "perfect" itself as Europe. It's relative to how old a nation is. And the problem with the champions of this kind of change in America are immature so to speak. They often just see a problem and immediately think up a solution then they want to make this solution happen. They don't care if it steps on other groups or has effects on the equality of all in terms of rights and civil liberties. They are rash and foolhardy.

Perhaps they're hearts on in the right place. But they need to slow down and consider everything. I'll cite Obama wanting to withdraw the troops in Iraq quickly. He has failed to show he has fully thought out all considerations and possible consequences. Liberals are slightly better at this kind of change as they tend to be more logical and fair than the far left who pretty much are hot headed, overly passionate dreamers who just rush into things.

So, if you can look at a European nation and American nation in terms of a whole (let's say for the sake of it all of the nation is one person) and compare age and experience, then clearly America needs to do some growing up. But we all know the dangers of growing up too quickly.

This is how I disagree with you. Everything else you said I agree with entirely.

I reply:


This is a matter of wanting evolutionary or revolutionary change - I believe that in the case of Obama, this is STILL evolutionary change... but it is a matter that will force Americans to look deeply into their democratic hearts and find in them selves the truth they want. Isn't it finally time, that we move a bit forward - even in steps that for some may seem inappropriately large?

Shifts of paradigms are always hurtful for those who strenouosly oppose them. George Bush and his administration are the last of a generation of thinking that goes back to the Civil War and an automated way to view American patriotism as the kind of patriotism decided by raw power and a fixed set of rules as to what is right and wrong.

The world has changed - not necessarily the fundamentals of right and wrong in a democratic sense - but in the way that other issues are now coming up that we didn't before have to deal with. In this regard the old guard is no longer useful. They are so rooted in their old school mindset that their solutions are wrong for a new world.

You mention Europe - and yes, European history goes milliennia further back than Caucasian and Afro American history. How ever, let us not kid ourselves here, American morale is rooted in European tradition and now luckily with an AfroAmerican touch. The basics are not very different. That's why America and Europe are for ever connected and will probably not be able to exist without each other.

But the religious right and their out-of-date ways cannot be something that you seriously defend as morally right. And there are no other ways to bring them forward and out of their holes than to force them them to scrutinize the moral of what they are preaching. Had it been communists or muslims, you would agree with me - now it's your fellow Americans, but some of them are as backwards as the illeterates of some village in Iran...

I believe we can objectively talk about right or wrong - and I believe we can fairly accuse folks of opposing new thinking because of their angst of what this new thinking may bring with it.

I love America, I have always defended America, but in this love is also an obligation to oppose stupidity, which is the fact of the last administration. George Bush, his wife and his administration have hurt not only American but western credibility tremendously due to a failed policy pressed upon American allies with force.

It will take years to fix that - but what I experience is a joy about Barack Obama and thus a way for America (and the rest of the west) to reestablish prudent leadership and credibility in a world that is somewhat more complicated than in the days of good old Ronald Reagan, whom I - even as a bleeding heart liberal - see as one of the most important presidents in the history of your nation EVER!

That's why I believe that change is needed - if it is only a symbol of change. Barack Obama can deliver that and is light years ahead in his thinking than John McCain - btw, I actually LIKE John McCain. He's just not the the right man for the job at the time. One could hope that he'd got elected 8 years ago. Then the world would most likely have nbeen better off. He had his kicks.. now we need more dramatic change!

Peace!

H

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

You know the opposition party was in power when many of the quotes above were made don't you?

When Clinton was president he also had direct access to intelligence services. Hillary also spoke of intelligence reports that she has seen. Al Gore, Tom Daschle, Ted Kennedy and Sandy Berger also had access. Go back and read the quotes. Those were the assessments of the intelligence community that Bush inherited.

So what you are saying is that saddam could not possibly have got rid of his weapons after 4 years of UN inspections, and no new intelligence was gathered during that time.

Right, you're making more sense by the second.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by SluttyShemaleAnna

So what you are saying is that saddam could not possibly have got rid of his weapons after 4 years of UN inspections, and no new intelligence was gathered during that time.

Right, you're making more sense by the second.

Try and follow the thread of the conversation.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

And what do we say today? It's aaaaaaaall Bush's fault. Forgive me if I don't put much stock in people like yourself and burren11 who have no grasp of the big picture.

There has been NOTHING to show that all those people quoted above weren't wrong either. And it's not just up until the end of Clinton's term. AGAIN go look at the quotes. You can see democrats asserting that Iraq had WMD right up until 2002/2003. The fact is most everyone who had access to the intelligence data drew the conclusion that Iraq had WMD, yet Bush is singled out as the lone liar.

[twistedone]

I'm writing in the Tasmanian Devil. The cartoon character. Perhaps "Yosemite Sam" as he VP.

[jimnaseum]

Tracy Darling, I'm All-American but that war is Bush's war period. He claimed Mission Accomplished in his little National Guard flight suit his Dad bought him, and he deserves all the blame for it's outcome.
Now then, if this thread is going to cum to "blows" I wanna see some pictures.

All kidding aside, in about 20 years I predict there will be a book on the Bush Presidency that will be a real page turner, once some key players start dying off. From hanging chads to 9-11, to Osama Bin Laden and Abromoff, (sic?) Cheney, think of all the stuff we don't even know about. It's really scary that in the nukuler age we got these guys running around in charge. Sarah Palin's going to get PMS and nuke France.