Is Obama finished?

[apk919]

Originally Posted by smoseley

Now that you've substantially derailed the thread, I guess all that's left is for you to respond to your real opponent, glb (whose post you're trying to sidestep by playing with me):

You mean who's the real extremist? Obama or McCain?

That's easy: Obama.

McCain has voted against his party when he disagrees with them.

Obama has consistently voted the liberal line during his tenure in the Senate.

McCain has sponsored many bipartisan bills, and routinely crosses the aisle on major issues.

Obama hasn't sponsored any legislation... and has never crossed the aisle on any issue.

See easy. Doesn't have anything to do with their surrogates or associates. Just look at their actual record as politicians.

[fitfan]

Originally Posted by smoseley

That would be John Hagee. He's not as bad as Parsley, but he did, in fact, call Catholicism "the great whore."

But between you and me, after listening to him, I can't say I disagree much with his arguments for why Catholicism is a great whore! I find some of his other statements more disturbing, like the stuff about how Islam is Evil.

well like i said - i know nothing of contemporary politics and who says what...

many scholars would call Catholicism "the great whore." - so that in itself is a fair statement (in reference to revelation, etc.), but its what he's using that statement to say in building the rest of his case thats probably where someone goes (and i can easily believe it) sicko wacky. certianly, i can't think of any reputable scholar that would call islam evil. ...obvious historical reasons! extreemist - will burn ya every time!

[smoseley]

John Hagee implying that God brought Katrina on America because we removed Israelis from the Gaza strip. (LOL)

YouTube - John Hagee: Katrina = "God Damn America" for Israel policy

[glb]

Originally Posted by fishguy

WTF is with this elitist attitude?
just wow.

This may be snide, but is not in any way elitist.

If I'd said that those who voted against Bush were smarter than those who voted for him, that would be elitist.

I said there was nothing in his 1st term to warrant another and that people who didn't see that were politically unaware or misinformed.

My theory has been proven correct....way too many times since then.

[apk919]

Originally Posted by glb

This may be snide, but is not in any way elitist.

If I'd said that those who voted against Bush were smarter than those who voted for him, that would be elitist.

I said there was nothing in his 1st term to warrant another and that people who didn't see that were politically unaware or misinformed.

My theory has been proven correct....way too many times since then.

It's your opinion, and it hasn't been proven correct. There is no way to know how good or bad a Kerry administration would have been. You may think there is, but it would still be just your opinion.

[smoseley]

Originally Posted by apk919

See easy. Doesn't have anything to do with their surrogates or associates. Just look at their actual record as politicians.

So now you're finally in agreement with the point I made 2 pages ago, and have been trying to prove by example for 4 pages?

Anyhow, record isn't enough... proposed policy should be taken into account as well. I consider myself Independent/Libertarian, but I'm leaning towards Obama, primarily because I know that McCain will more likely mean an extended stay in Iraq.

[apk919]

Originally Posted by smoseley

So now you're finally in agreement with the point I made 2 pages ago, and have been trying to prove by example for 4 pages?

I'm willing to set the importance of one's associates aside for the time being, so we can focus on the candidates themselves.

If you think that the immediate withdrawal from Iraq is desirable, essential and beneficial to our nation's future, then I could see why you'd vote for Obama.

[fitfan]

Originally Posted by smoseley

Here's Rod Parsley:

interesting - thank you! (thats pretty much what i was expecting to hear)

as a former biblical scholar, and philosphy student. i find this kinda stuff fascinating!!

because you really can take the basis of what he is saying and tie it all back to some reasonable arguments - but then the culmination of point (what i deduce from that brief clip and know about such others) is just out there... what is also interesting to me is that most rational people would easily say "that guy (in thoose statements alone) is a dangerous extremist" but you could also argue that he (or any other extremist) is no more radical than.. say.. ghandi. so is it a part of built in human morality to judge violance as bad and peace good? ..or in the case of someone being wired differently, or cultural trained differently at some point the reverse is believed to be the only rightous means to end evil. and hence you get violent radicals doing the work of god... crazy world we live in huh? especailly when you consider all the bloodshed done in the name of God, and i am talking biblicaly recorded "these are the right people to slaughter" historical truths (judaic wars) as the holy actions. so fast forward a bit to the crusades and it gets a bit easier to dismiss that a catholic evil, but had thoose wars gone down in the old testament - how is it any different? and fast forward even more in time and things get even less descernable. gosh, gets confussing and makes that whole middle east thing a mess that there can be no resolution to huh...

one of my favorite quoates from one of my old testament prophesors goes something like "there is no peace until a people are conquered" fortunatly in the US we slaughtered all the indegenous people - and so we have peace here (well there was that little economic war waged around agriculture and morality) - but there are other regions of the world that do not enjoy such historical closure.

sorry for the typos =- i am in hurry!

[glb]

Originally Posted by apk919

It's your opinion, and it hasn't been proven correct. There is no way to know how good or bad a Kerry administration would have been. You may think there is, but it would still be just your opinion.

Ok, fair enough. But, somehow I:

Have trouble imagining a worse administration (public opinion and many historians bear this out)

Can't imagine anyone else would have given up the search for Bin Laden and the chance for success in Afghanistan to invade Iraq.



If you read Clarke's book, you saw him quote Rumsfeld, Bush and Cheney on September 12, 2001, looking for a way to tie 9/11 to Iraq. Repeatedly, and for weeks thereafter. Just read the 1st chapter. He spent many hours telling them that Iraq had 0 to do w/it.

(Rumsfeld: "But Iraq has better targets..")

If you knew what the neocons had been saying for years about Iraq, you'd know that they had a fixation with it.

As Kerry (& most others in the world) did not share these illusions and delusions, it is a remarkably safe bet that almost no one else would've taken their eyes off the true target for such weak, stupid reasons.

This admin was a "perfect storm" of incompetence, stupidity, hubris, scandal, cronyism, greed and incuriousness. I maintain that only this group of criminal-like people could've gotten us into this position.

So, I stand by my statement. And, my actions. I actually thought about my voting.

Would that you guys had done the same....all of us would have been better off. THAT is why I'm asking you to be extra careful this time. It seems that this time will be no more analytical or researched than last. We cannot afford that.

[glb]

Originally Posted by fitfan

interesting - thank you! (thats pretty much what i was expecting to hear)

as a former biblical scholar, and philosphy student. i find this kinda stuff fascinating!!

because you really can take the basis of what he is saying and tie it all back to some reasonable arguments - but then the culmination of point (what i deduce from that brief clip and know about such others) is just out there... what is also interesting to me is that most rational people would easily say "that guy (in thoose statements alone) is a dangerous extremist" but you could also argue that he (or any other extremist) is no more radical than.. say.. ghandi. so is it a part of built in human morality to judge violance as bad and peace good? ..or in the case of someone being wired differently, or cultural trained differently at some point the reverse is believed to be the only rightous means to end evil. and hence you get violent radicals doing the work of god... crazy world we live in huh? especailly when you consider all the bloodshed done in the name of God, and i am talking biblicaly recorded "these are the right people to slaughter" historical truths (judaic wars) as the holy actions. so fast forward a bit to the crusades and it gets a bit easier to dismiss that a catholic evil, but had thoose wars gone down in the old testament - how is it any different? and fast forward even more in time and things get even less descernable. gosh, gets confussing and makes that whole middle east thing a mess that there can be no resolution to huh...

one of my favorite quoates from one of my old testament prophesors goes something like "there is no peace until a people are conquered" fortunatly in the US we slaughtered all the indegenous people - and so we have peace here (well there was that little economic war waged around agriculture and morality) - but there are other regions of the world that do not enjoy such historical closure.

sorry for the typos =- i am in hurry!

thanks, that was interesting. I heard a lecture by Sam Harris, who says he's studied every religion, during which he stated that Islam is the only (IIRC, I don't think he said "most") violent religion; one that tells its followers to try to convert others and, if they can't be converted, to kill them.

I don't know if this is true, but Harris' other points (in areas I know more about) were correct.

again, thanks.

[fitfan]

Originally Posted by smoseley

John Hagee implying that God brought Katrina on America because we removed Israelis from the Gaza strip. (LOL)

cool! ...this guy will keep me entertained for days!

just to throw it out there for what is worth, and only as a historical relationship (not a moral or judgemental one) had things been a little different, and the "west" "backed" Islam. would there now be peace?

please oh please don't misconstrue that with anything anti-semetic! just historical consequence

[ezmoney]

Originally Posted by smoseley

I added it up in my head. We'll save $143,985,492,175.32 annually.

It would (and should) have been $143,985,492,205.31, but one of the officers illegally expensed his $29.99 Playboy subscription to the budget. He will be reprimanded.

You have the right to remain silent but obviously not the ability to!

Originally Posted by fitfan

different operations or programs come from different budgets, depending on "who" is asking for the money, and for "what".

point is - the overall grand scheme big picture $ are far greater than that, you just don't hear about it. certain programs are not and will never be acounted for in that regard. so while what you say above makes common sense - it doesn't really work that way. another way of saying it was how much of the 200 bil was being spent prior to the war in iraq?

Before anyone can say we'll save money or determine how much we have to know where the troops will be deployed and what their mission will be. I haven't heard the "cut and run candidates" say what their plans are for both redeployment and mission.

Originally Posted by LARRY

Say "hello" to smoseley, gentlemen.

This man is extremely intelligent and as sharp as a razor.

If you're going to have a battle of wits with him, you better have your sh*t together.

Trading insults with him is like dueling with an unarmed man.

Originally Posted by glb

Sorry, but the facts are on my side.

Take your medication before you go to sleep tonight you're hallucinating again!

[fitfan]

Originally Posted by glb

thanks, that was interesting. I heard a lecture by Sam Harris, who says he's studied every religion, during which he stated that Islam is the only (IIRC, I don't think he said "most") violent religion; one that tells its followers to try to convert others and, if they can't be converted, to kill them.

I don't know if this is true, but Harris' other points (in areas I know more about) were correct.

again, thanks.

nah - the tribes historically have Islam beat as a documented religion to go kill in the one true Gods name.

i can't think of any where Islam states "if you can't convert them, kill them" at least not in wholelistic sense (but i am not an islamic literature expert by any means) - certainly there may be some isolated text that reads that way though. but again, the tribes had that kinda text first. and the tricky thing - frequently text is a particular conversation to particular people in a particular time and place, and is not to be construed as doctrine in study - but thats a gray area in (especialy biblical) religous belief systems.

[pla_time]

Originally Posted by glb

thanks, that was interesting. I heard a lecture by Sam Harris, who says he's studied every religion, during which he stated that Islam is the only (IIRC, I don't think he said "most") violent religion; one that tells its followers to try to convert others and, if they can't be converted, to kill them.

I don't know if this is true, but Harris' other points (in areas I know more about) were correct.

again, thanks.

Well, very few religions have a stellar history on such matters -- such as the Spanish Inquisition and the forced conversion by the Conquistadors of the Aztecs.

Heck, even the Baha'i', who are about as harmless a group as one can imagine, are routinely persecuted.

In the final analysis, there are many fewer suicide bombers who are atheists than there are who are ardently religious.

[fitfan]

Originally Posted by glb

Can't imagine anyone else would have given up the search for Bin Laden and the chance for success in Afghanistan to invade Iraq.

no one else would've taken their eyes off the true target for such weak, stupid reasons.

This admin was a "perfect storm" of incompetence, stupidity, hubris, scandal, cronyism, greed and incuriousness. I maintain that only this group of criminal-like people could've gotten us into this position.
.

it really does amaze me how many people i know don't "get" the above - really, kinda bewildering? what really amazes me is that there has been zero accountability. really pretty amazing time in history. 50 years from now i can't imagine what the record will tell! i can accept the fact that elected leaders took a course of action (right wrong or indeffernt) but for there to be no accountability for the fallout just really blows me away.

...yet some sexual mis conduct is career ending?

just take impact vs. accountabilty of thoose two things as isolated legacy and we truely do live in a f'd up world

the above is no slander to the people who have worked to make the best in either of the above situations they have been subjected to.

i find the moral argument at the end of the "odessa files" movie rather compelling.

but i am a big fan covert ops

[ezmoney]

Originally Posted by glb

Ok, fair enough. But, somehow I:

Have trouble imagining a worse administration (public opinion and many historians bear this out)

Can't imagine anyone else would have given up the search for Bin Laden and the chance for success in Afghanistan to invade Iraq.



If you read Clarke's book, you saw him quote Rumsfeld, Bush and Cheney on September 12, 2001, looking for a way to tie 9/11 to Iraq. Repeatedly, and for weeks thereafter. Just read the 1st chapter. He spent many hours telling them that Iraq had 0 to do w/it.

(Rumsfeld: "But Iraq has better targets..")

If you knew what the neocons had been saying for years about Iraq, you'd know that they had a fixation with it.

As Kerry (& most others in the world) did not share these illusions and delusions, it is a remarkably safe bet that almost no one else would've taken their eyes off the true target for such weak, stupid reasons.

This admin was a "perfect storm" of incompetence, stupidity, hubris, scandal, cronyism, greed and incuriousness. I maintain that only this group of criminal-like people could've gotten us into this position.

So, I stand by my statement. And, my actions. I actually thought about my voting.

Would that you guys had done the same....all of us would have been better off. THAT is why I'm asking you to be extra careful this time. It seems that this time will be no more analytical or researched than last. We cannot afford that.

Others have told you that GW Bush is not running for reelection. John Kerry is not running for president . . . he did his running to leave Viet Nam as fast as he could. Clarke's book should be on the fiction list, but since not many copies sold maybe in the trash instead.

Deal with what we have not with what could have been! glb you're not in Kansas anymore!

[glb]

Originally Posted by ezmoney

Before anyone can say we'll save money or determine how much we have to know where the troops will be deployed and what their mission will be. I haven't heard the "cut and run candidates" say what their plans are for both redeployment and mission.

1. You've not done any research on this.

2. "Cut and run"? You really don't mean to use this worn-out phrase, as I assume that's what your quote marks indicate. Remember which admin said "you have to watch what you say (after 9/11) and equated not agreeing with their policies with being anti-American and pro-terrorist. Ridiculous and untrue.

Originally Posted by ezmoney

Trading insults with him is like dueling with an unarmed man.

cute, but he's shredding your arguments, sorta eating your lunch.

Originally Posted by ezmoney

Take your medication before you go to sleep tonight you're hallucinating again!

Gee, how original. If you think I'm wrong, just give me the facts to back up your opinion. Not a single thing I've said is incorrect, has been refuted.

Your remarks aren't moving things forward. I don't advise taking the personal-attack approach...you won't win there either.

[ezmoney]

Originally Posted by pla_time

In the final analysis, there are many fewer suicide bombers who are atheists than there are who are ardently religious.

I have to agree. They committed suicide without having to blow themselves up!

[pla_time]

Originally Posted by ezmoney

John Kerry . . . did his running to leave Viet Nam as fast as he could. Clarke's book should be on the fiction list, but since not many copies sold maybe in the trash instead.

I guess Orwell was right. "Truth is the first casualty of war."

[apk919]

Originally Posted by glb

Ok, fair enough. But, somehow I:

Have trouble imagining a worse administration (public opinion and many historians bear this out)

The Carter Administration. Higher unemployment, higher interest rates, higher inflation, American hostages being held in Iran, oil embargoes, etc.

Originally Posted by glb

Would that you guys had done the same....all of us would have been better off. THAT is why I'm asking you to be extra careful this time. It seems that this time will be no more analytical or researched than last. We cannot afford that.

Is there any current Republican (senator, rep, governor, etc.) you would vote for? Is there any Democratic nominee you would not vote for?

If not, it doesn't sound like careful analysis to me. Sounds like party line voting.

There are Democrats I would vote for, and Republicans that I wouldn't.