Is Obama finished?

[Greg]

Originally Posted by ezmoney

Actually I didn't speak at all in that post. I let Genereal Stark and Patrick Henry speak for themselves. BTW Nathan Hale did not die on the battlefield. He made the statement "I only regret that I have but one life to give my country." before he was hanged by the British for spying.

Great, then to understand what they were saying, you must understand the context of their statements. Revolutionary war. A completely different situation. Cessation from the crown and independence are a completely different thing worth dying for than imperial occupation of a hostile foreign country in order to control strategic (short term) oil reserves. Hale would probably give one of his other lives for Iraq at this point.

Originally Posted by ezmoney

Politics are getting close to absolute. . . absolutely corrupt!

No argument there. The primary tool for the trade, however is binary generalizations and a war of sound bites.

'Greg

[ezmoney]

Originally Posted by Nikki

As a historian, I keep telling you folks. All of this politico-S..t is just that. Its smoke and mirrors for our consumption to keep us B.S.'d that the the system still works for us. I respect the Comanches because they held out longest against this crap and, unlike too many of my country-persons today, saw through the U.S. Government's duplicity when their agents tried to impress upon the Comanches the "benefits" of surrendering to the White Man. The Comanches were wise and astute enough to realize that the white man's technology and numbers overpowered them, but they never bought into their B.S. Their chiefs mused, "Why don't they just tell us the truth that we're F..d, instead of pumping smoke up our asses about what a great deal they're offering us." WAKE UP FOOLS!

Originally Posted by smoseley

Nikki, you have a point, but you're missing something important. The truly wise man understands the ways of the world, but values his life, and so learns to work within the immutable rules of system rather than running again and again into a brick wall.

The Comanches may have been honorable and respectable, but were they really wise? Tell us, what was their ultimate fate?

Originally Posted by Greg

Great, then to understand what they were saying, you must understand the context of their statements. Revolutionary war. A completely different situation. Cessation from the crown and independence are a completely different thing worth dying for than imperial occupation of a hostile foreign country in order to control strategic (short term) oil reserves. Hale would probably give one of his other lives for Iraq at this point.



No argument there. The primary tool for the trade, however is binary generalizations and a war of sound bites.

'Greg

Greg
My post was answering smoseley's post:
Nikki, you have a point, but you're missing something important. The truly wise man understands the ways of the world, but values his life, and so learns to work within the immutable rules of system rather than running again and again into a brick wall.

Some men put their principles above their lives. They believe that the only immutable rules are those given by God. I was not referring to the war in Iraq, just the statements in the above posts.

[glb]

Originally Posted by ezmoney

New York and New Jersey will be running close in second place for problems with governors. NY and NJ had different problems than Illinois that brought down their governors. There is however one common thread . . . .Party affiliation.

So, must I now remind you of the 50+ Republican scandals afoot?

A small sampling:

Enron

No bid contracts to cronies

Billions unaccounted for in Iraq

Lying about true Medicare costs while threatening to fire the actuary who wanted to tell Congress

Blackwater, big contributor, accountable to no one

Ameriquest and Countrywide (see "secrets of the housing crisis" here)

Lying about the Iraq intelligence (635 times as shown in a recent study)

Lying about the Iran intelligence

Sex scandals involving many Republicans...with boys and girls (no horses)

Tom Delay, Tom Delay, Tom Delay's associates

Outing an active CIA agent

Covering up that lie.

DOJ, now under investigation


this is too easy....like shooting babies in a barrel.

As they say "more available upon request".

One of my favs: Bowen, the inspector general in Iraq has uncovered many millions (if not billions) in fraud by our American sub-contractors. He's done an admirable job....which is why the republicans wanted to fire him. Luckily, the Dems and a few Republicans kept this from happening.

Can you guess the motivation for his firing?

This is another "battle" you've begun that you cannot win.

HEY.....WHERE's MY LIST?

[glb]

Originally Posted by ezmoney

The report was very interesting, including 'waivers for convicted felons'. I guess we'll have the sequel of The Dirty Dozen.

I don't like the idea of reinstating the draft. Voters would probably be opposed to it. It would be a 'political third rail' for any politician that tries to bring it back. I hope that we don't reach the point where there is no alternative but a draft.

This reminds me:

You didn't, to my knowledge, answer my questions about:

1. Why, if Iraq is so important, did we go in on the cheap? Lack of armor, equipment, troops.

2. If experts and manuals say we need another 300,000 or so troops to actually control Iraq, would you be for a draft, as it's the only way to get those troops?

Pls respond.

thx

[apk919]

Originally Posted by glb

You are being difficult. Yes, I know which reports I've read that back up what I've stated.

I'm being difficult because I don't think its reasonable for you state that my numbers are wrong without you having seen them?

Originally Posted by glb

So, is there something wrong with me also wanting to see yours? I would think you'd appreciate me looking at them. Perhaps one of us may be a tad closed-minded.

No, nothing wrong at all. They're right here in this thread, just a few pages ago. They have to do with unemployment rates, interest rates (and mortgage rates), home ownership rates, etc. all being more favorable now than during the Carter Administration... the topic at that time was whether the economy was worse then than it is now.

Originally Posted by glb

Have a good, safe flight.

Thanks... good flight, bad landing.

Originally Posted by glb

I always loved the Dennis Miller line: When you are asked if anyone help pack your luggage, the incorrect answer is "Nobody but my new best friend Achmed"

Love Dennis Miller!

[ezmoney]

Originally Posted by glb

This reminds me:

You didn't, to my knowledge, answer my questions about:

1. Why, if Iraq is so important, did we go in on the cheap? Lack of armor, equipment, troops.

2. If experts and manuals say we need another 300,000 or so troops to actually control Iraq, would you be for a draft, as it's the only way to get those troops?

Pls respond.

thx

We went in with what we had after 8 years of budget cuts in defense spending. In the 1st Gulf war we were able to field 500k troops. We didn't have that capability in 2003.

I'd be really hard pressed to support a new draft. If that is the only way to get the manpower to defend the USA I might 'hold my nose' and accept it.

glb

If you could devise a battle plan that would not change after contact with the enemy and would achieve all of its objectives you would be better know than Eisenhower, Rommel, Lee, US Grant ........
The enemy does not sit idly by allowing us to have our way. They change tactics to compensate for our actions. That is the nature of warfare. It's not possible to go into the field with everthing you need because you can't anticipate every thing the enemy might do. I wish war could be that easy.

[ezmoney]

Originally Posted by apk919

I'm glad you caught that...



OK, now it's piling on!

Can you find it in your heart to forgive me!!

[TimMullen]

Originally Posted by apk919

I actually quite amused by how you think your political opinions are somehow fact,

I find it amusing when people repeat the standard rhetoric of their chosen political party over and over and over until it becomes fact. They conveniently blame the President and Republicans for all the troubles in the world, and conveniently ignore that the Democratic controlled congress has a hand in it. Or that the Democrats were all for it when this whole mess started in the first place.

Originally Posted by lucksta

The most recent of these polls is dates back 10 months - the other two, 21 months. I believe much has changed since.

Not to mention that those polls were conducted by left leaning organizations i.e. the Washington Post.

There was an interesting "poll" in the Post the other day. In answer to the question, more than half the people responded with Obama (although McCain had about 45% positive). The question was: "Which candidate will bring the needed change to Washington?". This of course assumes that Obama's champaign that change is necessary is taken for granted - there was no option to "Continue the way things are".

Originally Posted by glb

I recently got angry about Bush lying to us/me again and began to think which of the 3 candidates is least likely to lie to me.

Yep, keep repeating that "Bush lies to us" and people will start to fall in line.

Originally Posted by glb

Obama came from almost nowhere and is about to stage an enormous upset, given their starting points.

His organizational skills have been excellent, much better than the other two.

We'll ignore that fact that he was helped by the media's "crush" on Obama. A recent independent study determined that 91% of media reports and reporters portray Obama in a positive light, ignoring any negatives. We won't even get into the fact that if anybody has the audacity to question Obama's qualifications or past actions or associations, they are labeled a racist.

Originally Posted by glb

If we look at the primaries, we also see way more new Democrats and much fewer Republicans. In some early states, Obama's votes were about equal to the entire Republican field. As, in fact, were Clinton's.

In NC and Miss, Democrats recently won seats in areas that were historically very Republican. One (MS) carried Bush by 24 pts.

Let's also put this into perspective. For many Republicans, there is no reason to go to the polls and vote in the primary - McCain is already the nominee. But lots of people are caught up in the Democratic battle, so they turn up and vote. A lot of Republicans are also voting for the one they want to loose in the election too.

Originally Posted by glb

So, yes, Obama will win big (and so would Clinton). As more people are forced to look at McCain, his flaws will become glaring, his economic and foreign policies will be seen for what they are: more of the same failures.

Sounds familiar - same things were being said for the last two Presidential elections, and we know how they turned out.

Originally Posted by glb

Think about it: If we've added a million poor for every year of Bush,

And what has been the total increase in the population of the US for the last 7 years? Do you think that every new born kid is born to a rich family? Do you think that every immigrant (legal or illegal) is automatically rich when they come to the US?

If the population of the US increases by 20 million people a year, a million new poor is not unreasonable. Your statistics are meaningless unless you put it into perspective and tell the complete story.

Originally Posted by reganfin

However, no one here has mentioned Tony Rezko. This may be a ticking time bomb in Obama's closet. Rezko's jury just heard closing arguments and if convicted it will mean that a convicted felon may have helped Obama buy his current home in Chicago and that is the tip of the iceberg.

Shhhhh!!!! You are not allowed to say anything bad about Obama. He's the good guy. He's for Change. He's not like the other politicians. Besides, if you bring up stuff like past dealings with criminals, you may get branded a criminal.

Originally Posted by pla_time

with McCain (e.g., the Keating Five membership, the relationship between him and several lobbyists

Try as they might to stick McCain with this one, it's stupid. Even the prosecution of the Keating Five concedes that since the other four were Democrats, they "had" to keep McCain in there so that they could claim that it wasn't "partisan". He had done nothing wrong and was cleared of any wrong doing.

Originally Posted by glb

1. Why, if Iraq is so important, did we go in on the cheap? Lack of armor, equipment, troops.

Originally Posted by ezmoney

We went in with what we had after 8 years of budget cuts in defense spending. In the 1st Gulf war we were able to field 500k troops. We didn't have that capability in 2003.

Give the man a cigar. The previous Democratic administration gutted the US military capability. Then the Democrats blame Bush for not having a capable military.

[Greg]

Originally Posted by TimMullen

Give the man a cigar. The previous Democratic administration gutted the US military capability. Then the Democrats blame Bush for not having a capable military.

There's also the "coalition" that was not present in 2003. Do we "blame" the democrats for that, too! Might as well.

There were 2.6 million troops deployed to the Persian Gulf in the first Iraq war by 34 different countries. We were only 47% of the troop presence, and there was no ground invasion.

Compare that to the 93% troop involvement in the Iraq war, with only 4 countries involved in the initial invasion of under 300,000 troops.

And there's the forgotten war in Afghanistan that was supposedly being waged at the same time as the Iraq invasion. Are the democrats to blame for that, too?

'Greg

[Kjakk]

Originally Posted by TimMullen

I find it amusing when people repeat the standard rhetoric of their chosen political party over and over and over until it becomes fact.

Isn't that what you are doing too?

[Greg]

Originally Posted by ezmoney

Some men put their principles above their lives. They believe that the only immutable rules are those given by God. I was not referring to the war in Iraq, just the statements in the above posts.

And some men put their principles above OTHER people's lives. Those people maybe haven't quite been handed the "immutable rules" of your God.

I also would put the safety and defense of our country above my own life. Do I believe for one second, that the invasion of Iraq improved the safety and defense of our home and families? Not even on your life.

'Greg

[RacyTracy]

Originally Posted by ezmoney

New York and New Jersey will be running close in second place for problems with governors. NY and NJ had different problems than Illinois that brought down their governors. There is however one common thread . . . .Party affiliation.

Recent IL governors sent to prison-

Otto Kerner (D)
Dan Walker (D)
George Ryan (R)

Next to go-

Rod Blagojovich (D)


(Sorry for the hijack)

[smoseley]

Originally Posted by ezmoney

Some men put their principles above their lives.

Yes, and they are remembered by history as great men. Great, dead men. I'd rather live to recall memories of my less-than-heroic life than let people read of how great I was in a history book. I guess that's just me, though.

Originally Posted by ezmoney

They believe that the only immutable rules are those given by God.

You're taking the statement out of context. Every system has immutable rules by which it is defined. If you change the rules, you destroy the definition of the system.

Let's take the Internet, for example... one of the rules of the system is that it uses IP (Internet Protocol) for communications. Well!!! That's not a rule set in stone by God, so let's change it!!! We'll make a better Internet that uses an Enhanced Protocol for communications. Well guess what? It's not the Internet anymore! It's a completely different system!

In the same way, Democracy works in a certain way: people vote for candidates to represent them in making and executing laws. Sure, we can tweak it - e.g. with new technology, we can do away with representative voting and go with popular voting. But we can't change the fact that we have to choose people to represent us, because then we don't have a Democracy anymore! We have something else!

That's what I mean by "immutable".

[pla_time]

Originally Posted by TimMullen

I find it amusing when people repeat the standard rhetoric of their chosen political party over and over and over until it becomes fact. They conveniently blame the President and Republicans for all the troubles in the world, and conveniently ignore that the Democratic controlled congress has a hand in it. Or that the Democrats were all for it when this whole mess started in the first place.

Revisionist history seems to be common here, and your post just confirms this.

However, repeating it does not make it true. The "Democrats were all for it" is patently false, given that 126 Democratic House members voted against the resolution, as did 21 Senators. (In contrast, only 6 Republican House members voted against, and only 1 Republican Senator voted against)

Also, it was NOT "Democrat controlled congress" in 2002. There were 223 Republican Congresspersons and 208 Democratic Congresspersons. Thus, 61% of Democratic Representatives voted against the resolution.

If you are going to bash others for not getting their facts straight, you might want to at least check your own.

Orwell was right.

[fishguy]

Originally Posted by glb

Perhaps one of us may be a tad closed-minded.

a ballot that is is stright by the party lines would indicate someone is closed-minded.
i think you fit the definition perfectly.
tell us your not going to vote and dont vote in the past a straight democratic ticket.
you are the pot calling the kettle black glb.

signed,
An independant

[ezmoney]

Originally Posted by Greg

And some men put their principles above OTHER people's lives. Those people maybe haven't quite been handed the "immutable rules" of your God.

Some men put their principles above their lives. They believe that the only immutable rules are those given by God.
Where did I say my God?

Originally Posted by Greg

I also would put the safety and defense of our country above my own life. Do I believe for one second, that the invasion of Iraq improved the safety and defense of our home and families? Not even on your life.

'Greg

I was not referring to the war in Iraq. It's great to be an American. You can believe what you want, even if you're wrong.

[ezmoney]

Originally Posted by pla_time

Revisionist history seems to be common here, and my post just confirms this.


Orwell was right, and I was wrong!

[ezmoney]

Originally Posted by smoseley

Yes, and they are remembered by history as great men. Great, dead men. I'd rather live to recall memories of my less-than-heroic life than let people read of how great I was in a history book. I guess that's just me, though.

I guess you would rather live in vain than die anyway there is.

Originally Posted by smoseley

You're taking the statement out of context. Every system has immutable rules by which it is defined. If you change the rules, you destroy the definition of the system.

Some systems need to be destroyed and replaced by better systems (i.e. destroy communism replace with democracy).

Originally Posted by smoseley

In the same way, Democracy works in a certain way: people vote for candidates to represent them in making and executing laws. Sure, we can tweak it - e.g. with new technology, we can do away with representative voting and go with popular voting. But we can't change the fact that we have to choose people to represent us, because then we don't have a Democracy anymore! We have something else!

That's what I mean by "immutable".

We have a representative democracy. Change the form of voting (from electoral college to popular vote) and you have a democracy that is little better than anarchy.