question for those who voted for Bush the last 2 elections


Normally open July 4th only---the one day a year when partisan politics, religion, etc. are acceptable topics on this Board (within reason). The forum is now closed.

Postby Mennisco » Tue Oct 28, 2008 11:54 am

Mellow Johnny wrote:I voted Nadar and don't regret it.

You show flashes of a brilliant imagination - if only you'd use your power for Good.
:roll:
Mennisco
 
Posts: 4110
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 3:43 pm
Location: Canada

Postby lonewolf » Tue Oct 28, 2008 12:50 pm

bad hammy wrote:[Considering how well things have turned out on the Bush watch I find it hard to fathom anyone as seemingly rational as you saying that you would want four more years of the same under any circumstances, including your issues with the two major candidates at hand.


Hammy, I did not say I wanted four more years of George W. Bush. He has displeased me on many issues but he is not responsible for the current economic crisis and he is right on Iraq and the urgent, imperative moral obligation to resist international terrorism. I firmly believe history will absolve and honor him.

Nor do I want four years of McCain but we only have two choices here. This is the 20th Presidential election in my lifetime and the 15th in which I will vote. I do not recall that we have ever had two more dismal choices but, IMO, McCain is the better choice.

I have three children, all raised mid-continent, middle class and graduates of semi-conservative Oklahoma universities.
My younger son and daughter, without any conscious coaching, are as rock-ribbed conservative as their daddy, grandpa, gg grandpa.... as far back as we can go.
But, I have a confession to make. My precocious eldest daughter, an uber successful attorney in Seattle, won national conservative red/white/blue essay contests while in HS before entering law school on full scholarship at the University of Washington, where, inexplicably, she morphed into a flaming liberal before passing the Washington law bar three months after her 21st birthday. We mostly avoid discussing politics.

I challenge her by observing out that she lives in a mortgage free, 2 million dollar home, drives a $100,000 Mercedes (and a Prius when her environmental impulses kick in) vacations all over the world on a whim, enjoys national recognition and high regard in her profession.. what exactly is it she wants to change?

She is an ardent fiscal conservative/capitalist, does not seem to have and has no reason to have a "guilt" complex about her self-earned success. Nor does she seem to be a social liberal bent on "spreading the wealth". She is, in short, an enigma with an uncompromising hatred of George Bush for which, despite her Mensa mind and oratory skills, she is unable to articulate an explanation.

To paraphrase the Ricky Van Shelton song, "(Don"t) We all have the right to be wrong now and then?"

Doesn't mean anyone is "bad". We just have a different opinion of what is right... and wrong.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8814
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Postby eldrick » Tue Oct 28, 2008 1:23 pm

lonewolf wrote:but he is not responsible for the current economic crisis


he is

his govt didn't provide enough regulatory control over these nonsense mortgage bonds allowing complete garbage to be passed off as AAA rated bonds which banks, etc snapped up

they were worthless & eventually led to the credit crunch
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby TrakFan » Tue Oct 28, 2008 1:25 pm

lonewolf wrote: he is right on Iraq and the urgent, imperative moral obligation to resist international terrorism. I firmly believe history will absolve and honor him.


Please explin why you feel he is/was right on Iraq
TrakFan
 
Posts: 1272
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Colorado Springs

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Oct 28, 2008 1:25 pm

lonewolf wrote:But, I have a confession to make. My precocious eldest daughter, an uber successful attorney in Seattle, won national conservative red/white/blue essay contests while in HS before entering law school on full scholarship at the University of Washington, where, inexplicably, she morphed into a flaming liberal before passing the Washington law bar three months after her 21st birthday. We mostly avoid discussing politics.

I challenge her by observing out that she lives in a mortgage free, 2 million dollar home, drives a $100,000 Mercedes (and a Prius when her environmental impulses kick in) vacations all over the world on a whim, enjoys national recognition and high regard in her profession.. what exactly is it she wants to change?

She is an ardent fiscal conservative/capitalist, does not seem to have and has no reason to have a "guilt" complex about her self-earned success. Nor does she seem to be a social liberal bent on "spreading the wealth". She is, in short, an enigma with an uncompromising hatred of George Bush for which, despite her Mensa mind and oratory skills, she is unable to articulate an explanation.

To paraphrase the Ricky Van Shelton song, "(Don"t) We all have the right to be wrong now and then?"

Doesn't mean anyone is "bad". We just have a different opinion of what is right... and wrong.

Isn't it possible that your daughter is fiscally conservative and socially liberal, a la Colin Powell?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: question for those who voted for Bush the last 2 electio

Postby Flumpy » Tue Oct 28, 2008 1:35 pm

Marlow wrote:
mump boy wrote: but when you include homosexuals and anyone who may support the right to choose in this category then that is a comletely different story


Who said anything about Christians vs. homosexuals? I consider myself Christian and dismiss homo-phobic right-wing nut-jobs as being very UnChristian. Christianity preaches love and tolerance, not hate and divisiveness. They may THINK they're Christians, but I assure you they do not represent any Christianity I understand, just as the radical Muslims who blow up themselves and their own countrymen do not accurately portray Islam.


Which is exactly what mump was saying in the first place!!!
Flumpy
 
Posts: 3899
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby tandfman » Tue Oct 28, 2008 1:48 pm

lonewolf wrote: George W. Bush. . . . has displeased me on many issues but he is not responsible for the current economic crisis and he is right on Iraq and the urgent, imperative moral obligation to resist international terrorism. I firmly believe history will absolve and honor him.

That remains to be seen, of course. I'm not sure whom to blame for the current economic crises, although I suspect there were things that the current administration could have and perhaps should have done that might have helped. As for the urgent and imperative moral obligation to resist international terrorism, I don't think Obama or anyone else would argue that there is no such obligation. I certainly wouldn't. But many thoughtful folks believe that W's policies were totally ineffective in that area and may, in fact, have unintentionally given comfort to those evil men who are trying to spread anti-American fanaticism and violence in the Islamic world.
tandfman
 
Posts: 15042
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Oct 28, 2008 2:20 pm

TrakFan wrote:
lonewolf wrote: he is right on Iraq and the urgent, imperative moral obligation to resist international terrorism. I firmly believe history will absolve and honor him.


Please explin why you feel he is/was right on Iraq

I'd like to see that explanation as well. The fact of the matter is that we invaded a country that didn't attack us, had no plans to attack us, was not an ally of Al Qaeda to rid it of weapons that it did not have. Terrorism is the price that nations must pay for colonialism, hegemonism and interventionism. If they don't want to pay the price, they must stop colonizing, hegemonizing and intervening.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby eldrick » Tue Oct 28, 2008 2:41 pm

this was unfinished business

W was just completing the job his father pathetically didn't do 12y before - namely oust that monster saddam

the world & his dog wanted saddam finished in '91 & why so much opprobrium that W did the job finally ?

as long as saddam ruled there woud be threats to kuwait/saudi - western allies

to oust saddam, you had to invade iraq - same as wouda been required in '91

you woud have had same iraqi anarchy situation 13y before as they did in '03 onwards
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby bad hammy » Tue Oct 28, 2008 2:41 pm

I'm with tandfman and jazzcyclist here. Our involvement in Iraq was instigated under a cloud of lies; caused many, many more problems for us than it has solved; has taken over 4,000 US lives plus all of the wounded, not to mention Iraqis; has served as recruitment tool and training ground for terrorists who were not there before we got there; and has done nothing to get to the terrorist who took down the twin towers. A complete fiasco, one that the Bush administration is 100% repsonsible for . . .
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby tandfman » Tue Oct 28, 2008 2:44 pm

eldrick wrote:this was unfinished business

W was just completing the job his father pathetically didn't do 12y before - namely oust that monster saddam

the world & his dog wanted saddam finished in '91 & why so much opprobrium that W did the job finally ?

Because a lot had changed in the intervening years. The fact that Saddam was a monster does not mean it made sense to oust him as we did and when we did.
tandfman
 
Posts: 15042
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby bad hammy » Tue Oct 28, 2008 2:49 pm

By 2003 we would have been better off letting Sadman die of natural causes or internal strife. No one is weeping for the guy, but it was not worth what we have put into it.
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby lonewolf » Tue Oct 28, 2008 2:55 pm

TrakFan wrote:
lonewolf wrote: he is right on Iraq and the urgent, imperative moral obligation to resist international terrorism. I firmly believe history will absolve and honor him.


Please explin why you feel he is/was right on Iraq


I'll try. Let me first offer a little insight into my "credentials." I am not Muslim or a Muslim apologist but, through convoluted circumstances, I have been closely associated for six years with the US and Canada expatriate Iranian community dedicated to ousting the Islamic theocracy in Iran. My primary contact, an Iranian Shia Muslim woman with extended family in Iraq, is well known in the movement, a recurring fixture on national network and cable TV and radio with secure telephone and direct satellite access to the Middle East. A political exile, she has sources in Iran from street people to moles inside the Iranian parliment and prisons. She has relatives working in Iran's nuclear industry and knows the background., culture and true temperament of the Middle East.

I do not want to paint the entire population or religion with one brush but the Middle East is a teeming hotbed of radical Islamic terrorists, festering for decades and periodically manifested in events such as the Iranian hostage crisis, Kobar towers, USS Cole, 9/11, etc. Albeit a tiny minority, they are a dangerous minority abetted, if not openly by the various governments, by sympathizers in the government.

. Obviously, the US cannot right all wrongs worldwide. It is difficult/impossible to isolate blame in one country but Sadam Hussein's number came up. In addition to being a brutal dictator terrorizing and exterminating his own people, he was praising and financially rewarding homicide/suicide bombers in Israel with bonuses. We know he had WMD because he used them. I do not know why or whether we did not find them after long delayed and interupted inspection. CW is they were moved to Syria.

Iraq was a training ground for terrorists, supported, then and now, by Iran, Syria and members of Saudi royalty, not known to be in the government but sponsors of worldwide madrassahs teaching hatred for the West. He had already shown his aggression by invading Kuwait and still coveted the Arabian peninsula oilfields.

Iraq's oil was/is not a factor in taking out Sadam, it was always available to US, but Iraq occupies a strategic position between Iran and the oil rich Gulf States, a massive concentration of the worlds oil reserves. However, should Sadam again invade Iran and Saudi, if unimpeded by US intervention, he would likely have prevailed and controlled an estimated 50% of the worlds known oil reserves.

I am not qualifed to evaluate whether the war was most efficiently prosecuted. Nor, do I think, is anyone. War does not follow a script. There are always Monday morning quarterbacks eager to find fault.

How is this our business? You have to look at the big picture. Iraq is just one battle ground in the very real worldwide war on radical Islamic terrorists.We could not continue to ignore it.

Thus spake lonewolf.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8814
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Re: question for those who voted for Bush the last 2 electio

Postby mump boy » Tue Oct 28, 2008 2:55 pm

Marlow wrote:
mump boy wrote: but when you include homosexuals and anyone who may support the right to choose in this category then that is a comletely different story


Who said anything about Christians vs. homosexuals? I consider myself Christian and dismiss homo-phobic right-wing nut-jobs as being very UnChristian. Christianity preaches love and tolerance, not hate and divisiveness. They may THINK they're Christians, but I assure you they do not represent any Christianity I understand, just as the radical Muslims who blow up themselves and their own countrymen do not accurately portray Islam.


you've just made my exact point !!!

it was your friend Mike67 who said

'Gay marriage? There is not and nor can there ever be any such thing.'

which i take to be homophic and along with his anti abortion rants that made me call him a hypocrite in the first place and to say that these kind of views where not christian to which i was called hypocritical !!!

now you're agreeing with me so my work here i done :D
mump boy
 
Posts: 5636
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: saaaaaarf london

Postby bad hammy » Tue Oct 28, 2008 3:23 pm

lonewolf wrote:. . . I have been closely associated for six years with the US and Canada expatriate Iranian community dedicated to ousting the Islamic theocracy in Iran.

Aha, so you are biased!! Seriously, that is a good explanation of your viewpoint. Of course, like any good Internet yahoo I will not let is sway me!
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby eldrick » Tue Oct 28, 2008 3:38 pm

tandfman wrote:
eldrick wrote:this was unfinished business

W was just completing the job his father pathetically didn't do 12y before - namely oust that monster saddam

the world & his dog wanted saddam finished in '91 & why so much opprobrium that W did the job finally ?

Because a lot had changed in the intervening years. The fact that Saddam was a monster does not mean it made sense to oust him as we did and when we did.


what had changed ?

he no longer was a threat to kuwait/saudi ?
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby kuha » Tue Oct 28, 2008 3:39 pm

Lonewolf is smart, successful, and an absolute gentleman. That doesn't mean I agree with his viewpoint, however.

There's little doubt in my mind that the Iraq adventure will be seen as an absolute fiasco. Ironically, it seems likely that it will be under the watch of the "tough" and "ultra-patriotic" Republicans that America turned, once and for all, from the world's most respected and powerful nation to something much less than that. Imperial power cannot be maintained forever. And imperial power coupled with arrogance and ignorance (which is precisely what we've witnessed in the current adminstration) is sure to come to a bad end. In hindsight, one truly catatrosphic result of the Iraq invasion was to uncap the religious furies of the region by removing a resolutely secular dictator. That country will now almost certainly end up allied to Iran. The intended consequences of this policy were highly debatable from the start. The unintended consequences could be pretty horrific. The Bush adminstration has been one of the very worst in the entire history of our nation.
kuha
 
Posts: 9019
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Postby eldrick » Tue Oct 28, 2008 3:42 pm

bad hammy wrote:By 2003 we would have been better off letting Sadman die of natural causes or internal strife. No one is weeping for the guy, but it was not worth what we have put into it.


let me give a professional opinion

he was strong as an ox !

if dying of natural causes meant him being in power for another 20y ( & killing countless more people ), then invade sooner than later !
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby bad hammy » Tue Oct 28, 2008 3:42 pm

kuha wrote:The intended consequences of this policy were highly debatable from the start. The unintended consequences could be pretty horrific. The Bush adminstration has been one of the very worst in the entire history of our nation.

Oh come on, man, don't hold back!
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: question for those who voted for Bush the last 2 electio

Postby Marlow » Tue Oct 28, 2008 3:42 pm

mump boy wrote:now you're agreeing with me so my work here i done :D


What do you mean by 'now'? That has always been my position. Nothing has changed.

Maike may disagree with me, but he sure can't say I'm not a Christian (well, as Christian as any of us can try to be).

No gay marriage? That is a semantic sleight of hand to say two homosexuals who say their vows are NOT married. Of course they are. Some may not 'recognize' that marriage, but that's their issue, including states that say it isn't (civil union, my Aunt Fanny - I know lots of heterosexual 'marriages' that aren't very civil!)
Marlow
 
Posts: 21102
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby SQUACKEE » Tue Oct 28, 2008 3:47 pm

I know someone who was in a cab with an exilled- Iraqie and he asked him if he liked George Bush and he responded," No, i dont like George Bush, i love him. My family was tortured." I am not making this up and it did happen, make of it what you will...and my God bless everyone :D . disclaimer-i am not a right wing nut job and dont play one on TV.

Is saving his family worth my only son risking his life in combat.....i dont know.
Last edited by SQUACKEE on Tue Oct 28, 2008 3:55 pm, edited 2 times in total.
SQUACKEE
 
Posts: 12885
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Heaven-In front of stereo listenin to re-mastered Beatles

Postby bad hammy » Tue Oct 28, 2008 3:49 pm

eldrick wrote:if dying of natural causes meant him being in power for another 20y ( & killing countless more people ), then invade sooner than later !

In 2003 he wasn't killing us or his neighbors. If you feel like going after every government which kills its own people then get your own PM to take the lead. You have a lot of work ahead of you . . .
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby kuha » Tue Oct 28, 2008 3:56 pm

bad hammy wrote:
kuha wrote:The intended consequences of this policy were highly debatable from the start. The unintended consequences could be pretty horrific. The Bush adminstration has been one of the very worst in the entire history of our nation.

Oh come on, man, don't hold back!


Believe it or not, I have.
kuha
 
Posts: 9019
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Oct 28, 2008 4:20 pm

Lonewolf, with all due respect, your narrative of the Iraq War is typical of an American nationalist. You talk as though the US has never done anything to give Arabs/Muslims a reason to feel animosity towards it. Surely you know that the US overthrew Iran's democratically elected government in 1953 in order to install a puppet dictator.

And everyone knows that the US was a major arms supplier for Saddam when he launched his unprovoked war against Iran in the 1980's. As a matter of fact, such was our duplicity, that at one time we were supplying Iran and Iraq at the same time.

And you probably know that we supplied Saddam with the chemical weapons that he used not only against Iran but also his own people. A little known fact is that when Saddam used chemical weapons against the Kurds, U.N. resolutions were proposed that would have brought condemnation and perhaps even sanctions against Iraq. These resolutions were widely supported by Europe, including the U.K., France and Germany, Saddam's neighbors, including Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, and most of the rest of the international community. But there was one, and only one, nation that opposed this resolution and which used its U.N. veto to block it. That nation was the United States of America whose sitting President was Ronald Reagan. I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how Saddam's atrocities against the Kurds did not even warrant a U.N. condemnation at the time they happened, but were used to justify an unprovoked, preemptive war 15 years after the fact.

And of course there is Israel, a nation that was created as a home for European Jews who had survived the Holocaust at the hands of Europeans, by usurping innocent Palestinians without compensation. For the last 60 years, the US has guaranteed Israel's military supremacy which has enabled it to keep it's boot on the neck of the Palestinians, but some Americans just can't understand why Arabs would hold this against us.

There's plenty more that I could point out about our treatment of Arabs/Muslims since WWII, but suffice it to say, if some other country did only a fraction of the things to us that we've done to them, I think it's fair to say that we would feel plenty of animosity towards them.
George Orwell wrote:All nationalists have the power of not seeing resemblances between similar sets of facts. Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage-torture, the use of hostages, forced labor, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery, assassination, the bombing of civilians-which does not change its moral color when committed by ‘our’ side.… The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.... A known fact may be so unbearable that it is habitually pushed aside and not allowed to enter into logical processes, or on the other hand it may enter into every calculation and yet never be admitted as a fact, even in one’s own mind.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby lonewolf » Tue Oct 28, 2008 8:29 pm

jazz, I don't consider myself a "nationalist" as in "my country, right or wrong." anymore than I am sure you do not consider ourself an anti-nationalist as the tenor of your condemnation of America suggests.

I am well aware of the facts and allegations you cite. I do not propose to do it but given time and a little research I am confident I can find examples of tit for tat " mistakes", if that is what they were, made by every administration.

World conditions change, enemies become allies and vice versa. I don't believe new mistakes should be made on the basis of old actions that may have subsequently caused second thoughts. That is armchair quarterbacking after the fact.

Smarter people than I have been debating the Palestine imbroligo without resolution for seventy years. One argument is that Jews occupied that area two thousand years before the concept of a Palestine. It is unfortunate the two societies have not been able to co-exist but IMO the onus for that lies on Yassar Arafat who made a career of stirring that pot until his death.

You and I, apparently, are not going to agree in our assessment of US historical treatment of Arabs/Muslims but I will not concede that anything we may have done warrants the current irrational, murderous actions of terrorists which are largely fueled, according to moderate Islamic scholars, by warped interpretation of the Koran.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8814
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Postby lonewolf » Tue Oct 28, 2008 8:51 pm

eldrick wrote:
lonewolf wrote:but he is not responsible for the current economic crisis


he is

his govt didn't provide enough regulatory control over these nonsense mortgage bonds allowing complete garbage to be passed off as AAA rated bonds which banks, etc snapped up


eldrick, in "the buck stops here" sense you can say Bush was responsible. However, the fact is there are three culpable entities responsible for the meltdown in the housing debacle.

First, a Democratic controlled Congress, ram-rodded by Senators Frank and Dodd, defeated Bush attemps at regulation and, as social pandering, forced lending institutions to make risky, subprime loans to unqualified people .

Second, greedy executives of the lending institutions who jumped on the chance to bundle, sell and resell the toxic mix of mortgages, taking their profits up front while wearing golden parachute contracts that ensured "obscene" payoffs when the bubble burst.

Third, the borrowers who took on debt they could not afford and had little or no prospect of ever being able to do so.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8814
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Postby lonewolf » Tue Oct 28, 2008 9:01 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:
lonewolf wrote:I don't know how anyone can ignore Obama's past and continued consort with domestic terrorists, felons and anti-American racists and his blatant denial of documented facts.

Who are the felons and racists that you are referring to and what facts has he denied? :?


Well, lets start with Rezco, Ayers and Wright and, please, don't bother to recite the standard rebuttal which does not wash.
As to denial of documented statements and facts, they are too many to recount off the top of my head. Sometimes there is so much chaff flying, I winnow out the impression and forget the details.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8814
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Postby Daisy » Tue Oct 28, 2008 9:18 pm

lonewolf wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:
lonewolf wrote:I don't know how anyone can ignore Obama's past and continued consort with domestic terrorists, felons and anti-American racists and his blatant denial of documented facts.

Who are the felons and racists that you are referring to and what facts has he denied? :?


Well, lets start with Rezco, Ayers and Wright and, please, don't bother to recite the standard rebuttal which does not wash.


As far as i can tell, the reason none of this appears to concern voters is that a quick look across the aisle reveals McCain's campaign to be full of a similar supporting cast (with the exception of Ayers). It all equals out in the wash.

As for Ayers, no one takes it seriously as it appears to be a non story.
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby lonewolf » Tue Oct 28, 2008 9:32 pm

Daisy wrote:As far as i can tell, the reason none of this appears to concern voters is that a quick look across the aisle reveals McCain's campaign to be full of a similar supporting cast (with the exception of Ayers). It all equals out in the wash.

As for Ayers, no one takes it seriously as it appears to be a non story.


Nope, Daisy, the MSM ignores it but some voters are concerned. I am not a McCain enthusiast but he is all I got and I am not aware of a Rezco or Jerimiah Wright among his entourage or advisors.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8814
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Postby Daisy » Tue Oct 28, 2008 9:46 pm

lonewolf wrote:
Daisy wrote:As far as i can tell, the reason none of this appears to concern voters is that a quick look across the aisle reveals McCain's campaign to be full of a similar supporting cast (with the exception of Ayers). It all equals out in the wash.

As for Ayers, no one takes it seriously as it appears to be a non story.


Nope, Daisy, the MSM ignores it but some voters are concerned. I am not a McCain enthusiast but he is all I got and I am not aware of a Rezco or Jerimiah Wright among his entourage or advisors.


I thought McCain belatedly severed ties with the hate filled preacher he embraced?

As for Rezco types, no independent will seriously believe this is not widespread among the republicans. Even Jim Ryun had a house bought for him under shady circumstances. That mud will never stick.

The Obama/Ayers interaction was about improving education right? There is nothing to believe there is anything else. You may well be right that those on the right are worried. But is that relevant, McCain has to bring his arguments to the independents. Are they worried?
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby eldrick » Tue Oct 28, 2008 11:41 pm

bad hammy wrote:
eldrick wrote:if dying of natural causes meant him being in power for another 20y ( & killing countless more people ), then invade sooner than later !

In 2003 he wasn't killing us or his neighbors. If you feel like going after every government which kills its own people then get your own PM to take the lead. You have a lot of work ahead of you . . .


so you are of the belief that a despot who invaded a neighbouring country & may have gone on to invade another one after, both allies of the west, shoudn't be removed from power by military means, just because of the passage of time ?!

mere passage of time absolves a criminal from punishment ?!
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby eldrick » Tue Oct 28, 2008 11:49 pm

lonewolf wrote:
eldrick wrote:
lonewolf wrote:but he is not responsible for the current economic crisis


he is

his govt didn't provide enough regulatory control over these nonsense mortgage bonds allowing complete garbage to be passed off as AAA rated bonds which banks, etc snapped up


eldrick, in "the buck stops here" sense you can say Bush was responsible. However, the fact is there are three culpable entities responsible for the meltdown in the housing debacle.

First, a Democratic controlled Congress, ram-rodded by Senators Frank and Dodd, defeated Bush attemps at regulation and, as social pandering, forced lending institutions to make risky, subprime loans to unqualified people .


i have no recollection of a democratic senate opposing fnancial regulation

perhaps you can provide the example of the bill concerned ?

as far as i'm aware democrats tend to be more regulatory when it comes to finance rather than less & have hard time believing they vetoed such a bill
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby eldrick » Tue Oct 28, 2008 11:58 pm

lonewolf wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:
lonewolf wrote:I don't know how anyone can ignore Obama's past and continued consort with domestic terrorists, felons and anti-American racists and his blatant denial of documented facts.

Who are the felons and racists that you are referring to and what facts has he denied? :?


Well, lets start with Rezco, Ayers and Wright and, please, don't bother to recite the standard rebuttal which does not wash.
As to denial of documented statements and facts, they are too many to recount off the top of my head. Sometimes there is so much chaff flying, I winnow out the impression and forget the details.


you are grasping at straws

- rezco : has obama been charged with any wrong-doing ?

if no, then end of story

- ayers : presumably a rehabilitated terrorist as he got a respectable local govt job some years later - obama had to work with him

what was obama supposed to do ?

storm out the room shouting "i'm not working with a terrorist !" whilst everyone else on the committee were working with ayers ?

preacher - is obama responsible for someone else's views ?

he attended the church whilst the preacher stuck to the christian text, but when he veered off into racist, inflammatory preaching, obama denounced him & left that church

bad preacher - obama leaves

what more did you expect him to do ?
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby SQUACKEE » Wed Oct 29, 2008 2:19 am

he attended the church whilst the preacher stuck to the christian text, but when he veered off into racist, inflammatory preaching, obama denounced him & left that church

Eldy the truth is Wright said "God damn America" and other things after 9/11and Obama stayed for another 7 years.A few months before Obama left he said he would never leave. Either Obama is an idiot and had no idea how radical Wright was or he did know and decided to stay. I believe the later.

P.S. i hope my post follows my rule, first give the facts, then give your opinion. :D
SQUACKEE
 
Posts: 12885
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Heaven-In front of stereo listenin to re-mastered Beatles

Postby Marlow » Wed Oct 29, 2008 3:42 am

SQUACKEE wrote:Either Obama is an idiot and had no idea how radical Wright was or he did know and decided to stay. I believe the later.


'Loyalty' is an odd thing. It can compel one to remain friends with someone long after we should have seen the bad coming. I've done that a couple times now and I hope I'm learning my lesson, but I also hope I am not adjudged guilty by association.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21102
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby bad hammy » Wed Oct 29, 2008 3:52 am

lonewolf wrote:First, a Democratic controlled Congress, ram-rodded by Senators Frank and Dodd, defeated Bush attemps at regulation and, as social pandering, forced lending institutions to make risky, subprime loans to unqualified people .

Please try again. The Dems had control of Congress for the last two years. This crisis was brewing long before that.


lonewolf wrote:
Daisy wrote:As far as i can tell, the reason none of this appears to concern voters is that a quick look across the aisle reveals McCain's campaign to be full of a similar supporting cast (with the exception of Ayers). It all equals out in the wash.

As for Ayers, no one takes it seriously as it appears to be a non story.


Nope, Daisy, the MSM ignores it but some voters are concerned.

You are right, the MSM is ignoring things that we should be concerned about. If we should be concerned about the extremely tenuous connection between Obama and Ayers, then we should be concerned about the connection between McCain and the head of his transition team, William Timmons, who actively lobbied to ease international sanctions on behalf of our old friend Saddam Hussein between 1992 and 1997, in hopes of securing a $45 million oil deal.
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Oct 29, 2008 5:08 am

lonewolf wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:
lonewolf wrote:I don't know how anyone can ignore Obama's past and continued consort with domestic terrorists, felons and anti-American racists and his blatant denial of documented facts.

Who are the felons and racists that you are referring to and what facts has he denied? :?


Well, lets start with Rezco, Ayers and Wright and, please, don't bother to recite the standard rebuttal which does not wash.

Neither Ayers or Wright are felons and Obama severed his relationship with Rezko long before he became one. And none of these three men have made any racist statements that I know of, though Ayers and Wright have definitely made anti-American statements.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Flumpy » Wed Oct 29, 2008 5:23 am

tandfman wrote:But many thoughtful folks believe that W's policies were totally ineffective in that area and may, in fact, have unintentionally given comfort to those evil men who are trying to spread anti-American fanaticism and violence in the Islamic world.


He's done their job for them. The war in Iraq was the best recruitment ad for Al Quaida imaginable. Because there was no evidence at all that any terrorism attacks on the West had anything to do with Saddam Hussein (Probably because they didn't) it looks very much to Muslims around the world that the US was just waging a war against them simply because of their religion.

The Iraqi war has nothing to do with terrorism or 'freedom' and it mystifies me why anyone would still think that it does.
Flumpy
 
Posts: 3899
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Oct 29, 2008 5:24 am

lonewolf wrote:It is unfortunate the two societies have not been able to co-exist but IMO the onus for that lies on Yassar Arafat who made a career of stirring that pot until his death.

You and I, apparently, are not going to agree in our assessment of US historical treatment of Arabs/Muslims but I will not concede that anything we may have done warrants the current irrational, murderous actions of terrorists which are largely fueled, according to moderate Islamic scholars, by warped interpretation of the Koran.

Lonewolf, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree since I definitely don't put all of the blame on Arafat, though he is far from innocent in all of this. But it was Benjamin Netanyahu who deliberately incited the extremist elements among Israel's setters before Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated, and today many Israelis, including Rabin's family and Ehud Barak hold him responsible. And it was Netanyahu who took a wrecking ball to the Oslo peace process once he became Prime Minister.

As for our overall treatment of Arabs/Muslims, I guess your views are similar to the views of all the Republicans candidates for President except Ron Paul, who seemed to be the only one who believed in what the CIA calls "blowback".
Last edited by jazzcyclist on Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Pego » Wed Oct 29, 2008 7:52 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
lonewolf wrote:It is unfortunate the two societies have not been able to co-exist but IMO the onus for that lies on Yassar Arafat who made a career of stirring that pot until his death.

You and I, apparently, are not going to agree in our assessment of US historical treatment of Arabs/Muslims but I will not concede that anything we may have done warrants the current irrational, murderous actions of terrorists which are largely fueled, according to moderate Islamic scholars, by warped interpretation of the Koran.

Lonewolf, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree since I definitely don't put all of the blame on Arafat, though his is far from innocent in all of this. But it was Benjamin Netanyahu who deliberately incited the extremist elements among Israel's setters before Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated, and today many Israelis, including Rabin's family and Ehud Barak hold him responsible. And it was Netanyahu who took a wrecking ball to the Oslo peace process once he became Prime Minister.

As for our overall treatment of Arabs/Muslims, I guess your views are similar to the views of all the Republicans candidates for President except Ron Paul, who seemed to be the only one who believed in what the CIA calls "blowback".


Pandering of the originally through-and-through secular and pragmatic Netanyahu to the religious right has never ceased to mystify me.
Pego
 
Posts: 10199
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest