*** Official Barack Obama FBG campaign headquarters *** (2 Viewers)

[Mookie Blaylock]

Mookie, i seem to be having some trouble reading your posts. Could you try FFToday and see if you experience issues over there too?

Young man, have you finished your paper?

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Because I follow the news. Obama's foreign policy adviser has articulated Obama's position on this point. While he is willing to talk with heads of state even if those states are hostile to us, he would not sit down and talk with terrorist organizations, which would include al Quaida.

I am curious to know what these talks would be like. Has there been any discussion as to what direction he wants to go with regard to "negotiating" with these hostile factions? Does he feel negotiations are imenent? necessary? I get the impression his policy is so domestically selective that his foreign policy gets hidden or forgotten completely.

Go to page 1, post 1 of this thread and click on the "Foreign Policy" link...it'll tell you what you want to know.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I sense an air about Obama supporters that is nothing but pure hatred for anyone that doesn't respond to him as they do. And when the talk turns to criticsm of him and his lack of experience, his lack of a platform (that every politician suffers from at this level) and his stance on any number of issues, the critics are the "old boy network" or "racist" or "fearful of change" blah blah blah. I wou;dn't vote for him anyway, so I don't care, but the exercise is interesting to me.

I haven't met a single Obama supporter that fits that description. There probably are some, but most are not.Let it never be forgotten who fired the first salvo in the race debate.HINT: It wasn't Obama.

I haven't either, though I'm sure they're out there, just like they are with any national political figure. And criticisms of his policy positions are usually met with information concerning his policies.Look Yankee, if you don't think he's experienced enough, and you don't like the idea of universal healthcare, and you don't want to pull out of Iraq, then that's perfectly fine. Obama's not your guy. But don't act like you're being persecuted when people disagree with you. And if you do propogate false memes about him, which have been debunked ad nauseum here and elsewhere, then you should be prepared to take some heat.*I* don't like everything about the guy. But I think he's the best of the three candidates, and so I'm voting for him and supporting him with a donation or two. Is it safe for me to say that without being labeled a cultist?And Hillary's tactics are completely and totally disgusting. It's unbelievably disappointing that a mainstream Democratic candidate, with a long history of progressive social ideas, would stoop to the kind of things she's stooped to. I will be voting for McCain if she steals the nomination.

I really don't think I've ever defended Hillary in a serious manner, have I? God I hope not.

 

[Mark Davis]

This is an honest question so be nice.There are many more Republican senators being voted on this year than Democrat. Also, the enviroment is ripe for a large Democrat pick up in the House. As a result, I believe the Democrats will have a filabuster proof congress. My fear is that Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid with go on a tax and spend fest. There will be nothing stopping them. Will there be any restraints of fiscal matters?

I don't think the Democrats are going to making many gains in congress this year. This presidential race is going to disenfranchise one group or another and it's going to kill the Dems in November. That's my prediction anyway.

I actually think the Democrats will make significant gains here due to the sheer number of retirements of Republican congressman. When you look at the Senate particularly, the only seat that the Republicans actually have a shot of gaining would be that of Mary Ladrieu in Louisiana. It looks like NH and VA are Democratic Senate pickups at the very least right now.

 

[bigbottom]

Because I follow the news. Obama's foreign policy adviser has articulated Obama's position on this point. While he is willing to talk with heads of state even if those states are hostile to us, he would not sit down and talk with terrorist organizations, which would include al Quaida.

I am curious to know what these talks would be like. Has there been any discussion as to what direction he wants to go with regard to "negotiating" with these hostile factions? Does he feel negotiations are imenent? necessary? I get the impression his policy is so domestically selective that his foreign policy gets hidden or forgotten completely.

He's discussed this issue at length in the last couple of debates. I'm sure you can find them on YouTube or the websites for the debate sponsors.

 

[malice]

It's amazing to me how similar obama supporters are to patriots fans. I just hope the end result is the same. Good luck scallywags - you're gonna need it.

Hillary won that region.

 

[Mookie Blaylock]

Because I follow the news. Obama's foreign policy adviser has articulated Obama's position on this point. While he is willing to talk with heads of state even if those states are hostile to us, he would not sit down and talk with terrorist organizations, which would include al Quaida.

I am curious to know what these talks would be like. Has there been any discussion as to what direction he wants to go with regard to "negotiating" with these hostile factions? Does he feel negotiations are imenent? necessary? I get the impression his policy is so domestically selective that his foreign policy gets hidden or forgotten completely.

He's discussed this issue at length in the last couple of debates. I'm sure you can find them on YouTube or the websites for the debate sponsors.

But you don't know off the top of your head, right?

 

[Mookie Blaylock]

It's amazing to me how similar obama supporters are to patriots fans. I just hope the end result is the same. Good luck scallywags - you're gonna need it.

Hillary won that region.

I didn't say they were one in the same, just similar.

 

[malice]

Developing story on CNN's site: "Geraldine Ferraro is leaving the Hillary Clinton campaign in the wake of a controversy regarding her remarks about Barack Obama."

Guess this means she denounces her comments after all.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Because I follow the news. Obama's foreign policy adviser has articulated Obama's position on this point. While he is willing to talk with heads of state even if those states are hostile to us, he would not sit down and talk with terrorist organizations, which would include al Quaida.

I am curious to know what these talks would be like. Has there been any discussion as to what direction he wants to go with regard to "negotiating" with these hostile factions? Does he feel negotiations are imenent? necessary? I get the impression his policy is so domestically selective that his foreign policy gets hidden or forgotten completely.

He's discussed this issue at length in the last couple of debates. I'm sure you can find them on YouTube or the websites for the debate sponsors.

But you don't know off the top of your head, right?

Or maybe he (or I) don't feel like typing it out for the 100th time.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Developing story on CNN's site: "Geraldine Ferraro is leaving the Hillary Clinton campaign in the wake of a controversy regarding her remarks about Barack Obama."Guess this means she denounces her comments after all.

And the victim card will be played again. And again. And again.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

I sense an air about Obama supporters that is nothing but pure hatred for anyone that doesn't respond to him as they do. And when the talk turns to criticsm of him and his lack of experience, his lack of a platform (that every politician suffers from at this level) and his stance on any number of issues, the critics are the "old boy network" or "racist" or "fearful of change" blah blah blah. I wou;dn't vote for him anyway, so I don't care, but the exercise is interesting to me.

I haven't met a single Obama supporter that fits that description. There probably are some, but most are not.Let it never be forgotten who fired the first salvo in the race debate.HINT: It wasn't Obama.

I haven't either, though I'm sure they're out there, just like they are with any national political figure. And criticisms of his policy positions are usually met with information concerning his policies.Look Yankee, if you don't think he's experienced enough, and you don't like the idea of universal healthcare, and you don't want to pull out of Iraq, then that's perfectly fine. Obama's not your guy. But don't act like you're being persecuted when people disagree with you. And if you do propogate false memes about him, which have been debunked ad nauseum here and elsewhere, then you should be prepared to take some heat.*I* don't like everything about the guy. But I think he's the best of the three candidates, and so I'm voting for him and supporting him with a donation or two. Is it safe for me to say that without being labeled a cultist?And Hillary's tactics are completely and totally disgusting. It's unbelievably disappointing that a mainstream Democratic candidate, with a long history of progressive social ideas, would stoop to the kind of things she's stooped to. I will be voting for McCain if she steals the nomination.

I really don't think I've ever defended Hillary in a serious manner, have I? God I hope not.

lol...I think he was addressing your mention of the apparent "air about Obama supporters that is nothing but pure hatred".When it comes to Clinton lately, I think there might be some truth there.

 

[Mookie Blaylock]

Because I follow the news. Obama's foreign policy adviser has articulated Obama's position on this point. While he is willing to talk with heads of state even if those states are hostile to us, he would not sit down and talk with terrorist organizations, which would include al Quaida.

I am curious to know what these talks would be like. Has there been any discussion as to what direction he wants to go with regard to "negotiating" with these hostile factions? Does he feel negotiations are imenent? necessary? I get the impression his policy is so domestically selective that his foreign policy gets hidden or forgotten completely.

He's discussed this issue at length in the last couple of debates. I'm sure you can find them on YouTube or the websites for the debate sponsors.

But you don't know off the top of your head, right?

Or maybe he (or I) don't feel like typing it out for the 100th time.

So you really don't want to inform, what you want to do is be correct. So when someone challenges you cite all these statistics and terms and the like, but when they ask a question you tell them to go read about it. I get it.

 

[shining path]

I sense an air about Obama supporters that is nothing but pure hatred for anyone that doesn't respond to him as they do. And when the talk turns to criticsm of him and his lack of experience, his lack of a platform (that every politician suffers from at this level) and his stance on any number of issues, the critics are the "old boy network" or "racist" or "fearful of change" blah blah blah. I wou;dn't vote for him anyway, so I don't care, but the exercise is interesting to me.

I haven't met a single Obama supporter that fits that description. There probably are some, but most are not.Let it never be forgotten who fired the first salvo in the race debate.HINT: It wasn't Obama.

I haven't either, though I'm sure they're out there, just like they are with any national political figure. And criticisms of his policy positions are usually met with information concerning his policies.Look Yankee, if you don't think he's experienced enough, and you don't like the idea of universal healthcare, and you don't want to pull out of Iraq, then that's perfectly fine. Obama's not your guy. But don't act like you're being persecuted when people disagree with you. And if you do propogate false memes about him, which have been debunked ad nauseum here and elsewhere, then you should be prepared to take some heat.*I* don't like everything about the guy. But I think he's the best of the three candidates, and so I'm voting for him and supporting him with a donation or two. Is it safe for me to say that without being labeled a cultist?And Hillary's tactics are completely and totally disgusting. It's unbelievably disappointing that a mainstream Democratic candidate, with a long history of progressive social ideas, would stoop to the kind of things she's stooped to. I will be voting for McCain if she steals the nomination.

I really don't think I've ever defended Hillary in a serious manner, have I? God I hope not.

Oh no, that part I just threw on there at the end. Didn't really follow from the previous paras. Sorry.

 

[adonis]

Because I follow the news. Obama's foreign policy adviser has articulated Obama's position on this point. While he is willing to talk with heads of state even if those states are hostile to us, he would not sit down and talk with terrorist organizations, which would include al Quaida.

I am curious to know what these talks would be like. Has there been any discussion as to what direction he wants to go with regard to "negotiating" with these hostile factions? Does he feel negotiations are imenent? necessary? I get the impression his policy is so domestically selective that his foreign policy gets hidden or forgotten completely.

He's discussed this issue at length in the last couple of debates. I'm sure you can find them on YouTube or the websites for the debate sponsors.

But you don't know off the top of your head, right?

Or maybe he (or I) don't feel like typing it out for the 100th time.

So you really don't want to inform, what you want to do is be correct. So when someone challenges you cite all these statistics and terms and the like, but when they ask a question you tell them to go read about it. I get it.

What more do you want to know other than that Rice, one of his advisors, said that it would never be his policy to negotiate with terrorist organizations? If you want more information than an answer to the question, you might indeed have to go read more about it, but if you're content just having the question answered, then those given, by at least 3 different people already, should suffice.

 

[Mookie Blaylock]

Because I follow the news. Obama's foreign policy adviser has articulated Obama's position on this point. While he is willing to talk with heads of state even if those states are hostile to us, he would not sit down and talk with terrorist organizations, which would include al Quaida.

I am curious to know what these talks would be like. Has there been any discussion as to what direction he wants to go with regard to "negotiating" with these hostile factions? Does he feel negotiations are imenent? necessary? I get the impression his policy is so domestically selective that his foreign policy gets hidden or forgotten completely.

He's discussed this issue at length in the last couple of debates. I'm sure you can find them on YouTube or the websites for the debate sponsors.

But you don't know off the top of your head, right?

Or maybe he (or I) don't feel like typing it out for the 100th time.

So you really don't want to inform, what you want to do is be correct. So when someone challenges you cite all these statistics and terms and the like, but when they ask a question you tell them to go read about it. I get it.

What more do you want to know other than that Rice, one of his advisors, said that it would never be his policy to negotiate with terrorist organizations? If you want more information than an answer to the question, you might indeed have to go read more about it, but if you're content just having the question answered, then those given, by at least 3 different people already, should suffice.

I am curious to know what these talks would be like. Has there been any discussion as to what direction he wants to go with regard to "negotiating" with these hostile factions? Does he feel negotiations are imenent? necessary? I get the impression his policy is so domestically selective that his foreign policy gets hidden or forgotten completely.

 

[BuddyKnuckles]

Whats that Mookie? Your posts all still look the same to me...just one line, in bold font, with a couple links below it. You should probably just try a different internet

 

[Jeremy]

Developing story on CNN's site: "Geraldine Ferraro is leaving the Hillary Clinton campaign in the wake of a controversy regarding her remarks about Barack Obama."Guess this means she denounces her comments after all.

And the victim card will be played again. And again. And again.

Mission accomplished for Hillary. She got the race issue out there and still gets to look good for letting her go. Nice little game of good cop/bad cop they had going there.

 

[adonis]

I am curious to know what these talks would be like. Has there been any discussion as to what direction he wants to go with regard to "negotiating" with these hostile factions? Does he feel negotiations are imenent? necessary? I get the impression his policy is so domestically selective that his foreign policy gets hidden or forgotten completely.

His foreign policy gets a lot of attention. 1) Iraq war 2) War on terror and implications of places like Pakistan harboring terrorists and not doing anything about them 3) Opening dialogue with countries we don't like 4) Nuclear disarmament 5) Greater interest in using the UN for worldwide problemsAgain, go to the first page of this thread, check the links under the foreign policy section, take a gander at his blueprint. He's gotten fair amount of play on the foreign policy area. And believe that if he makes it to the general, foreign policy will be a huge issue.

 

[Mookie Blaylock]

I am curious to know what these talks would be like. Has there been any discussion as to what direction he wants to go with regard to "negotiating" with these hostile factions? Does he feel negotiations are imenent? necessary? I get the impression his policy is so domestically selective that his foreign policy gets hidden or forgotten completely.

His foreign policy gets a lot of attention. 1) Iraq war 2) War on terror and implications of places like Pakistan harboring terrorists and not doing anything about them 3) Opening dialogue with countries we don't like 4) Nuclear disarmament 5) Greater interest in using the UN for worldwide problemsAgain, go to the first page of this thread, check the links under the foreign policy section, take a gander at his blueprint. He's gotten fair amount of play on the foreign policy area. And believe that if he makes it to the general, foreign policy will be a huge issue.

Do you believe we need a military presence in the ME?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

I am curious to know what these talks would be like. Has there been any discussion as to what direction he wants to go with regard to "negotiating" with these hostile factions? Does he feel negotiations are imenent? necessary? I get the impression his policy is so domestically selective that his foreign policy gets hidden or forgotten completely.

His foreign policy gets a lot of attention. 1) Iraq war 2) War on terror and implications of places like Pakistan harboring terrorists and not doing anything about them 3) Opening dialogue with countries we don't like 4) Nuclear disarmament 5) Greater interest in using the UN for worldwide problemsAgain, go to the first page of this thread, check the links under the foreign policy section, take a gander at his blueprint. He's gotten fair amount of play on the foreign policy area. And believe that if he makes it to the general, foreign policy will be a huge issue.

Do you believe we need a military presence in the ME?

And furthermore adonis, if and when you answer this, make sure you put in comparison to what we currently have in the middle east. Proper context.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

I am curious to know what these talks would be like. Has there been any discussion as to what direction he wants to go with regard to "negotiating" with these hostile factions? Does he feel negotiations are imenent? necessary? I get the impression his policy is so domestically selective that his foreign policy gets hidden or forgotten completely.

His foreign policy gets a lot of attention. 1) Iraq war 2) War on terror and implications of places like Pakistan harboring terrorists and not doing anything about them 3) Opening dialogue with countries we don't like 4) Nuclear disarmament 5) Greater interest in using the UN for worldwide problemsAgain, go to the first page of this thread, check the links under the foreign policy section, take a gander at his blueprint. He's gotten fair amount of play on the foreign policy area. And believe that if he makes it to the general, foreign policy will be a huge issue.

Do you believe we need a military presence in the ME?

How about one NEAR the Middle East?

 

[BuddyKnuckles]

For the current instigators and general Obama opponents:

Is our current ME strategy working? Do you see unilateral applications of force as achieving the goal of sustainable peace with ME nations? Do you feel that the cold war would have been resolved through these means?

 

[bigbottom]

Because I follow the news. Obama's foreign policy adviser has articulated Obama's position on this point. While he is willing to talk with heads of state even if those states are hostile to us, he would not sit down and talk with terrorist organizations, which would include al Quaida.

I am curious to know what these talks would be like. Has there been any discussion as to what direction he wants to go with regard to "negotiating" with these hostile factions? Does he feel negotiations are imenent? necessary? I get the impression his policy is so domestically selective that his foreign policy gets hidden or forgotten completely.

He's discussed this issue at length in the last couple of debates. I'm sure you can find them on YouTube or the websites for the debate sponsors.

But you don't know off the top of your head, right?

I can paraphrase what he said from the last two debates I saw, but that seems like a lot of work for me when you can just go check out Obama's response for yourself. In particular, he discussed how he would approach discussions with Cuba, how while there would be no firm preconditions, there would be preparation and an agenda, and that the topics to be discussed would have to include issues regarding civil rights, human rights, etc.

 

[adonis]

I am curious to know what these talks would be like. Has there been any discussion as to what direction he wants to go with regard to "negotiating" with these hostile factions? Does he feel negotiations are imenent? necessary? I get the impression his policy is so domestically selective that his foreign policy gets hidden or forgotten completely.

His foreign policy gets a lot of attention. 1) Iraq war 2) War on terror and implications of places like Pakistan harboring terrorists and not doing anything about them 3) Opening dialogue with countries we don't like 4) Nuclear disarmament 5) Greater interest in using the UN for worldwide problemsAgain, go to the first page of this thread, check the links under the foreign policy section, take a gander at his blueprint. He's gotten fair amount of play on the foreign policy area. And believe that if he makes it to the general, foreign policy will be a huge issue.

Do you believe we need a military presence in the ME?

And furthermore adonis, if and when you answer this, make sure you put in comparison to what we currently have in the middle east. Proper context.

I'm not sure I can answer this part very well, and I'm not speaking for what I believe obama's positions are here, just my own:I absolutely think we need a presence in the ME. Permanent bases, no. But we should be fighting terrorism, helping root out terrorists in afghanistan and the borders of pakistan. We need to help train the Iraqi military and protect our people over there.I also believe that while currently we need to have troops there, we should not set up bases, or appear to be setting up shop there permanently. We should be very focused on terrorism, and not on occupying, or even appearing to occupy the region. That's part of the problem we face in the arab world.I realize we have a lot of interest in that region with respect to their oil. This is why doing things in tandem is so important, imo. We need to HEAVILY invest in alternatives to oil, to reduce our dependency on that region and on OPEC. We need to do this while drawing back our combat forces in Iraq and focusing on the true war on terror which is weeding out terrorists wherever they are, whether they're in pakistan, Afghanistan, or iraq, or elsewhere. More troop mobility leaves us better prepared to fight terrorists, and better able to respond to conflicts in the world if they arise.At the same time we should strengthen our border security through immigration reform and increased screening at the borders. And as we're drawing down our presence, finding alternatives to oil for energy, securing our borders, modernizing our military, we should also be aggressively pursuing a solution to the palestinian/israeli conflict.

 

[Mookie Blaylock]

For the current instigators and general Obama opponents:

Is our current ME strategy working?

I'd really have to know what you meant by working. Ok, just kidding - no.

Do you see unilateral applications of force as achieving the goal of sustainable peace with ME nations?

No. But that doesn't mean I think we should leave. At least not for a while.

Do you feel that the cold war would have been resolved through these means?

No.

 

[bigbottom]

Because I follow the news. Obama's foreign policy adviser has articulated Obama's position on this point. While he is willing to talk with heads of state even if those states are hostile to us, he would not sit down and talk with terrorist organizations, which would include al Quaida.

I am curious to know what these talks would be like. Has there been any discussion as to what direction he wants to go with regard to "negotiating" with these hostile factions? Does he feel negotiations are imenent? necessary? I get the impression his policy is so domestically selective that his foreign policy gets hidden or forgotten completely.

He's discussed this issue at length in the last couple of debates. I'm sure you can find them on YouTube or the websites for the debate sponsors.

But you don't know off the top of your head, right?

Or maybe he (or I) don't feel like typing it out for the 100th time.

So you really don't want to inform, what you want to do is be correct. So when someone challenges you cite all these statistics and terms and the like, but when they ask a question you tell them to go read about it. I get it.

I can't speak for Homer, but I'm not here to inform. I don't mind engaging in a discussion, and providing explanations or a link, but for me to answer your question by drafting for you Obama's policy on diplomatic relations with hostile nation-states seems like an awful lot of work, particularly for someone who has been indirectly insulting me for the last several pages of this thread. You were challenging the assertions regarding Obama's financial contributors so I went out and found a source with a lot of information on that front and provided that link for you. You ignored it. So, honestly, I'm having a hard time believing that you have any sincere interest in becoming informed on Obama's policies. But I gave you the benefit of the doubt anyway and suggested a source for you to hear Obama himself articulate his policy on your question. That you responded with a smart comment rather than looking further into the issue yourself makes me glad that I didn't waste my time typing out a lengthy response to your question.

 

[snitwitch]

Hillary hemorrhaging pledged delegates..... in California!?!?!?!?

linky

 

[Mookie Blaylock]

I am curious to know what these talks would be like. Has there been any discussion as to what direction he wants to go with regard to "negotiating" with these hostile factions? Does he feel negotiations are imenent? necessary? I get the impression his policy is so domestically selective that his foreign policy gets hidden or forgotten completely.

His foreign policy gets a lot of attention. 1) Iraq war 2) War on terror and implications of places like Pakistan harboring terrorists and not doing anything about them 3) Opening dialogue with countries we don't like 4) Nuclear disarmament 5) Greater interest in using the UN for worldwide problemsAgain, go to the first page of this thread, check the links under the foreign policy section, take a gander at his blueprint. He's gotten fair amount of play on the foreign policy area. And believe that if he makes it to the general, foreign policy will be a huge issue.

Do you believe we need a military presence in the ME?

And furthermore adonis, if and when you answer this, make sure you put in comparison to what we currently have in the middle east. Proper context.

I'm not sure I can answer this part very well, and I'm not speaking for what I believe obama's positions are here, just my own:I absolutely think we need a presence in the ME. Permanent bases, no. But we should be fighting terrorism, helping root out terrorists in afghanistan and the borders of pakistan. We need to help train the Iraqi military and protect our people over there.I also believe that while currently we need to have troops there, we should not set up bases, or appear to be setting up shop there permanently. We should be very focused on terrorism, and not on occupying, or even appearing to occupy the region. That's part of the problem we face in the arab world.I realize we have a lot of interest in that region with respect to their oil. This is why doing things in tandem is so important, imo. We need to HEAVILY invest in alternatives to oil, to reduce our dependency on that region and on OPEC. We need to do this while drawing back our combat forces in Iraq and focusing on the true war on terror which is weeding out terrorists wherever they are, whether they're in pakistan, Afghanistan, or iraq, or elsewhere. More troop mobility leaves us better prepared to fight terrorists, and better able to respond to conflicts in the world if they arise.At the same time we should strengthen our border security through immigration reform and increased screening at the borders. And as we're drawing down our presence, finding alternatives to oil for energy, securing our borders, modernizing our military, we should also be aggressively pursuing a solution to the palestinian/israeli conflict.

Do you think any of the rehabilitation currently underway and planned for the future would have been possible had we never gone to war? Because I believe this is the way many obama supporters think. I believe that much of what the US did in or near the ME was necessary. Not all of it, but certainly a lot of it. My biggest concern with Obama is this notion that we can go back to the way it was before 9/11. I am not saying anyone here has said this, but I have heard it from the supporters I have spoken with in person. As for your answer to my question - and you may not like this - but I steadfastly agree with you on all accounts. I just hope your guy feels the same way you do.

 

[adonis]

I am curious to know what these talks would be like. Has there been any discussion as to what direction he wants to go with regard to "negotiating" with these hostile factions? Does he feel negotiations are imenent? necessary? I get the impression his policy is so domestically selective that his foreign policy gets hidden or forgotten completely.

His foreign policy gets a lot of attention. 1) Iraq war 2) War on terror and implications of places like Pakistan harboring terrorists and not doing anything about them 3) Opening dialogue with countries we don't like 4) Nuclear disarmament 5) Greater interest in using the UN for worldwide problemsAgain, go to the first page of this thread, check the links under the foreign policy section, take a gander at his blueprint. He's gotten fair amount of play on the foreign policy area. And believe that if he makes it to the general, foreign policy will be a huge issue.

Do you believe we need a military presence in the ME?

And furthermore adonis, if and when you answer this, make sure you put in comparison to what we currently have in the middle east. Proper context.

I'm not sure I can answer this part very well, and I'm not speaking for what I believe obama's positions are here, just my own:I absolutely think we need a presence in the ME. Permanent bases, no. But we should be fighting terrorism, helping root out terrorists in afghanistan and the borders of pakistan. We need to help train the Iraqi military and protect our people over there.I also believe that while currently we need to have troops there, we should not set up bases, or appear to be setting up shop there permanently. We should be very focused on terrorism, and not on occupying, or even appearing to occupy the region. That's part of the problem we face in the arab world.I realize we have a lot of interest in that region with respect to their oil. This is why doing things in tandem is so important, imo. We need to HEAVILY invest in alternatives to oil, to reduce our dependency on that region and on OPEC. We need to do this while drawing back our combat forces in Iraq and focusing on the true war on terror which is weeding out terrorists wherever they are, whether they're in pakistan, Afghanistan, or iraq, or elsewhere. More troop mobility leaves us better prepared to fight terrorists, and better able to respond to conflicts in the world if they arise.At the same time we should strengthen our border security through immigration reform and increased screening at the borders. And as we're drawing down our presence, finding alternatives to oil for energy, securing our borders, modernizing our military, we should also be aggressively pursuing a solution to the palestinian/israeli conflict.

Do you think any of the rehabilitation currently underway and planned for the future would have been possible had we never gone to war? Because I believe this is the way many obama supporters think. I believe that much of what the US did in or near the ME was necessary. Not all of it, but certainly a lot of it. My biggest concern with Obama is this notion that we can go back to the way it was before 9/11. I am not saying anyone here has said this, but I have heard it from the supporters I have spoken with in person. As for your answer to my question - and you may not like this - but I steadfastly agree with you on all accounts. I just hope your guy feels the same way you do.

I think the war in Iraq was a mistake, and so does Obama. It was a distraction from the true war on terror, and has since inflamed a lot of anti-US feelings, not only inside of Iraq, but all over the world. We've lost credibility, we've destabilized the country, and we're pouring over $10 billion each month, and many reports are that al qaeda as an organization is still functional and as capable of carrying out attacks as in 2002 (from what i hear). Things in afghanistan have gone down hill, our military men and women are being asked to do a lot of time in Iraq and are coming back with lots of trauma and injuries, and it doesn't look like it's done a lot of good.What we should have done is what Obama said we should do in his 2002 speech on why we shouldn't go to war with iraq. We should've focused on the true war on terror, pursued bin laden instead of getting distracted by Saddam, and I believe we'd be much better off. In addition, we should've been investing those billions and billions of dollars we've been losing domestically, finding alternatives to oil, improving our education system, etc.

 

[adonis]

Just another bump for Obama's 2002 speech on why we shouldn't go to war in Iraq:

Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don’t oppose all wars.My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton’s army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.I don’t oppose all wars.After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn’t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not – we will not – travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.

 

[Pooch]

Adonis has the patience of Job.

 

[Sweet J]

I can't speak for Homer, but I'm not here to inform.

You are here for the gay jokes, right?

 

[The Juggernaut]

Developing story on CNN's site: "Geraldine Ferraro is leaving the Hillary Clinton campaign in the wake of a controversy regarding her remarks about Barack Obama."

Guess this means she denounces her comments after all.

Welcome to the unemployment line.

 

[Running with scissors]

Racial Tensions

Read some of the comments below the article. Hillary and (still hasn't been fired) Geraldine Ferraro threw out the bait, and people are taking it hook, line and sinker.

The Democratic leadership needs to nip this in the bud immediately. This is going to cost them more than the presidency.

Pelosi, Gore, Richardson, and any other prominent superdelegates need to really get their #### together and get Obama the superdelegate lead by an insurmountable margin and they need to do this ASAP. This #### is going to tear the party to shreds.It's almost a mathematical impossibility for Hillary to win any of the main categories before the convention. There is no way the party benefits from this race going on the way it is.

:snicker: You said race.

 

[Running with scissors]

Because I follow the news. Obama's foreign policy adviser has articulated Obama's position on this point. While he is willing to talk with heads of state even if those states are hostile to us, he would not sit down and talk with terrorist organizations, which would include al Quaida.

I am curious to know what these talks would be like. Has there been any discussion as to what direction he wants to go with regard to "negotiating" with these hostile factions? Does he feel negotiations are imenent? necessary? I get the impression his policy is so domestically selective that his foreign policy gets hidden or forgotten completely.

He's discussed this issue at length in the last couple of debates. I'm sure you can find them on YouTube or the websites for the debate sponsors.

But you don't know off the top of your head, right?

Or maybe he (or I) don't feel like typing it out for the 100th time.

So you really don't want to inform, what you want to do is be correct. So when someone challenges you cite all these statistics and terms and the like, but when they ask a question you tell them to go read about it. I get it.

Have you always had the smart kids do your homework for you?

 

[Clayton Gray]

Whats that Mookie? Your posts all still look the same to me...just one line, in bold font, with a couple links below it. You should probably just try a different internet

If you are going to ignore someone, please do not try to engage them in this manner.Thanks,Clayton

 

[malice]

Ugh. Ferraro and Clinton should hold an ego-off:

Ferraro Steps Down

(CNN) – Geraldine Ferraro has stepped down from her role as a member of Hillary Clinton's finance committee.

In a letter to Clinton obtained by CNN's Suzanne Malveaux — who spoke with the former vice presidential candidate shortly after she sent it to Clinton — Ferraro said she is stepping down so, "I can speak for myself and you can continue to speak for yourself about what is at stake in this campaign."

In a phone conversation with Malveaux, Ferraro said she was not asked to step down by Senator Clinton or her campaign.

Ferraro said thousands of people are part of the finance committee, saying it is not a staff position, but a voluntary one for those who raise money for the campaign. She also said she has raised $125,000 for Senator Clinton.

When asked if she had any regrets about what she said, Ferraro replied, "absolutely not."

...

Full letter:

Dear Hillary –

I am stepping down from your finance committee so I can speak for myself and you can continue to speak for yourself about what is at stake in this campaign.

The Obama campaign is attacking me to hurt you. I won't let that happen.

Thank you for everything you have done and continue to do to make this a better world for my children and grandchildren.

You have my deep admiration and respect.

Gerry

Puuuuke.

 

[bigbottom]

Developing story on CNN's site: "Geraldine Ferraro is leaving the Hillary Clinton campaign in the wake of a controversy regarding her remarks about Barack Obama."

Guess this means she denounces her comments after all.

Article

Ferraro steps down from Clinton campaign

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Former congresswoman and vice-presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro is resigning her fundraising position with Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign after controversial comments she made about Clinton's rival, Sen. Barack Obama.

"I am stepping down from your finance committee so I can speak for myself and you can continue to speak for yourself about what is at stake in this campaign," Ferraro wrote in a letter to Clinton. "The Obama campaign is attacking me to hurt you. I won't let that happen."

Ferraro told CNN she sent the letter to Clinton Wednesday afternoon.

Ferraro stirred controversy with her recent remarks that Obama's campaign was successful because he was black.

"It wasn't a racist comment, it was a statement of fact," she said on CBS' "The Early Show," adding that she would leave Hillary Clinton's national finance committee if she were asked, but would not stop raising money for the New York senator's presidential bid.

A statement of fact? "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position" is speculation and opinion, not a "statement of fact."

 

[adonis]

Developing story on CNN's site: "Geraldine Ferraro is leaving the Hillary Clinton campaign in the wake of a controversy regarding her remarks about Barack Obama."

Guess this means she denounces her comments after all.

Article

Ferraro steps down from Clinton campaign

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Former congresswoman and vice-presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro is resigning her fundraising position with Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign after controversial comments she made about Clinton's rival, Sen. Barack Obama.

"I am stepping down from your finance committee so I can speak for myself and you can continue to speak for yourself about what is at stake in this campaign," Ferraro wrote in a letter to Clinton. "The Obama campaign is attacking me to hurt you. I won't let that happen."

Ferraro told CNN she sent the letter to Clinton Wednesday afternoon.

Ferraro stirred controversy with her recent remarks that Obama's campaign was successful because he was black.

"It wasn't a racist comment, it was a statement of fact," she said on CBS' "The Early Show," adding that she would leave Hillary Clinton's national finance committee if she were asked, but would not stop raising money for the New York senator's presidential bid.

A statement of fact? "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position" is speculation and opinion, not a "statement of fact."

HTHThe unabridged collection of indisputable decrees of empress Ferraro, proclamation 83 paragraph 2.

All statements issued forth from Ferraro are by definition fact.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Ugh. Ferraro and Clinton should hold an ego-off:

Ferraro Steps Down

(CNN) – Geraldine Ferraro has stepped down from her role as a member of Hillary Clinton's finance committee.

In a letter to Clinton obtained by CNN's Suzanne Malveaux — who spoke with the former vice presidential candidate shortly after she sent it to Clinton — Ferraro said she is stepping down so, "I can speak for myself and you can continue to speak for yourself about what is at stake in this campaign."

In a phone conversation with Malveaux, Ferraro said she was not asked to step down by Senator Clinton or her campaign.

Ferraro said thousands of people are part of the finance committee, saying it is not a staff position, but a voluntary one for those who raise money for the campaign. She also said she has raised $125,000 for Senator Clinton.

When asked if she had any regrets about what she said, Ferraro replied, "absolutely not."

...

Full letter:

Dear Hillary –

I am stepping down from your finance committee so I can speak for myself and you can continue to speak for yourself about what is at stake in this campaign.

The Obama campaign is attacking me to hurt you. I won't let that happen.

Thank you for everything you have done and continue to do to make this a better world for my children and grandchildren.

You have my deep admiration and respect.

Gerry

Puuuuke.

OMFG I thought you added/edited the letter as a joke. HOLY CRAP!!! The gall of these people is f###ing LIMITLESS!

 

[Jeremy]

Wow. She must go to the Bill Belichick school of victimhood. YOU were the player of the race card Ms. Ferraro. She's made herself into the victim. Unbelievable.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I couldn't prove what I was talking about.

Nothing more to see here. Absolutely nothing.

Did you get a big steel thrill from that tough guy? At least I was honest.

Well then you get a brownie button. But really, there is no sense in having a debate (let alone an argument) with someone who will argue something - and know nothing about what they are debating.

Thus - nothing more to see here.

And what is it that you have so elloquently contributed to this "debate?" The supporters in this thread are a perfect representation of libs in general - sanctimonious, pompous, self-righteous neomaxizoomdweebies. It's wonderful to theatre, really. You sheeple take yourselves much too seriously. Seriously.

I understand why you'd say that but please let's not get down to name calling.TIA

J

 

[urbanhack]

"special comment" is on right now.

 

[Sweet J]

"special comment" is on right now.

So help me god, my wife is watching America's Next Top Model, and won't let me change the channel. Someone please set us up with a link.

 

[urbanhack]

"special comment" is on right now.

So help me god, my wife is watching America's Next Top Model, and won't let me change the channel. Someone please set us up with a link.

You are going to love this!

 

[urbanhack]

"this is not a campaign strategy, this is a suicide pact" re: Ferraro ordeal

 

[Death Bytes]

Full letter:

Dear Hillary –

I am stepping down from your finance committee so I can speak for myself and you can continue to speak for yourself about what is at stake in this campaign.

Great! So we'll go from Bush replacing cabinet members left and right due to scandals to Hillary replacing cabinet members left and right due to scandals. More of the same. Just more of the same... SIGH

The Obama campaign is attacking me to hurt you. I won't let that happen.

Ummm.... it happened. Unless of course you somehow got this letter post stamped yesterday.

 

[Jeremy]

"special comment" is on right now.

So help me god, my wife is watching America's Next Top Model, and won't let me change the channel. Someone please set us up with a link.

You are going to love this!

That was awwwwsome!!

 

[Sweet J]

"special comment" is on right now.

So help me god, my wife is watching America's Next Top Model, and won't let me change the channel. Someone please set us up with a link.

You are going to love this!

That was awwwwsome!!

sigh.