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

[BigSteelThrill]

This is the thing that I love the most. What are you, like an expert or something? People like me come in here to yank your chain and bust your chops about something that you have this gleaned encyclopedia of BELIEF for but no real backbone. I for one BELIEVE we have a serious situation on our hands as a country that the last jack### got us into. You guys have this yellow brick road tunnel vision for the "hope" that obama gives you. Do you think the islamofascists are just going to forget what we have done? Do you think that once we pull out of the ME that all will be forgotten? Do you think that we will be able to intellectually compromise with a group like al quaida? My point, adonis and the rest of you is the hope should be for someone who can still defend this country. His domestic policies are great - whatever. We don't need domestic policies what we need is someone who has a plan to protect us. Now if you don't believe that there is or ever was a threat, so be it. But I do. And that being said, your obama doesn't do much for me.

Nice shift in gears there. This is the "be afraid" angle.

 

[bigbottom]

I for one BELIEVE we have a serious situation on our hands as a country that the last jack### got us into. [snip]We don't need domestic policies what we need is someone who has a plan to protect us.

How is McCain's approach to foreign policy matters substantively different than those of the current "jackass"?

 

[Mookie Blaylock]

I for one BELIEVE we have a serious situation on our hands as a country that the last jack### got us into. [snip]We don't need domestic policies what we need is someone who has a plan to protect us.

How is McCain's approach to foreign policy matters substantively different than those of the current "jackass"?

Hasn't he said he'd bring the troops home?

 

[Homer J Simpson]

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.

We're generally respectful of people who come in here with actual questions and a desire to discuss the issues, but people like you aren't interested in that, and would rather call names like "sanctimonious, pompous, self-righteous, neowhatevers, sheeple, etc"

I thought maybe you'd want to discuss things rationally, but it looks like you're perfectly fine spouting of rhetoric and calling people names. If we're so unlike you, I happen to believe it's to our credit.

Do you think that we will be able to intellectually compromise with a group like al quaida?

Just to continue the pile-up, Obama has never even hinted at trying to negotiate with al Quaida.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

You have chosen to ignore all posts from: Mookie Blaylock. · View this post · Un-ignore Mookie Blaylock

I feel much better now.

 

[flufhed]

I for one BELIEVE we have a serious situation on our hands as a country that the last jack### got us into. [snip]We don't need domestic policies what we need is someone who has a plan to protect us.

How is McCain's approach to foreign policy matters substantively different than those of the current "jackass"?

Hasn't he said he'd bring the troops home?

 

[The Commish]

How on earth has this thread gotten worse than the numerous hucksy thread on the Pac?? Where do we get some of these people?? Better yet, why even address them?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

I for one BELIEVE we have a serious situation on our hands as a country that the last jack### got us into.

[snip]

We don't need domestic policies what we need is someone who has a plan to protect us.

How is McCain's approach to foreign policy matters substantively different than those of the current "jackass"?

Hasn't he said he'd bring the troops home?

From his own page the very first thing is:

A greater military commitment now is necessary if we are to achieve long-term success in Iraq.

John McCain agrees with retired Army General Jack Keane that there are simply not enough American forces in Iraq.

From the main McCain page here at FBG:

On January 3, 2008 at a campaign stop in Derry, New Hampshire, a questioner said, "President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years." McCain responded,

"Make it a hundred. We've been in Japan for 60 years, we've been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That'd be fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. That's fine with me. I hope it will be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping, and motivating people every single day."[10]

So - No. That is not what he has said.

 

[Mookie Blaylock]

How on earth has this thread gotten worse than the numerous hucksy thread on the Pac?? Where do we get some of these people?? Better yet, why even address them?

without passing judgment on disputable matters - hypocrite

 

[flufhed]

You have chosen to ignore all posts from: Mookie Blaylock. · View this post · Un-ignore Mookie Blaylock

I feel much better now.

Welcome to your control panel Manage your ignored usersThis section allows you to set up your ignored users list.When you add a user to your ignore list, any posts they make will be masked until you specify that you wish to read them. You may not be able to ignore users if they are in a member group which doesn't allow them to be added.Name Group Posts Mookie Blaylock Members 284 Remove

 

[BigSteelThrill]

How on earth has this thread gotten worse than the numerous hucksy thread on the Pac?? Where do we get some of these people?? Better yet, why even address them?

disputable matters

You, admittedly, don't even know what you are disputing about.

 

[Mookie Blaylock]

I for one BELIEVE we have a serious situation on our hands as a country that the last jack### got us into.

[snip]

We don't need domestic policies what we need is someone who has a plan to protect us.

How is McCain's approach to foreign policy matters substantively different than those of the current "jackass"?

Hasn't he said he'd bring the troops home?

From his own page the very first thing is:

A greater military commitment now is necessary if we are to achieve long-term success in Iraq.

John McCain agrees with retired Army General Jack Keane that there are simply not enough American forces in Iraq.

From the main McCain page here at FBG:

On January 3, 2008 at a campaign stop in Derry, New Hampshire, a questioner said, "President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years." McCain responded,

"Make it a hundred. We've been in Japan for 60 years, we've been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That'd be fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. That's fine with me. I hope it will be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping, and motivating people every single day."[10]

So - No. That is not what he has said.

I just meant ever.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

I for one BELIEVE we have a serious situation on our hands as a country that the last jack### got us into.

[snip]

We don't need domestic policies what we need is someone who has a plan to protect us.

How is McCain's approach to foreign policy matters substantively different than those of the current "jackass"?

Hasn't he said he'd bring the troops home?

From his own page the very first thing is:

A greater military commitment now is necessary if we are to achieve long-term success in Iraq.

John McCain agrees with retired Army General Jack Keane that there are simply not enough American forces in Iraq.

From the main McCain page here at FBG:

On January 3, 2008 at a campaign stop in Derry, New Hampshire, a questioner said, "President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years." McCain responded,

"Make it a hundred. We've been in Japan for 60 years, we've been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That'd be fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. That's fine with me. I hope it will be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping, and motivating people every single day."[10]

So - No. That is not what he has said.

I just meant ever.

How in the #### are we supposed to talk about anything substantial? "Ever"

 

[adonis]

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.

We're generally respectful of people who come in here with actual questions and a desire to discuss the issues, but people like you aren't interested in that, and would rather call names like "sanctimonious, pompous, self-righteous, neowhatevers, sheeple, etc"

I thought maybe you'd want to discuss things rationally, but it looks like you're perfectly fine spouting of rhetoric and calling people names. If we're so unlike you, I happen to believe it's to our credit.

This is the thing that I love the most. What are you, like an expert or something? People like me come in here to yank your chain and bust your chops about something that you have this gleaned encyclopedia of BELIEF for but no real backbone. I for one BELIEVE we have a serious situation on our hands as a country that the last jack### got us into. You guys have this yellow brick road tunnel vision for the "hope" that obama gives you. Do you think the islamofascists are just going to forget what we have done? Do you think that once we pull out of the ME that all will be forgotten? Do you think that we will be able to intellectually compromise with a group like al quaida? My point, adonis and the rest of you is the hope should be for someone who can still defend this country. His domestic policies are great - whatever. We don't need domestic policies what we need is someone who has a plan to protect us. Now if you don't believe that there is or ever was a threat, so be it. But I do. And that being said, your obama doesn't do much for me.

Do you have any idea what Obama's foreign policies are? What about his policies on terrorism? What about his goals for Iraq? Pakistan? Afghanistan? I'm assuming not if you suggest he'd compromise with Al queda and not protect and defend our country.

 

[Mookie Blaylock]

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.

We're generally respectful of people who come in here with actual questions and a desire to discuss the issues, but people like you aren't interested in that, and would rather call names like "sanctimonious, pompous, self-righteous, neowhatevers, sheeple, etc"

I thought maybe you'd want to discuss things rationally, but it looks like you're perfectly fine spouting of rhetoric and calling people names. If we're so unlike you, I happen to believe it's to our credit.

This is the thing that I love the most. What are you, like an expert or something? People like me come in here to yank your chain and bust your chops about something that you have this gleaned encyclopedia of BELIEF for but no real backbone. I for one BELIEVE we have a serious situation on our hands as a country that the last jack### got us into. You guys have this yellow brick road tunnel vision for the "hope" that obama gives you. Do you think the islamofascists are just going to forget what we have done? Do you think that once we pull out of the ME that all will be forgotten? Do you think that we will be able to intellectually compromise with a group like al quaida? My point, adonis and the rest of you is the hope should be for someone who can still defend this country. His domestic policies are great - whatever. We don't need domestic policies what we need is someone who has a plan to protect us. Now if you don't believe that there is or ever was a threat, so be it. But I do. And that being said, your obama doesn't do much for me.

Do you have any idea what Obama's foreign policies are? What about his policies on terrorism? What about his goals for Iraq? Pakistan? Afghanistan? I'm assuming not if you suggest he'd compromise with Al queda and not protect and defend our country.

Is that really what you got from that?

 

[Marc Levin]

You have chosen to ignore all posts from: Mookie Blaylock. · View this post · Un-ignore Mookie Blaylock

I feel much better now.

Now that I no longer have to moderate, I can follow suit.Mookie - congratulations! You broke my cherry.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

You have chosen to ignore all posts from: Mookie Blaylock. · View this post · Un-ignore Mookie Blaylock

I feel much better now.

Now that I no longer have to moderate, I can follow suit.Mookie - congratulations! You broke my cherry.

Its bad enough - that a staffer puts you on ignore.

 

[adonis]

Hey mookie, good luck with your quest for knowledge, wish I could help, but I think you've made your mind up. Feel free to support who you want, more power to you, but if you want to learn what Obama actually wants to do, check out the first post in this whole thread. Otherwise, I can't help ya. GL peeassss

 

[Jeremy]

I think the other area Obama is really going to struggle with is the economy. In states like OH and PA she does very well because they're scared about their jobs and financial security, and her last name is Clinton. I think they figure she can just lean over to Bill and say, "Honey, can you please push the 'fix the economy' button?"

 

[Running with scissors]

I for one BELIEVE we have a serious situation on our hands as a country that the last jack### got us into.

[snip]

We don't need domestic policies what we need is someone who has a plan to protect us.

How is McCain's approach to foreign policy matters substantively different than those of the current "jackass"?

Hasn't he said he'd bring the troops home?

From his own page the very first thing is:

A greater military commitment now is necessary if we are to achieve long-term success in Iraq.

John McCain agrees with retired Army General Jack Keane that there are simply not enough American forces in Iraq.

From the main McCain page here at FBG:

On January 3, 2008 at a campaign stop in Derry, New Hampshire, a questioner said, "President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years." McCain responded,

"Make it a hundred. We've been in Japan for 60 years, we've been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That'd be fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. That's fine with me. I hope it will be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping, and motivating people every single day."[10]

So - No. That is not what he has said.

I just meant ever.

:lmFao: This is wayyyyy better than BGP!

 

[bigbottom]

I for one BELIEVE we have a serious situation on our hands as a country that the last jack### got us into.

[snip]

We don't need domestic policies what we need is someone who has a plan to protect us.

How is McCain's approach to foreign policy matters substantively different than those of the current "jackass"?

Hasn't he said he'd bring the troops home?

From his own page the very first thing is:

A greater military commitment now is necessary if we are to achieve long-term success in Iraq.

John McCain agrees with retired Army General Jack Keane that there are simply not enough American forces in Iraq.

From the main McCain page here at FBG:

On January 3, 2008 at a campaign stop in Derry, New Hampshire, a questioner said, "President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years." McCain responded,

"Make it a hundred. We've been in Japan for 60 years, we've been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That'd be fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. That's fine with me. I hope it will be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping, and motivating people every single day."[10]

So - No. That is not what he has said.

I just meant ever.

So the Bush Administration's stated foreign policy on Iraq is that we will "never" remove our troops even in 50 or 100 years?

 

[snitwitch]

Hey mookie, good luck with your quest for knowledge, wish I could help, but I think you've made your mind up. Feel free to support who you want, more power to you, but if you want to learn what Obama actually wants to do, check out the first post in this whole thread. Otherwise, I can't help ya. GL peeassss

Mookie's Quest for Knowledge alias registration in 3.... 2..... 1.......

 

[Homer J Simpson]

The Clinton campaign does NOT play the race card.

 

[adonis]

QUOTE OF THE DAY:"Senator Obama was up in Iowa, maybe not so up in New Hampshire, but he was the same Barack Obama on the one day as the other — steady, reliable. You know, no shock Barack kind of guy, no drama Obama. So when that red phone rings at 3 p.m. you want a guy with this kind of temperament to answer that telephone." — Gen. Merrill "Tony" McPeak, a former Air Force Chief of Staff

 

[Jeremy]

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.

 

[bigbottom]

The Clinton campaign does NOT play the race card.

as one of the related videos. It's a great Chris Matthews interview with Axelrod, Penn and Edward's campaign manager after the Des Moines debate and just before the Iowa caucuses. Extremely entertaining.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

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.

 

[ericttspikes]

Obama on the cover of Rolling Stone this week. First time they have ever endorsed a candidate during the primaries. Haven't read the articles yet, but he gets extensive coverage, about 7 pages.

Another article in the issue is "Hillary's Last Stand, The tragic self-martyrdom of a ground-breaking politician" by Matt Taibbi, who is always a good read.

 

[golddigger]

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.

We're generally respectful of people who come in here with actual questions and a desire to discuss the issues, but people like you aren't interested in that, and would rather call names like "sanctimonious, pompous, self-righteous, neowhatevers, sheeple, etc"

I thought maybe you'd want to discuss things rationally, but it looks like you're perfectly fine spouting of rhetoric and calling people names. If we're so unlike you, I happen to believe it's to our credit.

Do you think that we will be able to intellectually compromise with a group like al quaida?

Just to continue the pile-up, Obama has never even hinted at trying to negotiate with al Quaida.

He hasn't mentioned al Quaida directly but he has made many referances of making peace by sitting down and talking with those with hostile intent. I asssumed it included al Quaida. I know he thinks he can talk with the leaders of Russia, Iran and S. Korea. I think talking is fine as long as he doesn't give away the farm. I also we should take a trust but verify appoach to any negotiations with of these leaders- especially S. Korea and Iran.

 

[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.

 

[BuddyKnuckles]

You have chosen to ignore all posts from: Mookie Blaylock. · View this post · Un-ignore Mookie Blaylock

I feel much better now.

Welcome to your control panel Manage your ignored usersThis section allows you to set up your ignored users list.When you add a user to your ignore list, any posts they make will be masked until you specify that you wish to read them. You may not be able to ignore users if they are in a member group which doesn't allow them to be added.Name Group Posts Mookie Blaylock Members 284 Remove

Ahhh, that does feel better

 

[bigbottom]

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.

We're generally respectful of people who come in here with actual questions and a desire to discuss the issues, but people like you aren't interested in that, and would rather call names like "sanctimonious, pompous, self-righteous, neowhatevers, sheeple, etc"

I thought maybe you'd want to discuss things rationally, but it looks like you're perfectly fine spouting of rhetoric and calling people names. If we're so unlike you, I happen to believe it's to our credit.

Do you think that we will be able to intellectually compromise with a group like al quaida?

Just to continue the pile-up, Obama has never even hinted at trying to negotiate with al Quaida.

He hasn't mentioned al Quaida directly but he has made many referances of making peace by sitting down and talking with those with hostile intent. I asssumed it included al Quaida. I know he thinks he can talk with the leaders of Russia, Iran and S. Korea. I think talking is fine as long as he doesn't give away the farm. I also we should take a trust but verify appoach to any negotiations with of these leaders- especially S. Korea and Iran.

It doesn't include al Quaida.

 

[bigbottom]

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.

So you want Obama to beat Clinton. Sweet!

 

[Mookie Blaylock]

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.

We're generally respectful of people who come in here with actual questions and a desire to discuss the issues, but people like you aren't interested in that, and would rather call names like "sanctimonious, pompous, self-righteous, neowhatevers, sheeple, etc"

I thought maybe you'd want to discuss things rationally, but it looks like you're perfectly fine spouting of rhetoric and calling people names. If we're so unlike you, I happen to believe it's to our credit.

Do you think that we will be able to intellectually compromise with a group like al quaida?

Just to continue the pile-up, Obama has never even hinted at trying to negotiate with al Quaida.

He hasn't mentioned al Quaida directly but he has made many referances of making peace by sitting down and talking with those with hostile intent. I asssumed it included al Quaida. I know he thinks he can talk with the leaders of Russia, Iran and S. Korea. I think talking is fine as long as he doesn't give away the farm. I also we should take a trust but verify appoach to any negotiations with of these leaders- especially S. Korea and Iran.

It doesn't include al Quaida.

And you know this because?

 

[BuddyKnuckles]

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.

We're generally respectful of people who come in here with actual questions and a desire to discuss the issues, but people like you aren't interested in that, and would rather call names like "sanctimonious, pompous, self-righteous, neowhatevers, sheeple, etc"

I thought maybe you'd want to discuss things rationally, but it looks like you're perfectly fine spouting of rhetoric and calling people names. If we're so unlike you, I happen to believe it's to our credit.

Do you think that we will be able to intellectually compromise with a group like al quaida?

Just to continue the pile-up, Obama has never even hinted at trying to negotiate with al Quaida.

He hasn't mentioned al Quaida directly but he has made many referances of making peace by sitting down and talking with those with hostile intent. I asssumed it included al Quaida. I know he thinks he can talk with the leaders of Russia, Iran and S. Korea. I think talking is fine as long as he doesn't give away the farm. I also we should take a trust but verify appoach to any negotiations with of these leaders- especially S. Korea and Iran.

Susan Rice clarified this recently (link in this thread somewhere). To paraphrase, Obama discerns between terrorist org's and internationally recognized states. Al Quaida is the former and therefore does not qualify for negotiations. Now, one could argue what differentiates state sponsored terrorism and terrorist orgs. But, the distinction between Al Quaida and say, Iran, is crystal clear.

 

[Jeremy]

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.

HOW DARE YOU!!!

 

[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.

So you want Obama to beat Clinton. Sweet!

Over hillary, yes.

 

[golddigger]

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?

 

[golddigger]

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.

We're generally respectful of people who come in here with actual questions and a desire to discuss the issues, but people like you aren't interested in that, and would rather call names like "sanctimonious, pompous, self-righteous, neowhatevers, sheeple, etc"

I thought maybe you'd want to discuss things rationally, but it looks like you're perfectly fine spouting of rhetoric and calling people names. If we're so unlike you, I happen to believe it's to our credit.

Do you think that we will be able to intellectually compromise with a group like al quaida?

Just to continue the pile-up, Obama has never even hinted at trying to negotiate with al Quaida.

He hasn't mentioned al Quaida directly but he has made many referances of making peace by sitting down and talking with those with hostile intent. I asssumed it included al Quaida. I know he thinks he can talk with the leaders of Russia, Iran and S. Korea. I think talking is fine as long as he doesn't give away the farm. I also we should take a trust but verify appoach to any negotiations with of these leaders- especially S. Korea and Iran.

Susan Rice clarified this recently (link in this thread somewhere). To paraphrase, Obama discerns between terrorist org's and internationally recognized states. Al Quaida is the former and therefore does not qualify for negotiations. Now, one could argue what differentiates state sponsored terrorism and terrorist orgs. But, the distinction between Al Quaida and say, Iran, is crystal clear.

Thanks

 

[Homer J Simpson]

It doesn't include al Quaida.

And you know this because?

Because Obama is not a drooling idiot.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

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?

No. But I think Obama has the sense not to allow things to go down that road.Your opinion will probably differ.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

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?

No. But I think Obama has the sense not to allow things to go down that road.Your opinion will probably differ.

Oh, and the Dems would have to sweep the upcoming Senatorial elections for that majority, which I don't think will happen.

 

[adonis]

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.

We're generally respectful of people who come in here with actual questions and a desire to discuss the issues, but people like you aren't interested in that, and would rather call names like "sanctimonious, pompous, self-righteous, neowhatevers, sheeple, etc"

I thought maybe you'd want to discuss things rationally, but it looks like you're perfectly fine spouting of rhetoric and calling people names. If we're so unlike you, I happen to believe it's to our credit.

Do you think that we will be able to intellectually compromise with a group like al quaida?

Just to continue the pile-up, Obama has never even hinted at trying to negotiate with al Quaida.

He hasn't mentioned al Quaida directly but he has made many referances of making peace by sitting down and talking with those with hostile intent. I asssumed it included al Quaida. I know he thinks he can talk with the leaders of Russia, Iran and S. Korea. I think talking is fine as long as he doesn't give away the farm. I also we should take a trust but verify appoach to any negotiations with of these leaders- especially S. Korea and Iran.

It doesn't include al Quaida.

Al Quaida isn't a head of state. Neither is Hamas. Obama has no plans to sit down and talk to terrorist organizations. They've already addressed this issue. One of his advisors, Rice I think it was, addressed this topic head on.

 

[bigbottom]

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.

We're generally respectful of people who come in here with actual questions and a desire to discuss the issues, but people like you aren't interested in that, and would rather call names like "sanctimonious, pompous, self-righteous, neowhatevers, sheeple, etc"

I thought maybe you'd want to discuss things rationally, but it looks like you're perfectly fine spouting of rhetoric and calling people names. If we're so unlike you, I happen to believe it's to our credit.

Do you think that we will be able to intellectually compromise with a group like al quaida?

Just to continue the pile-up, Obama has never even hinted at trying to negotiate with al Quaida.

He hasn't mentioned al Quaida directly but he has made many referances of making peace by sitting down and talking with those with hostile intent. I asssumed it included al Quaida. I know he thinks he can talk with the leaders of Russia, Iran and S. Korea. I think talking is fine as long as he doesn't give away the farm. I also we should take a trust but verify appoach to any negotiations with of these leaders- especially S. Korea and Iran.

It doesn't include al Quaida.

And you know this because?

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.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

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?

FTR Obama isn't a party shill. I would vote for McCain over Hillary because of similar issues you espouse.

 

[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.

 

[Jeremy]

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.

 

[BuddyKnuckles]

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?

No. But I think Obama has the sense not to allow things to go down that road.Your opinion will probably differ.

GD - Specifics from Obama's blueprint include:

Obama will create a new "Making Work Pay" tax credit of up to $500 per person, or $1,000 per working family. The "Making Work Pay" tax credit will completely eliminate income taxes for 10 million Americans.

Reinstate PAYGO federal bugdet rules

Cut Pork Barrel Spending: Obama introduced and passed bipartisan legislation that would require more disclosure and transparency for special-interest earmarks. Obama believes that spending that cannot withstand public scrutiny cannot be justified. Obama will slash earmarks to no greater than year 2001 levels and ensure all spending decisions are open to the public.

Whether or not you believe Obama's willingness to stick to his campaigns promises and current blueprint, his stated plan does not create a broad tax and spend system...unless of course you're wealthy. Then, the repeal of the tax cuts for the wealthy are obviously going to impact you

 

[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.

 

[BuddyKnuckles]

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