So, for what purpose does the USA want nukes, or any country for that matter?

Iran wants nukes to destroy people, but good ole American nukes simply create opportunity, right.

As if our nukes are meant to spread fertilizer, eliminate smog, or increase libido.

Coming from the guy who thinks Al-Qaeda can "follow us home" across the Atlantic Ocean, that service men in Iraq are "fighting for MY freedom", and people who can't afford shoes are a "threat to my way of life", I'm surprised he actually figured this one out.

Yes, nukes are for killing people. Astounding reasoning ability, Mr. President. Kudos. Now realize all nukes are for killing people, not just the imaginary ones in Tehran.

Maybe you can do something about all the real nukes meant to destroy people and stop focusing on the make-believe nukes?

R8R-PLEEZE don't remind the dumbfuck that we've got them-you wouldn't want him to start tossin' 'em around at everyone he doesn't like, do you?

We have nukes to fight off wayward asteroids, just ask Bruce Willis.

Don't blame Shrubbie for repeating what "The Dick" told him. If asked such a thing before he had time to get the truth from Cheney, he would be speechless. And he would still look stupid.

R8R,

Your post was fucking brilliant.

Shrub first learned the size of our nuclear stockpile after being appointed by SCOTUS. He was astonished, yet he blathers on, relentlessly spewing nonsense. A substantial portion of our population never sees the logical disconnect.

the only head of state out there deatroying people is herr bush

and what did we do with ours?

"Coming from the guy who thinks Al-Qaeda can "follow us home" across the Atlantic Ocean"

I'd say they did a pretty good job of getting here already considering they got on continental US flights, killed people, and then slammed the planes into buildings.


"that service men in Iraq are "fighting for MY freedom",

Make sure the next time you see a vet of the Iraqi war to tell him or her how feel about them.


and people who can't afford shoes are a "threat to my way of life",


If you were in one of the towers when it went down it would have affected your way of life greatly. So I'd say that they are definetely capable of affecting our way of life. Oh yeah, but it didn't happen to you so it doesn't count.

I'm just concerned that President Bush's overly-intellectual, academic approach may be over the heads of all those foreigners who can't even speak English.

...and people who can't afford shoes are a "threat to my way of life", I'm surprised he actually figured this one out.


All of those others aside, it's not the person who cannot afford shoes you should concern yourself with. It's the obscenely wealthy Princes and Kings *cough* who fund them that should be your real concern.

If only a president had seen fit to get the oil monkey off of our backs 20 or 30 years ago...maybe we could do something about it.

*sigh*

Make sure the next time you see a vet of the Iraqi war to tell him or her how feel about them.


I work with three vets of the Iraq War.

Of the three, one was a convoy commander, one was in Falujah and the other worked in the green zone.

All three did their duty. All three, if asked, would return. All three think Iraq was the wrong place to go and that Iran would be a bad idea.


If you were in one of the towers when it went down it would have affected your way of life greatly. So I'd say that they are definetely capable of affecting our way of life. Oh yeah, but it didn't happen to you so it doesn't count.


If it affected you so greatly, why aren't you calling for us to invade the country which was to the majority of the hijackers?

On a side not, are you now trying to make some type of link between Iran and 9/11?

If only a president had seen fit to get the oil monkey off of our backs 20 or 30 years ago...maybe we could do something about it.

Well, to be honest Jimmy Carter did try.

His so-called "Malaise speech" was really a call to arms for America to get off of foreign oil and start practising energy independence.

But then America predictably enuff decided to hire it's first fake cowboy named Rotten Ronnie Raygun.

Bad move.

Carter put up solar panels at the WH.

Reagan tore 'em down.

Raygun engaged the Soviet Union in an economic game of chicken submitting America's first 1 Trillion dollar budget.

Years later another two term psuedo cowboy followed in his footsteps allowing Big Oil to write their own energy policy behind closed doors with Dick Cheney in a tutu serving tea and offering BJs under the table.

Bush submitted the first 2 Trillion and 3 trillion dollar budgets ever.

Trouble is, Americans are so dumbed down and propagandised and lead around by their collective noses by the MSM that, in truth, most of you never really stood a chance.

Way Spud sees it, you got exactly one chance left before things start really sliding sideways.

Despite the fact that the MSM both "left" and "right" (so silly that folks still imagine this is the true divide) have spent more than a week trying to give Barack Obama his "Dean Scream" moment because he's the outsider populist candidate that they do not yet totally control, (not the way Helldawg and McInsane are totally owned heart and soul) Obama is still a contender fer the gig of POTUS.

A vote fer sHrillary or Johnny is a vote for a status quo that America can no longer afford because it no longer serves the greater long term interests of the majority of the population.

It is a vote for "Big Bizness as usual".

You want more of the same? Vote Hill or McCain.

If you want change, real change then there's really only one choice.

Barack "Change" Obama.

(Change is his middle name)

08ama '08.

Be Well.

On Topic?

BushCo?

Fear-mongering again?

War-mongering again?

Sabre rattling again?

** YAWN **

Anyone still buying this act?

Spud aint.

Be Well.

i've looked around a little and can't seem to find where Iran declared it wanted nukes to destroy people. W didn't just make that up, did he? I'd feel sooooo cheated...

what a fuckin ga'damn idiot (bush is).

I think W and the Neocons around him really are trying to build up a case to hit Iran before he leaves office so the next president has to deal with the mess.

Whatever happened to the a CIA-funded coup?

So the question is: is Bush warming up to nuke Iran before his term is over?

Certainly the Israelis believe him. They're the ones who put the idea in his head.

Gee just why did America build all those nuclear "bombs" in the first place??? It surely wasn't to build houses or grow vegetables - nuclear bombs were purposely designed of course, to "Kill" people! Thats exactly what America did too in Hiroshima and Nagasaki!

It is amazing how close the Lil' Bush series on TV is to the real guy.

I'm pretty sure that Clinton has given him the green light to attack Iran... McBush certainly has... how about Obama ?

people who can't afford shoes are a "threat to my way of life"

But they can afford IEDs, cell phones, RPGs, land mines, mortars, rockets, suicide vests, car bombs, AK47s, bullets, sniper rifles, grenades, handguns, dynamite, etc ...

Yep, no worries.

Cheers,
Walt

Gee just why did America build all those nuclear "bombs" in the first place??? It surely wasn't to build houses or grow vegetables - nuclear bombs were purposely designed of course, to "Kill" people! Thats exactly what America did too in Hiroshima and Nagasaki!

Yep, USA = Iran.

Who are we to deprive the poor people of Iran the opportunity to develop a nuke to drop on us? What are we stupid?

Cheers,
Walt

How does Dubya have any right to condemn Iran for wanting Nukes when He Himself seeks new Nukes?? Besides the fact that We have already used Nukes TWICE. Where do We get off telling ANYONE they can't Join the Nuke Club?? Seems Highly Hypocritical.

Larry Mohr

You want more of the same? Vote Hill or McCain.

If you want change, real change then there's really only one choice.

Spud, I fear you may be delusional. They are all 3 Senators and they are all the same lying, manipulating, deceitful, despicable, rotten creatures that the rest of congress is.

Nothing will "change" except the menu for supper.

Where do We get off telling ANYONE they can't Join the Nuke Club??

Larry, don't be silly. We used nukes therefore it is OK for the rest of the world to use nukes?

Cheers,
Walt

Where do We get off telling ANYONE they can't Join the Nuke Club?? Seems Highly Hypocritical.

The US doesn't go around saying they want to wipe a country off the earth. Iran does. A nuke is just the weapon to do it. That is why we do not Iran to be part of the nuke club, Larry.

Nothing will "change" except the menu for supper.

Posted by Walt

Well then, vote for Obama and find out. He has done things a bit differently, has he not? Not accepted PAC or lobbyist money. We all are positive that Hil and Johnny are the same old, same old, so why not give Barak a chance?

The US doesn't go around saying they want to wipe a country off the earth.
Posted by goatman

Where have you been? Not only do we say it, we've done it. Is Iraq the same country it was 5 years ago?

so why not give Barak a chance?

Because he is one of the most leftist of the swine we call Senators.

Where have you been? Not only do we say it, we've done it

yeah, I guess you are right TFD. Iran would be much more responsible with a nuke that the US. What the hell was I thinking.

Is Iraq the same country it was 5 years ago?

What does Iraq have to do with Iran having nukes?

Where have you been? Not only do we say it, we've done it. Is Iraq the same country it was 5 years ago?

POSTED BY TFDNIHILIST AT 2008-03-22 12:59 AM | REPLY | FLAG:

I have to side with TFD on this one. The US is a terrorist state, didn't you know that? Bush is a war criminal and should be hanged. What has Iran ever done or said to make you so distrustful of them? Can't we just give peace a chance?

No Walt it's not OK but it is Hypocritical of us to dictate another Country to not have them. Know what I am saying??

Larry Mohr

No Walt it's not OK but it is Hypocritical of us to dictate another Country to not have them. Know what I am saying??

So what would YOU rather have, Larry? Live in a country that is hypocritical, or a nuclear armed Iran?

Me, I'll go with the hypocrisy. I'd rather be called a hypocrite that see New York harbor glowing or Israel wiped off the map. But that's just me.

No Walt it's not OK but it is Hypocritical of us to dictate another Country to not have them. Know what I am saying??

No I don't. It sounds, by your logic, that we shouldn't tell any other countries to not have slaves, or that we shouldn't try to prevent genocides?

even if Iran got nukes they could not use them on us. I say who cares let Iran develop nukes.

even if Iran got nukes they could not use them on us.

Why not?

Because he is one of the most leftist of the swine we call Senators.

Posted by Walt

So? Like the "Righties" we've had for 20 of the last 28 years have done such a great job? Of the 3, which is different than the other 2?


What does Iraq have to do with Iran having nukes?

Posted by goatman

You said:

The US doesn't go around saying they want to wipe a country off the earth.
Posted by goatman

That is what I was responding to. Didn't Ronnie threaten to wipe the USSR off the map a number of times? Didn't we pretty much wipe Iraq off the map?

The US is a terrorist state, didn't you know that?

Posted by Walt

Please don't put words in my mouth.

Goat I don't see them having a delivery system to get the payload here. If they develop a nuke it would be similar to what we had back in WW2. Most likely they would develop the technology and sell it to hezbollah, Hezbollah would nuke Israel and Iran would deny involvement.

So? Like the "Righties" we've had for 20 of the last 28 years have done such a great job? Of the 3, which is different than the other 2?

Lots of people are different from the other 2. If it was between McCain, Hillary and Huckabee, would you vote for him just because he is "different" from the other 2?

Goat I don't see them having a delivery system to get the payload here. If they develop a nuke it would be similar to what we had back in WW2. Most likely they would develop the technology and sell it to hezbollah, Hezbollah would nuke Israel and Iran would deny involvement.

POSTED BY MESSIAH AT 2008-03-22 01:32 AM | REPLY | FLAG:

Oh, well since you put it that way ...

Goat I don't see them having a delivery system to get the payload here.

cargo ship.

Hezbollah would nuke Israel and Iran would deny involvement.

OK! As long at it is Hezbollah that is nuking Israel and not Iran, that is all right, then.

Didn't we pretty much wipe Iraq off the map?

How can you ask me not to put words in your mouth? How can you think by overthrowing a dictatorial government and then pumping billions of dollars into the country is "wiping them off the map"? Surely only a terrorist state would want to wipe another country off the map.

If it was between McCain, Hillary and Huckabee, would you vote for him just because he is "different" from the other 2?
Posted by Walt

No, in that case I would vote for Hil, who obviously is different for other reasons.

But like I always tell my son, "If wishes were horses, then beggars would ride". In reality, between the 3 choices we actually have, one is strikingly different than the others in many ways. Different than any other person that has ever run. Why not give him a chance?

After all, people here are always braying what a terrible president Carter was, yet somehow America stood stronger than ever. We're probably even going to survive the disaster that is W. What do we have to lose by electing a guy who can so inspire people that he has raised the most money, yet done it without PACs or Corporate sponsors or lobbyists?

,i>How can you ask me not to put words in your mouth? How can you think by overthrowing a dictatorial government and then pumping billions of dollars into the country is "wiping them off the map"? Surely only a terrorist state would want to wipe another country off the map.

Posted by Walt

I am merely responding to the statement:

The US doesn't go around saying they want to wipe a country off the earth.
Posted by goatman


Do you deny that Iraq is not the same country that it was 5 years ago? Did we not wipe out Saddam's Iraq? The country there today is Iraq in name only compared to 5 years ago.

After all, people here are always braying what a terrible president Carter was, yet somehow America stood stronger than ever.

Really? I don't think America ever looked more impotent than the last 444 days of his presidency.

What do we have to lose by electing a guy who can so inspire people that he has raised the most money, yet done it without PACs or Corporate sponsors or lobbyists?

We lose no matter who gets in there. Oblama may have raised a lot of money and support, but so did Hitler. Just making the point. We lose because he will want to implement Socialist Medicine, we lose because he wants to spend our money to combat global poverty. We lose because on the single issue he and I both supported, CTL, he caved to pressure from environmentalists.

I don't think America ever looked more impotent than the last 444 days of his presidency.

Posted by goatman

Yet somehow, here we are, still the strongest richest nation ever.

Oh and BTW, whatever happened to those hostages?

Oh, they all made it home alive, what a disaster that result was.

"Oblama may have raised a lot of money and support, but so did Hitler."


Godwin's law.

You lose.

Do you deny that Iraq is not the same country that it was 5 years ago? Did we not wipe out Saddam's Iraq? The country there today is Iraq in name only compared to 5 years ago.

Is it the exact same as it was before? No, some things are better and some are not. But you are comparing an extreme action, "wiping another country off the map", with the legal actions undertaken by the US. In that way you appear to be supportive of the idea that we are in fact a terrorist nation.

We lose because he will want to implement Socialist Medicine,

Yes, for all we know, we might end up with the horror of lower infant mortality rates and longer life expectancy like all the countries that have socialized medicine.

we lose because he wants to spend our money to combat global poverty.

Yes, what a disaster it would be to have all those poor counties being grateful to us, instead of hating us.

We lose because on the single issue he and I both supported, CTL, he caved to pressure from environmentalists.

Posted by Walt

I'm not sure what CTLs are, send me a link, I'll read it and then give you my smart-ass know-it-all answer to that one.

Ummmmmmm Impotent or Prudent Goatman?? Seems to Me Carter kept ALL of the Hostages alive now didn't He?? Can We say the same for Dubya?? Oh and He tried to do something but failed. You know the choppers going down in the desert?? Weren't the Military basically drained of supplies and shit when this was going on at the time because of the Vietnam War?? I don't know I was trying to stay out of the Principals office at the time of the Hostage taking. Seems to Me Carter did the best He could with the resources that He had available.

Larry Mohr

George HW Bush's decision to back W's run for the White House is as if the Godfather had allowed Fredo to run the family rather than going on a 'fishing trip'.

Oh and BTW, whatever happened to those hostages?

Let's see: different ones at different times tortured, held in solitary confinement, paraded around blindfolded, humilated on public TV, forced to sign false confessions of spying, forced to denounce America, held at gunpoint, held against their will, etc.

Other than that, I'm sure things were just hunkey dorey for them.

Walt, let's not even talk about Iraq. Did Ronnie ever talk about wiping the USSR off the map. In fact many righties crow that he did just that.

Didn't we wipe Japan and Germany off the map in WWII?

I'm not asking whether it was legal or justified, just responding to this:

The US doesn't go around saying they want to wipe a country off the earth.
Posted by goatman

And if Iran uses a nuke to wipe Isreal off the Earth, I assume it would be an official state function launched by a recognized Government, therefore making it not a terrorist act, but an act of war.

Sorry, Israel.

Other than that, I'm sure things were just hunkey dorey for them.

Posted by goatman

All's well that ends well.

Seems to Me Carter kept ALL of the Hostages alive now didn't He??

No, Larry, that would be their jailors. If they wanted them dead, they'd have been killed regardless of what Carter desired.

But are you saying the ends justifies the means? You are saying it is OK that they were kept against their will for 444 days because they lived? That's a crock of shit and you know it.

You know the choppers going down in the desert?? Weren't the Military basically drained of supplies and shit when this was going on at the time because of the Vietnam War??

You are putting your own guy down, Larry. Carter, as you say, did not rebuild the military after VietNam. You are right. The VN war had been over for over 4 years when the hostages were taken. Carter was president for almost three years by that time. Yeah, what a great CIC he was!

Yes, for all we know, we might end up with the horror of lower infant mortality rates and longer life expectancy like all the countries that have socialized medicine.

How much will it cost and who pays for it?

Yes, what a disaster it would be to have all those poor counties being grateful to us, instead of hating us.

How much will it cost and who pays for it?

Sure it sounds nice to say things like we should feed poor children and all that, but who pays for it? Many economists predict we are on the brink of recession and we don't even have these programs.

CTL is 1 good idea to help get us off the oil teat. South Africa relies heavily on it.

All's well that ends well.

Too bad it didn't end well. Alive, yes. Well, no

And if Iran uses a nuke to wipe Isreal off the Earth, I assume it would be an official state function launched by a recognized Government, therefore making it not a terrorist act, but an act of war.

Yes, and? That is supposed to make the Israelis feel better? It's better to be nuked as an act of war than an act of terror? What is your point?

TFD,

obama.senate.gov

Posted by Walt

Thanks, it's late and the DR has already kept me up too late. I will read it tomorrow.

I can say I'm not a fan of CTL as you call it. We've already dug too much shit out of the ground. personally I believe the answer is to stop wasting so much energy on bullshit like snowmobiles and leaf blowers and Nascar and driving 2 blocks to the store. And to develop hemp, used veggie oil and other non-food fuel sources. Why do we need to be burning oil and gas to heat our homes?

Didn't we wipe Japan and Germany off the map in WWII?

No we didn't. But if you want to argue we did, well OK. I'll run with that.

Do you think Iran is going to implement the equavalent of the Marshall plan in Israel after they nuke 'em? I don't.

How much will it cost and who pays for it?

Posted by Walt

Somehow no one ever asks this question when it comes to war and destruction, only when the subject is peace and benevolence.

Wouldn't a healthier, more educated society be more productive and pay more taxes?

What is your point?
Posted by goatman

Here's a hint to you and Walt. Read the previous posts and match the statements with the responses before you ask such questions. But since I know you won't:


Walt's statement:
Surely only a terrorist state would want to wipe another country off the map.

Posted by Walt

and then my response:

And if Iran uses a nuke to wipe Isreal off the Earth, I assume it would be an official state function launched by a recognized Government, therefore making it not a terrorist act, but an act of war.

Posted by TFDNihilist

Actually the term Terrorist State is an oxymoron. By definition a terrorist is someone who acts outside of an official state capacity.

(1)No, Larry, that would be their jailors. If they wanted them dead, they'd have been killed regardless of what Carter desired.

(2)But are you saying the ends justifies the means? You are saying it is OK that they were kept against their will for 444 days because they lived? That's a crock of shit and you know it.

You know the choppers going down in the desert?? Weren't the Military basically drained of supplies and shit when this was going on at the time because of the Vietnam War??

(3)You are putting your own guy down, Larry. Carter, as you say, did not rebuild the military after VietNam. You are right. The VN war had been over for over 4 years when the hostages were taken. Carter was president for almost three years by that time. Yeah, what a great CIC he was!


1Well if We had invaded like I am sure You wanted to do then they WOULD be dead now wouldn't they??

2.Never did I say the ends justify the means with regards to the Hostage taking. Nor was it OK for them to be taken and allowed to live.

3. Takes Money to rebuild the Military does it not?? Where were these Funds supposed to come from thin air?? Hell weren't we basically broke by then?? How was Carter supposed to rebuild the Military on a shoestring budget??? Hell I am a poor bastard and if I owned a Gun sans ammo where in the hell would I get the money for Bullets?? I am not Pretty so hooking is out?? Pray tell Me?? Do I go get some used car batteries and start widdling down the lead to make bullets?? I am sure THAT would work..................... NOT.

Larry Mohr

Why don't I describe what I think the phrase "wipe of the map" means. I am referring to Iran's goal of doing so by eliminating every Jew in Israel. That is what they want. They want them all dead.

Didn't we wipe Japan and Germany off the map in WWII?

So, my answer is "no".

Palestine on the other hand I would consider to be wiped off the map.

Do you think Iran is going to implement the equavalent of the Marshall plan in Israel after they nuke 'em?

Posted by goatman

No I don't, but that doesn't change the fact that America has talked about and acted to wipe other countries off the map.

True, we often rebuild them after we wipe them away, but that wasn't the subject.

Apologies for delays. I am on a VSat with a 1MB download, and it is nearing lunch, therefore there are now over 50 users draining the bandwidth.

Well, I'm off to check out some more pictures of hippies in flares, night all.

Walt, Goat, it really is a shame there aren't more posters here like you guys. You truly are not my enemies but fellow Americans.

Alex,

I'd rather Iran didn't get any nukes, but perhaps WE aren't the best party to intervene in that respect...

Fortunately, we are not the only country trying to prevent this.

Walt, Goat, it really is a shame there aren't more posters here like you guys. You truly are not my enemies but fellow Americans.

Damn skippy! Just don't get me going, then I get out of control.

1Well if We had invaded like I am sure You wanted to do then they WOULD be dead now wouldn't they??

We'll never know, will we? But if so, I'm sure at least some of them would've been killed during the rescue attempt as well.

Carter and rebuilding:

Bush has been waging a war for 5 years now after a scaled down military by Carter. He had been president less time than Carter.

You are blaming a depleted military on the failed rescue attempt. That's ludicrous, Larry. They had a handful of helicopters. Yes, the military was thinner after VN, but we certainly had the means to maintain a dozen helicopters. That's a pretty fucking weak deflection, Larry. Viet Nam had nothing -- zilch, zero, nada -- to do with the failed rescue attempt.

I'm glad for the TFD. I don't like having enemies or being one.

I am on a VSat with a 1MB download, and it is nearing lunch, therefore there are now over 50 users draining the bandwidth.

That's what happens when I'm on the rig, Walt. Only we have only 800k to the bird. From 6:00-7:00 and 12:00-1:00 our i'net slows to a crawl. There are also more people on the phone them vying for bandwidth.

That's why they ban streaming audio and video. Are y'all banned from streaming as well?

Just don't get me going, then I get out of control.

Posted by Walt

Sorry, it's 2:45 am here.

Goat, YouTube is banned, but most other sites are open. It is a huge pain in the ass during the day because all the locals, who have no net at home, make up for it by relentlessly surfing the net at work. After 1700, when they leave, the net is very fast, although not very reliable.

Go to bed TFD, you are starting to act like Spud.

So we're worried about Iran getting the bomb and nuking Israel, right?

And Israel has it's own nuclear weapons, several hundred, correct?

So why do WE need to be the ones nuking Iran? Really. If someone needs to get nuked to save Israel, why can't Israel do it?

So why do WE need to be the ones nuking Iran? Really. If someone needs to get nuked to save Israel, why can't Israel do it?

Who do you think is first in line after Israel to get nuked?

Besides this is not about Bush saying we should nuke anybody, it is about him saying that Iran wants to nuke somebody. It is in the best interests of the citizens of the US that Iran not get a nuke and be able to nuke us.

Cheers,
Walt

Yes Walt, I'm sure Iran would love to nuke Israel and the US. There are a lot of things I would love to do too but can't or would find it too foolish to do so. Not so Bush and his Zionist friends.

Why am I not surprised you share that foolishness. Maybe it's in a soldier's genes and training to believe whatever bullshit his leaders tell him. Why else would he put himself in mortal danger for the glorification of his chosen masters?

So our presence in Iraq is not "killing people"?

Spud, I fear you may be delusional. They are all 3 Senators and they are all the same lying, manipulating, deceitful, despicable, rotten creatures that the rest of congress is.

Nothing will "change" except the menu for supper.

Posted by Walt at 2008-03-22 12:51 AM


Walt, you are so correct. All three would say or do anything to get elected. November looks like McCain, since the democrats are destroying each other. A lifelong democrat, I changed my party affiliation to independent. Obamamania is the scariest thing to happen since 2000 when we elected Bush the first time. It is very "hitleresque" in the fact that he says nothing and people feel so hopeless they will follow anything.

Exactly Clinton. It is like mass brainwashing. Ray says:

Maybe it's in a soldier's genes and training to believe whatever bullshit his leaders tell him.

What sort of genes and training to does it require to single-mindedly worship at the altar of "Hope" and "Change"?

It really is scary. "Hope"fully it will all be over soon enough. There's some "hope" you can believe in.

I'm a a realist, Walt, in every sense of the word. The only change I see in this country is a continuation of change for the worse. I hope that I've made adequate adjustments in anticipating what is to come.

There is a saying in Proverbs I love. "A prudent man sees danger and gets out of the way. The simple go on ahead and suffer for it.

All three would say or do anything to get elected.
Posted by CLINTONISKING

Except Obama has already proven there is somethings he won't do. Like take lobby or corporate money. I think that's a major difference.

So by your logic, he has already proven himself to be different, and therefore worthy of your vote.

Spud, I fear you may be delusional. They are all 3 Senators and they are all the same lying, manipulating, deceitful, despicable, rotten creatures that the rest of congress is.

Nothing will "change" except the menu for supper.

Posted by Walt at 2008-03-22 12:51 AM


Therein lies the problem. Which I understand. Politicians and crooks and liars have worked so hard to convince you that everyone is like them.

If anything, one of the candidates has a different background, life experiences and racial background than anyone who has ever run before. If you're so jaded on the old politicians, why not vote for someone who is unlike any presidential candidate ever?

To put it it your terms, I prefer the evil I don't know over the evil I know has beat me down time and time again.

All three would say or do anything to get elected.
Posted by CLINTONISKING



Really, I would say Obama did a pretty nice job of defending his position and his pastor in his speech.

Kind of stood up and said, look America is this the type of rhetoric you want out of us political runners during election years, and years and years.

I think Obama is doing a great job holding to his standing values, and at least he isn't whining and crying about unfair treatment.

why not vote for someone who is unlike any presidential candidate ever?

Didn't you and I already discuss this?

Let me clarify my position. I wouldn't vote for Oblahma if he was running against Lucifer.

The only thing he and I had common interests in was CTL and he caved on that so fast it made my head spin.

Yes he is different; on that we all agree, but different doesn't mean good. This is a clear case of opposites, not attracting. If I was forced at gunpoint to vote Oblahma or Hitlary, I would probably have to take a shot in the arm or knee first, but I would take Oblahma.

Walt

Just asking, so lighten up.

Are you then an enthusiastic supporter of McCain?

Didn't you and I already discuss this?

Let me clarify my position. I wouldn't vote for Oblahma if he was running against Lucifer.
Posted by Walt

Yes, but you never say why.

Unless it's the racial thing, and that would be just sad.

You complain they're all the same, yet refuse to accept someone different.

Are you then an enthusiastic supporter of McCain?

I am not even a regular supporter of McCain. McCain's position, primarily on the border situation, has me in a quandary. As much as I dislike the 2 dems, I can't get the image, which is seared, seared I tell you, into my mind, of him and the Kennedy bastard standing there grinning while they were trying to pass the freaking Shamasty bill.

We can stop talking about border security now. My blood pressure shoots thru the roof when I start thinking about it.

I am seriously considering sitting this one out.

You complain they're all the same, yet refuse to accept someone different.

TFD,

It is not a racial thing. It is the fact that he is a flaming socialist. I am not. Ergo, won't vote for him.

He may be different from most candidates but his political leanings and his ideology is no different than that any other radical leftist.

TFD,

I like talking with you.

Without giving me any other information other than his positions on the issues, what do you think are the top 3 or 4 or 5 reasons you think I should vote for him?

Here are some reasons I supported Huckabee:

1 Supported implementation of the FairTax
2 Wanted to work to secure the border
3 Was opposed to amnesty for illegals
4 Was pro 2nd Amendment
5 Wanted more exploration for oil on our own soil.

What are your top 5 reasons for me, as a conservative, to vote for Oblahma? Seriously.

Woops - browser issues - didn't mean to post it 3 times!!! But that really is how good I think it is :)

So by your logic, he has already proven himself to be different, and therefore worthy of your vote.

Posted by TFDNihilist

Different does not equal good. And no, he is not going to get my vote no-way-no-how-no bama.

Walt--Huckabee could be the VP choice...younger and more conservative than McCain. I am sure he is on the short-list. But I know you will hate me now, but I am a Hillary supporter. Don't think it will get me anywhere, though...:)

I am a Hillary supporter

Really?

Can I ask why?

Forgive me in advance if I don't answer right back but it is late here.

Cheers,
Walt

Walt
I always go with my gut reaction to people. No one is perfect, politicians even less so, but I agree with her on a majority of things. I know it's crazy, but I basically trust her. I feel the same way about John McCain, so will have no problem voting for him. Obama...I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him. We know little about him, and every thing I find out makes me like/trust him less.

I know it's crazy, but I basically trust her.

So do I.

(((soothing music in the background)))

We are all swaying to the motion now ... ...

I trust her ...

Dadadadadadada

I trust Hillary ...

Dadadadadadada

I want to vomit in my mouth and swallow it at then vomit again and swallow that ...

Dadadadadadada

Vote Killary ... .

Dadadadadadada

Vote Hillary and get the best fuck of your life. With McCain, Walt and friends are assured a lifetime of employment. Better the devil you know than the devil you don't know.

Who do you think is first in line after Israel to get nuked?

Besides this is not about Bush saying we should nuke anybody, it is about him saying that Iran wants to nuke somebody. It is in the best interests of the citizens of the US that Iran not get a nuke and be able to nuke us.

Cheers,
Walt

Walt-

Do you seriously believe that there's an actual threat that Iran - a country half a world away, 1/5th the population of the US, with no ICBMs and maybe a few untested nukes in 5-10 years, is going to nuke Israel and THEN pick a nuke fight with us? The country with more nuclear weapons than anyone else on the planet, who could wipe them out with less effort than we put into invading Granada?

No. This is about Israel. If they nuke Israel, they'd get burned into glass. But if someone wants to nuke Iran preemptively (and that IS where this is going), it will have to be Israel that does it, because this isn't our job, sorry.

Walt, I've been thinking about this all day. I guess I can't give you 5 specific things. I'm sure all his policies are too left/socialist for you. After all, you're the guy who called me stupid for thinking it's evil to profit over war.

I've pretty much given you the main reason I support Obama at this point (Ron Paul was my first choice), and that is I like to shake things up. I've already lived through a couple really bad, criminal Presidents, yet America survives. I'm willing to go a brand new direction and see what happens. Things can only get better. If Obama takes your blood money and feeds hungry children with it, I'll be happy.

Posted by TFDNihilist at 2008-03-22 08:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

Well I was waiting all night to see your reply. I was extremely disappointed when I did see it.

Cheers,
Walt

Gee, maybe Iran has several hundred Exocet missles Ronnie Raygun gave 'em to put small warheads on

"Mission Accomplished"

Ring a bell???

I see a lot of buyers remorse out there over this clown....

"If you were in one of the towers when it went down it would have affected your way of life greatly."


Congratulations, you are indistinguishable from most Iraqi insurgents....they use identical logic.