Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Thursday, August 14, 2008

A new analysis shows the vast majority of US troops serving abroad have donated to candidates running on strong anti-war platforms, with presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama out-raising his Republican opponent by a 6-to-1 margin.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

DARTHCHENEY

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

i know plenty of military and ex military..

all probama

Republicans aren't giving McCain money?

That's news...


Republicans aren't giving McCain money?


That's news...

Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE

Off topic.

"Off topic."

Posted by DARTHCHENEY

On topic.

I was suggesting that part of the reason McCain is getting so little from republicans in the military is the same reason he doesn't strong support from republicans in general. Because republicans aren't excited about him.

It's not surprising then that repubs in the military aren't giving him money. Why would they? They don't like him, niether do many republicans. Even if they're voting for him.

Hence McSame refusing to support VA patients in getting the vote.

I would be a little sceptical about this story. Not just because it is from a Liberal website, written by a Libberal Author.

I work in the near proximity of close to 1,000 active and reserve military members and that is not the way the conversations lean.

Most people dont like eather of the candidates but feel that McCain has the experience to do the job. Nobody seems to hate Obama but generally dont feel that he has any experiance to lead the country.

Another continual conversation about Obama is all the instances of his friends and advisors turning up to be less than desirable.

News Flash...

Military members contributed more to Ron Paul than any other Republican candidate.

Yep maybe those dumb grunts aren't so dumb after all huh?

Sick-maybe the troops would rather see someone their age, or their father's age as C-in_C than someone their grandfather's age.

Or they are just tired of the Republican war for oil bullshit.
As Axiom points out, and other sources earlier in the primaries documented, Paul and Obama got more money than McSame.

I'm pretty sure Georgian troops are big McSame backers, if that makes you feel better.

Or they are just tired of the Republican war for oil bullshit

"war for oil" implies we went to war for their oil. Anyone here know when we are going to start taking it? After 5 years, I think it's about time we do, don't y'all?

"War for Oil": One of those phrases that gets said enough the idiots amongst us actually start to believe it. Never mind we buy about 1/4 of Iraq's petrol output at fair market prices.

But "war for oil" sound SOOOO evil, the ignorant lefties can't resist using that inaccurate phrase. Besides, they actually believe it! LOL

Doesn't surprise me the troops are Democrats this year. They've just come through eight years of being treated like dogs by someone not worthy to lace their shoes.

But "war for oil" sound SOOOO evil, the ignorant lefties can't resist using that inaccurate phrase. Besides, they actually believe it! LOL

OK Goatman, tell us why we went to war, Iraq didn't attact us, there were no WMD's, the Chinese getting large oil contracts, Iraq doesn't want us there, the terrorists are largly elesewhere, so why the war, why are we nation building? give your brilliant perspective.

What has the right wing done for America lately?
'Nuff said.

**** OK Goatman, tell us why we went to war, Iraq didn't attact us, there were no WMD's, the Chinese getting large oil contracts, Iraq doesn't want us there, the terrorists are largly elesewhere, so why the war, why are we nation building? give your brilliant perspective.

..Posted by onna *******

......we wanted "in" on their 16 month time horizon for fucking off......

***** Troops Give More to Obama Than McCain..6 to 1 Ratio ******

....well.....6 out 7 troops are now on the "no-fly" list....

.......sorry defeatocrats........gotta swim home....

give your brilliant perspective.


I don't know. I may be ignorant, but it seems to me that if it was a war for oil we'd be . . . well, taking the oil. I know it's a crazy concept, but that's the way I see it.

You know, when people go rob a bank, they take the money. They don't go in, shoot the place up, then forget the money, do they? LIkewise if we went over there for their oil it just seems to me we'd be taking it.

But as I said, you lefties have heard that phrase so much on the daily kos, you actually believe it. It must be sad to be a sheeple.

Goat-under the original plans set out by the Administration, the CPA would auction off the Iraqi oilfields to a handpicked group of companies-mostly the ones Cheney had met with in 2001 to discuss Iraq's oil. Probably just a coincidence...


You can use the google and find the Bushies plan for privitization in Iraq. Or you can believe Bush invaded to save the Iraqis from nasty old Saddamand his mushroom yellowcake.

As for not getting to do that-al sistani said no, and Bush's selected Iraqi leader Chalabi, had zero credibility in Iraq. Saying because Bush didn't get what he wanted means he didn't want it is like saying Hitler didn't want to defeat Russia because he got his ass kicked in Stalingrad. Wants versus abilities...

Goat-under the original plans set out by the Administration, the CPA would auction off the Iraqi oilfields to a handpicked group of companies

OK, I'll play. Why hasn't that happenened?

When it happens, get back to me. Maybe in another 50 or 60 years they'll do it. LOL

Must be sad to be so gullible. Now get back to your flock. It's koolaid time at the trough. I think it's recess time at the daily kos, so a lot of your friends will be there.

My experiences, in the military, was I never had enough money to contribute to ANYONE except my family! I was enlisted and pay raises were controlled by congress, and were very stingily given!

I can however, see the Officers corps passing the big bucks, after all their careers are dependant on the largess of the politicians.

It is better, and easier to perform, if you don't have to do it in a wartime environment. Getting the senior rank promotions doesn't rest, entirely on conflict resolutions, bt real conflict. Thus a given, Obama would receive a greater amount, as he will make it somewhat easier to advance thru the ranks to senior Officer levels.

"But as I said, you lefties have heard that phrase so much on the daily kos, you actually believe it. It must be sad to be a sheeple."

how many lefties said this? one comment on oil and you say "lefties said this", again tell us why did we go to war! was it to drink kool aid?

you have no idea what you are talking about, so stop your snide BS and tell us why did we go to war!

Why did we go to war with Iraq? Damned if I know. Oil played it's part, that's just logic. But primarily it was because Bush wanted to make his bones.

One man, one war. Wonder if the SOB will attend a vet's funeral after he's out of office?

The TRUTH from a 12 years old girl from Georgia

www.youtube.com

how many lefties said this?

"War for oil". A lot. Please don't tell me you deny a large portion of them use that phrase. To do so would be the ultimate in intellectual dishonesty.

"You know, when people go rob a bank, they take the money. "

Nobody ever claimed we were just going to line up tankers and start filling them. Control of oil, access to oil was one of the strategic objectives. But then, maybe that wild-eyed leftist Alan Greenspan was brainwashed by the Daily Kos when he said the war was "largely about oil."

you have no idea what you are talking about, so stop your snide BS and tell us why did we go to war!
I guess you missed my 8:59 reply to that question, so I'll repeat it for you:

I don't know.

But I'm not so brainwashed that just because I don't know I make the illogical conclusion that it was for oil -- especially since after 5.5 years we aren't taking it! LOL

en.wikipedia.org

the TRUTH even from a wiki - the ayes and nays say it all folks.


and tell us why did we go to war!

Posted by onna at 2008-08-14 09:20 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e


You're a dense one.

Here.

Again.




www.whitehouse.gov

Alan Greenspan was brainwashed by the Daily Kos when he said the war was "largely about oil."

So did my Aunt Mary. As if an economist is an expert in geopolitics. That aside, he retracted that statement. But I know -- Alan Greenspan is a good guy when he said that, a bad guy for allegedly being responsible for the current housing crisis, a good guy for . . .


***** What has the right wing done for America lately?
'Nuff said.

Posted by kingzilla ******

.....dont be so cynical.........there's that 8 year tax break for millionaires......gotta count for something......

"lefties", the right wing bogeyman. Anything bad happens shout "lefties", such simplistic minds (or lack of minds). No persoanl resposibilty, just blame the lefties just as earlier biggots blamed the blacks for their ills. same story of hate, right whiners is what they should be called.

"lefties keep saying war for oil, they drink kool aid", then that ends their discussion, like they made some point, after it must be the lefties fault we went to war. Since I haven't seen any lefties making that point here, then what are you talking about, just BS?

you should know by now only ditto head right whiners drink kool aid!

Didn't see Barry's name on the list of those voted nay - maybe he voted present at that one too. That man has less intestinal fortitude than an ethiopian with a tapeworm.

Anything bad happens shout "lefties",

That's rich. Very rich. And it made me laugh.

We gave the most to (and early on to) guess who.....












...that's right.....















Ron Paul.

Signed,

US Troops

oops long day of flying guess he couldn't have voted in that one.

you should know by now only ditto head right whiners drink kool aid!

No, not only them. The lefties are just as bad as they are. But as a partisian hack, you wouldn't notice.

Back to the trough for you!

Of course service people give most to Obama. The old saying is that the life you save may be your own. Does someone here STILL suggest that Bush's Iraq war is not about oil? herm

"No, not only them. The lefties are just as bad as they are. But as a partisian hack, you wouldn't notice."

I did not say "war for oil", so what is the basis for your partisan hack comment, I just called you on why the war as you kept mentioning "war for oil and kool aid, you said you don't know why the war, good enough, now who said "war for oil" on this thread and who is the hack?.

people are dying and you say "I don't know", then you call others a hack for not saying what you say they are saying.

I did not say "war for oil", so what is the basis for your partisan hack comment,

I never said you did.

so what is the basis for your partisan hack comment,

This:

you should know by now only ditto head right whiners drink kool aid!

Posted by onna at 2008-08-14 09:38 PM


now who said "war for oil" on this thread

Or they are just tired of the Republican war for oil bullshit.

Posted by northguy3 at 2008-08-14 08:33 PM


...then you call others a hack for not saying what you say they are saying.

???

I'll let you take that back since obviously you were not keeping up with the thread. Along those lines, you would save me a lot of time C&Ping if you did. Thanks.

The most republican guy I know served in Iraq. He hated bill clinton and thought HW Bush was great.

He said he would vote for whomever the democratic nominee was, even hillary, over McCain or any republican.

Basically, he wants the next POTUS to get us out of Iraq ASAP.

one or two comments does not make your "lefties" claim valid. that's a broad brush, one that righties always use, yes I know, it's stupid, kinda like saying all Mexicans carry knifes.

I don't think it was a war for oil, (though Im sure that was a consideration) the neocons had a dream of changing the middle east, they thought their plan would succeed, they knowingly lied to implement their plan, much like Christians lying for Jesus, they believed their vision to change the middle east was good so lies are OK, they actually believed their own hype, ..liberators, flowers--, it failed and we pay. (a lot)

the neocons had a dream of changing the middle east, they thought their plan would succeed, they knowingly lied to implement their plan,

Though I admitted I don't know the reasons, this one actually makes sense and is one I could buy into.

" As if an economist is an expert in geopolitics. "

Gee, who should I believe? Alan Greenspan and thousands of other pundits or some blogger on the Drudge Retort? Decisions, decisions...

I'd drop ya the link for PNAC, goatman...but the website is gone.

I guess someone somewhere had an ounce of shame. lol

Nullifidian- Don't be to good to Greenspan. The housing crash is on his shoulders too.

Sure he is, Alex, but the point is, he's not some flaming liberal from the Daily Kos.

Gee, who should I believe? Alan Greenspan and thousands of other pundits or some blogger on the Drudge Retort?

Do you really think a lone blogger on the DR is the only person who disagrees?

Sounds like your mind is made up and you don't really want to hear any other side.

I've heard all sides. Ad nauseum. The point is that your idiotic assertion that the only people who claimed the war was about oil were/are "lefties" simply isn't true.

The point is that your idiotic assertion that the only people who claimed the war was about oil were/are "lefties" simply isn't true.

That could be right. But I can honestly say I've never heard a right winger claim that the war was about oil -- only the left. But I don't discount there may be a few from the right who also believe that.

I don't know. I may be ignorant, but it seems to me that if it was a war for oil we'd be . . . well, taking the oil. I know it's a crazy concept, but that's the way I see it.


You know, when people go rob a bank, they take the money. They don't go in, shoot the place up, then forget the money, do they? LIkewise if we went over there for their oil it just seems to me we'd be taking it.


But as I said, you lefties have heard that phrase so much on the daily kos, you actually believe it. It must be sad to be a sheeple.

Posted by goatman at 2008-08-14 08:59 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

You are not stupid but maybe selectively ignorant.
Don't you work in the oil business?
I work for the second largest oil company in the world. lets stop bullshitting each oher here.
You know as well as i do that the major oil companies are getting the shit out of the ground. It was never as if the American Govt.was going to pump the shit out but all of the cronies of cheney and Bush. Now, lets be real with each other on this thread, you and I know that it isn't a country that recovers resources but companies.
Let me guess.... you have no idea who is doing the E&P???? No matter who buys the oil somebody places it on the market...Gimme a break!

Don't you work in the oil business?

Yes I do, but I'm an ET. I could work about anywhere. i.e., I'm not an oilman anymore than the catering crew who cooks my food and makes my bed on the rig everyday are oilmen.

Nonetheless, I still see no evidence that war in Iraq is being fought for oil. We haven't taken it, we haven't been selling off oilfields as has been alleged, etc.

Posted by goatman at 2008-08-14 11:02 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Do you deny that American oil companies are making money off of the posession???

They fucked it up like they fucked everything else up. That is if you call record profits a fuck up. Seemds they did right for their "haves and have more" constituents.

Greenspan made it perfectly clear.
www.timesonline.co.uk

But enough of that, what was going on before 9/11?
Judicial Watchs Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit concerning the activities of the Cheney Energy Task Force, contain a map of Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, refineries and terminals, as well as 2 charts detailing Iraqi oil and gas projects, and Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts.-- The documents, which are dated March 2001, are available on the Internet at: www.JudicialWatch.org.

www.judicialwatch.org

How long has Cheney been wondering about that oil?
Cheney told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Sept. 11, 1990:

"Our strategic interests in the Persian Gulf region, I think, are well known, but bear repeating. . . We obviously also have a significant interest because of the energy that is at stake in the gulf. . . Once [former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein] acquired Kuwait and deployed an army as large as the one he possesses, he was clearly in a position to be able to dictate the future of worldwide energy policy, and that gave him a stranglehold on our economy and on that of most of the other nations of the world as well,"

Seems some have been rubbing their hands together for a long, long time. We just didn't quite finish what Wolfowitz, Cheney and Rumsfeld wanted. We needed a "Pearl Harbor" event to remake the middle east, install friendlies.

web.archive.org

It's not like it's some big secret. Not given how much oil is in Iraq.

Do you deny that American oil companies are making money off of the posession???

Just as they are making money in non-war zones

www.iraqdevelopmentprogram.org

Goat I'm for your answer

You are full of shit

sorry. waiting for your answer..
trying to keep up with swimming on the olympics.

www.iht.com

Think these guys may have had a vested interest Goat?????

Here's at least 25 reasons why the Bush Administration went to war in Iraq -

"25 Most Vicious War Profiteers In Iraq"

Republican lucrative war profiteering was the first and foremost reason we were dragged into Iraq. Oil was the icing on the cake. The real billions to be made came in the form of no bid, cost plus Iraq war reconstruction contracts handed out to Bush's Republican corporate donors.

END OF STORY.

OK, I'll play. Why hasn't that happenened?

Okay Goat. Hopefully you can read, so i don't have to go to the beginning to educate you. The original Bush plan was for Chalabi to be installed as president, due to the great love the people of Iraq had for him, at least according to him,and an interim "government" of selected, compliant shieks and tribal leaders set up to approve a Constitution which included the privitization of Iraqi natioanl businesses and oil fields. After this was a done deal, there would be an election based on the imposed rules, and the money gained by selling off Iraq would be used to rebuild Iraq-conservative idol paul wolfowitz's "self-funding" source for the financing of the rebuilding. Chalabi, of course, had suckered the gullible righties into believing, as they claimed, that he was Iraq's George Washington. Ironically he turned out to be Iran's James Bond.

Unfortunately, as often happens to the Right, reality, in the form of ayatollah al sistani stepped in. He had kept the shia (60% of Iraq, Senator McCain), on the sidelines during the invasion-neither supporting or opposing it. He told Bremer the bogus constitution idea wouldn't fly (basically because it underrepresented shia strength in Iraq)and that there had to be real elections (to be won by the 60%ers)before there could be any constitution. Otherwise he would tell the silent majority of Iraqis the invasion wasn't such a good thing and maybe the shia should help the Americans exit. The delay allowed Iraqis who thought that they should keep control of their resources get elected.

It's not like it's some big secret. Not given how much oil is in Iraq.


Posted by YAV at 2008-08-14 11:09 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e


no shit.... kinda reminds me of that.... I think it was Johnny lang song,,, "Lie To me" "lie to me and tell me that everythings alright"

Just google any american oil company and add Iraq to the end.. see what happens...
Amazing!

It's not like it's some big secret.

I guess the big secret is: when are we going to start taking it or profiting from it, or selling oilfields to our buddies or ___________ (fill in the blank with your favorite wartime conspiracy)

Judicial Watchs Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit concerning the activities of the Cheney Energy Task Force, contain a map of Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, refineries and terminals, as well as 2 charts detailing Iraqi oil and gas projects, and Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts.-- The documents, which are dated March 2001, are available on the Internet at: www.JudicialWatch.org.

This comes as a surprise? I would be surprised if any president in the last 30 years did not have possession of such maps considering how dependent we are on oil imports. I'll bet they also have maps of strategic industrial areas, ports and airports, water supplies, etc. of all our enemies and friends.

Seems some have been rubbing their hands together for a long, long time.

I suppose that's the cynical view. But Cheney is correct, of course. Considering Saddam's army, and control of global (not just US) oil supplies, it would be prudent to understand what is there and how it could be attacked by anyone -- Iran, say.

The real billions to be made came in the form of no bid, cost plus Iraq war reconstruction contracts handed out to Bush's Republican corporate donors.


END OF STORY.

Posted by CalifChris at 2008-08-14 11:16 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

At $35 bbl I can see the point but at $140 I think we may have a disagreement.

it would be prudent to understand what is there and how it could be attacked by anyone -- Iran, say.

Posted by goatman

well, at least that threat is off the table. It's their oil now, too. Way to go Dubya!

The original Bush plan was for Chalabi to be installed as president, ...

*yawn*

And you have proof of this, of course. I'm sure you have it right in your files next to the location of Jimmy Hoffa's body, the Kennedy assassination conspiracy, and the 9/11 conspiracy files.

As I said, get back to me when it happens. I don't do conspiracies.

Okay Goat. Hopefully you can read,

Almost wish I couldn't. What a waste of time your post was.

I suppose that's the cynical view.

Cynical to expect oil men to look after their own interests?

I don't ask a snake to be something other than a snake. That's not cynical. It's basic. Likewise I don't pet a snake pretending it's a dog and then act shocked when it bites.

I suppose that's the cynical view. But Cheney is correct, of course. Considering Saddam's army, and control of global (not just US) oil supplies, it would be prudent to understand what is there and how it could be attacked by anyone -- Iran, say.

Posted by goatman at 2008-08-14 11:22 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

OK, now you have really switched gears...
I guess we need to go 'round the world looking for countries that have reserves that could be attacked by others in hopes to secure them for ourselves... did I read that right?? while we engage in major nation rebuilding and have no fucking clue how to secure healthcare for our seniors that have paid into a broke fucking system all their lives... Now that is a picture of intelligence.

Cynical to expect oil men to look after their own interests?

No, yav, cynical to think that someone would start a war to line their pockets. The possession of maps is not in the least bit damning. As I said, I'd question the integrity of any president of the last 30 years who did not have such maps.

Goatman, you're a sad tool of the right. Wake up moron, and remove you tongue from Rush's butt.

OK, now you have really switched gears...
I guess we need to go 'round the world looking for countries that have reserves that could be attacked by others in hopes to secure them for ourselves...

???

did I read that right??

Of course not. Actually you read it right, but you mind is so sheeplized it went through the appropriate filters to come up with your bizarre skewed account. Turn off the filters and read my post again.

Goat, you have no intelligent argument.

give it up and try to convince Buffalo bob that there really are no alien spaceships in area 51.

everything about Chalabi, the rise and fall:
www.sourcewatch.org

Goatman, you're a sad tool of the right.

I work with 150 people who swear I am a bleeding heart liberal. You are wrong.

Wake up moron, and remove you tongue from Rush's butt.

Ah, the old, "get your nose out of Rush's butt" comeback. Always a winner. I've said it before, but here it is again -- the only thing I know about Rush is what you lefties tell me.

Goatman, you're a sad tool of the right.

It'd be nice if you came back with proof that we are taking Iraq's oil or somehow profiting by being at war. But without any proof of that, I guess the "tool of the right" will have to do. Oh well.

Goat, you have no intelligent argument.

???

My arguement that we did not go to war for is is that we are not taking any or profiting by it. It doesn't get much more straightforward than that.

I still haven't seen you give any proof that we are profiting from or taking oil. It seems it is you who has no arguement. I made mine, but apparently since you can't counter it, you dismiss it.

Again, oh well.

sheeplized?????
How about Hannitized or insanitized?
recognize those????
You've been kneeling to the radio alter of the right haven't you..

How about Hannitized or insanitized?
recognize those????

No

You've been kneeling to the radio alter of the right haven't you..

Nope. I don't listen to talk radio, except occaisionally the local talk show hosts in San Antonio. As I said upthread a couple of minutes ago (are you keeping up?) the only think I know about Rush is what you lefties tell me about him. I find it quite an irony that I have to get all my information about Rush from a lefty, but that's another thread.

My arguement that we did not go to war for is is that we are not taking any or profiting by it. It doesn't get much more straightforward than that.


I still haven't seen you give any proof that we are profiting from or taking oil. It seems it is you who has no arguement. I made mine, but apparently since you can't counter it, you dismiss it.


Again, oh well.

Posted by goatman at 2008-08-14 11:42 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Read the links I posted earlier...

If you are still confused do this:

type the name of an american oil co. in google then "IRAQ" following it read only the ones that you feel are credible... nevermind...

type the name of an american oil co. in google then "IRAQ"

Why stick to IRAQ? If we are going to be honest and fair, wouldn't the correct thing to do is look at the oil companie's operations in all their markets -- not just Iraq?

I know, I know, equality in reporting isn't exactly your cup of tea. You'd obviously prefer it remained one sided or you would not have suggested I google only Iraq.

Let me know when you want to look at the big picture and not only the war zones. Then we'll talk. Unlike you, I'm kind of funny about looking at all sides of an issue.

intersting story on Iraq oil profits from "Asia Times":
the law concerning Iraq oil profits did not have much to be debated. The law was in essence drafted, behind locked doors, by a US consulting firm hired by the Bush administration and then carefully retouched by Big Oil, the International Monetary Fund, former US deputy defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz' World Bank, and the United States Agency for International Development. It's virtually a US law (its original language is English, not Arabic).

full info:
www.atimes.com

About all this horse shit from the right about "if it was for oil..." was it not the oil installations in Iraq that were immediately overtaken and protected ? i.e. while the rest of the infrastructure was being looted.

If the bushies had been clever enough to send in a half million troops and secure all of the country they could now be milking Iraqi oil.

"I work with 150 people who swear I am a bleeding heart liberal. You are wrong."

Yeah, and we've heard that a 150 times and nobody cares. Your posts speak for themselves, and your posts are always bashing liberals.

Why stick to IRAQ?


Posted by goatman at 2008-08-14 11:53 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

UH.... cuz thats what we were debating?


HEY, look at that bird over there!
~goat

"No, yav, cynical to think that someone would start a war to line their pockets"

because its never happened before

"My arguement that we did not go to war for is is that we are not taking any or profiting by it. It doesn't get much more straightforward than that."

Not for lack of trying but that pesky Iraqi Parliament just wouldn't approve the oil law Bremer had written for them. Why do you think Bush/Cheney were so stubborn about not having a withdrawl timetable??? Why do you think they had the world's largest embassy built there??? If you think Bush/Cheney invaded Iraq for humanitarian reasons you are naive, if you think they invaded because of WMD then you just haven't been paying attention.
Remember: "The oil will pay for the war."???
What do you think that meant???

From the article:

" the Democratic candidate brought in more than $335,000 from all military personnel, compared to about $280,000 for the Republican."

That's about the same proportions as the general US population. Obama is raising more money than McCain.

How can Obama lose? How can he lose? How can he possibly lose? Well he's a democrat so it's easy to lose.

"That's about the same proportions as the general US population."

Yes, but we have heard time after time from our DR friends to the right about how the military is overwhelmingly Republican and supports GOP policies and candidates.

Seems the times they are a changin'.

Goat,

It's not unlikely that the war for oil plans just didn't come to fruition.

One thing that has to do with oil that certainly did happen was the sale of Iraqi oil being converted back to the dollar, after Saddam had switched it to euro.

This sale of oil in dollars is actually costing Iraq mone.

I guess the question to you goat; If this was isn't about oil, what do you think it was about?

Do you believe the war was truly about WMD's and stopping a dictator?

gustogus

it was about revenge.

Goat:
Nobody is speaking on the record yet, but US intelligence officials are making it clear to a variety of preeminent news sources that Ahmad Chalabi, a longtime darling of the neoconservatives who dragged the U.S. into this war, not only fed Western intelligence sources false information about Saddam Hussein's Iraq but is accused of having passed on US secrets to Iran, possibly through his security and intelligence chief, who is now a fugitive.

"This is a very, very serious charge," Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska said on Sunday, noting that his Senate Intelligence Committee will be investigating it. "There were a number of us who warned this administration about [Chalabi].... But the fact is, there were some in this administration, some in Congress who were quite taken with him."

Too harsh? Not by a long shot. The CIA had stopped using Chalabi as a source in the mid-1990s after his political organization of exiles was accused of deception and incompetence. However, over the last four years, Chalabi was shamelessly resurrected inside the Beltway by neoconservatives, including Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith and other Bush officials who were leading the campaign to invade Iraq.


So now we can watch a familiar drama unfold as the United States turns on a lout whom it tried to sell as Iraq's George Washington.

But being a wily survivor, Chalabi apparently decided that after embarrassing his Beltway backers so badly on the question of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and realizing that he was about as popular as the occupation itself, he had better make some new friends. Now he is playing the role of a populist Moses to President Bush's Pharaoh, chanting in Baghdad last week to "let my people go." He says his aides are innocent of spying for Iran but won't turn themselves in because "there is no justice in Iraq. There is Abu Ghraib prison."

But even if this outrage proves true, it is unlikely that anyone high up will be held responsible for coddling Chalabi. After all, nobody of any stature has yet been held accountable for the missing weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the prison torture scandal or the poor planning for the occupation. Certainly not President Bush, who is touring the nation bragging that the obvious disaster in Iraq is actually a great victory for the free world.

Goat-you can either accept Reality, or go on believing the clown you voted for didn't send 4100 Americans to die based on pre 9-11 dreams of scooping up all that lovely oil.

You dems will grasp at any straw to convince yourselves the ears will be the next president. He hasn't even got the party nomination yet.

The GOPper supposed nominee is pretty fucking clueless Sniper. Or was he just a paid agent of Iran, too?

One of his key backers has been John McCain, who was one of the first patrons of Chalabis grand-sounding International Committee for a Free Iraq when it was founded in 1991. McCain was Chalabis favored candidate in the 2000 election since Chalabi knew that he would be able to free up the $97 million in military aid plus millions pushed through in Congress and earmarked for Chalabis exile group, the Iraqi National Congress, but held up by the Clinton State Department.

Indeed, McCain was a Chalabi backer long before President Bush took power. In 1997, he tried to pressure the Clinton administration into setting up an Iraqi government in exile. Despite opposition from the Pentagon and the State Department, the next fall, McCain co-sponsored the Iraq Liberation Act, committing the United States to overthrowing Saddam and funding opposition groups. According to a 2006 article by John Judis:

McCain welcomed Ahmed Chalabi, leader of the Iraqi National Congress (INC), to Washington and pressured the administration to give him money. When General Anthony Zinni cast doubt upon the effectiveness of the Iraqi opposition, McCain rebuked him at a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

In 2003, McCain joined four other Republican senators and asked Bush to personally clear the bureaucratic roadblocks within the State Department-- that blocked increased funding for the Chalabis group.

Also that year, McCain said of Chalabi, Hes a patriot who has the best interests of his country at heart.--

"My arguement that we did not go to war for is is that we are not taking any or profiting by it. It doesn't get much more straightforward than that."

I agree that its hard to say the war was about oil when there is no real evidence that we've done anything to take their oil..

But the Bushies have changed their excuse for invading Iraq several times already. WMD's (not true), Iraq helped Al Queda (not only untrue but a lie), Fighting them over there..., spreading Democracy

So at best, what we can say is that we don't really know why we invaded Iraq because our government refuses to give a straight answer. Using common sense: Some favored people are making tons of money from this little project. So we have to at least consider that maybe the war is about making them richer. Would explain why our government can't give a straight answer.

The problem with people like Goatman is that they defend the Bushies on certain points when they are able to without ever acknowledging that these people led us into war and can't even give a straight answer as to why. It has also become apparent that the whole thing was rushed through with very little planning ahead of time. Sending guys to war without a bothering to properly plan shows a complete contempt for their lives and that is unforgivable.

As a navy veteran w/ 34 years service, I have been appalled by Bush-Cheney's brand of militarism. It is so obvious that the Cheney holdovers from the 1980s wanted to politicize the military so they could use it to get back into power. Once back in power, Cheney and his acolytes thought it would be easy gaining global leadership through military operations. All they have easily managed to do is to suck the treasury down and enrich themselves. (There ought to be a law. -- At least tehre will be an end-of-term election -- we hope!)

As a Navy veteran w/ 34 years service, I have been appalled by Bush-Cheney's brand of militarism. It is so obvious that the Cheney holdovers from the 1980s wanted to politicize the military so they could use it when they got back into power.

Once back in power, Cheney and his acolytes thought it would be easy gaining global leadership through military operations. All they have easily managed to do is to suck the treasury down and enrich themselves. (There ought to be a law. -- At least there will be an end-of-term election ... -- We hope!)

The guys in our (deployed) shop have 8 guys voting for McCain (myself included), 3 that are apathetic, and ONE Obama supporter. His 5 second visit to ISAF obviously didn't sway anybody here.

Purely anecdotal, just putting my 2 cents in.

Well he's a democrat so it's easy to lose.

Only sitting Presidents to get defeated since 1960 are Ford (R), Carter(D) and Bush (R.) No Democrat Congress or Senate losses in 2006, only Republican.
Even GOPpers are praying for only small losses, not expecting gains, in 2008.

Reality and the Right, like vampires and sunlight.


how many lefties said this?


"War for oil". A lot. Please don't tell me you deny a large portion of them use that phrase. To do so would be the ultimate in intellectual dishonesty.

Posted by goatman

Alan Greenspan claims Iraq war was really for oil
www.timesonline.co.uk

Alan Greenspan... lefty.... who knew?

Your hero?

Mr Greenspan, who wrote in his memoir that "the Iraq War is largely about oil", said in a Washington Post interview that while securing global oil supplies was "not the administration's motive," he had presented the White House before the 2003 invasion with the case for why removing the then-Iraqi leader was important for the global economy.

Greenspan clarifies oil, Iraq war comment

Yeah blood for "Bushco's" gain...

Poor Goatboy! Still trying to be an apologist for the Bushco fiasco.

Goat, one thing you fail to realize. Just because this war was about oil doesn't mean we will end up with the oil.

Funny thing about wars you never really know how they will end once you let them loose on the world.

I am pretty sure the "plan" was for US OIL to end up with the majority of control of the Oil fields and revenue. AS it is the American Treasury has been emptied into the pockets of Bush and Cheney's hand picked War Profiteers. Heck of a Job Bushies!

I also believe the "plan" was for Iraq to be the shining Democratic example for all the other ME countries to follow. How's that one working out?

You are a master at deflecting a thread I will give you that but you sure are dumb. I can't imagine why the folks here keep trying to teach you the truth.

You still can't see it. Even after 8 years of evidence in your face.

On topic- GOBAMA! The troops love ya!

Why do American Soldiers Hate the Troops so much that they are giving money to Osama Hussein Nobamanation??? Don't they know he's the Anti-christ. John McCain implied that so it must be true. Aren't they drinking Rupert Murdoch's Koolaid anymore?

Don't the troops love Georgie Bush anymore? Don't they still wanna have a beer with him?

Or are finally they sick & tired of the death and destruction Republican Lies have wreaked on them, their families and their commrades?

"...Nobody seems to hate Obama but generally dont feel that he has any experiance to lead the country...Posted by sickoflibs

Wait a friggin' second. Turn on Fox, or Rush or Hannity, or any of the other Butt-snoggers from the right. They ALL HATE Obama. And their followers do to. What planet are you on???

Obama has more federal and International experience than GWB had when he took the presidency.

Why do you deflect from that?

GOATMAN:

Please answer why we went to war if it wasn't to take the OIL BACK? Saddam had nationalized it. Now it's not anymore and the contracts have been given to the big four oil producers.

So Again, Answer the question.

WHY DID WE GO TO WAR IN IRAQ?

Be exact.

***** Troops Give More to Obama Than McCain
.... with presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama out-raising his Republican opponent by a 6-to-1 margin. ******

......6 to 1......the troops consider Obama to be six times the leader that John McCain is......

I wouldn't give either of them a nickle. I would offer them both a beer though. Just being neighborly.

bl2's retarded brother doesn't understand "outraised by a 6 to 1 margin".

I have no idea how or why I read your post. Your retarded posting style usually gives me enough heads up to ignore them.

It's a style thing.

war for oil? you have to WIN the war to get the oil!CHINA is getting the oil under the old contract it had with Saddam. and how much was oil before bush went to Iraq? lol

Being so often on the receiving end of things that make no sense the lower ranks in military recognize BS when they see it. I think the word itself originated in the military, if it didn't it should have. When I served in peacetime BS was just annoying sometimes even amusing, serving in a war zone it can get you killed.

The grunts in HBO's "Generation Kill" have a keen sense for it. If they are typical and in my limited experience they would be then it's not surprising that they wouldn't be giving money to the guys who put them there in that BS war with BS equipment for BS missions. Just like it was never surprising that the more lunatic elements of the peace movement were the reason the military justifiably became so pro-Republican in the first place.

Bush and Cheney have squandered that particular advantage that the GOP enjoyed. As with other such advantages like fiscal responsibility, personal freedoms and limited government.

Funny how liars love to use "percentages" to justify their claims. Looking at the "raw" numbers leads one to quite a different conclusion..."A new analysis shows the vast majority of US troops serving abroad have donated to candidates running on strong anti-war platforms"...
---

Obama got 44 contributions worth about $27,000 and Paul 23 for about $19,300. Republican John McCain, an Iraq war supporter and Vietnam prisoner of war, was third with about $18,500 from 32 donors.

As of June 30, 2008, about 1,427,546 people are on active duty in the military with an additional 1,458,400 people in the seven reserve components.

~100 out of 3,000,000. 0.003%

Wow. The insignificant self-selected sample has spoken!

The US Armed Forces Overwhelmingly Support Obama... LOL!

Oooops. Those were the "raw numbers" from 2007. HERE are the numbers from 2008 upon which the headlines were based...

Among soldiers serving overseas at the time of their donations, 134 gave a total of $60,642 to Obama while 26 gave a total of $10,665 to McCain. That was less than the amount received by Republican Ron Paul, who collected $45,512 from 99 soldiers serving abroad, the report said....

There's the 6 to 1 ratio. LOL!

FARMER,

Where'd you get YOUR numbers? I just read the article which states:

"The report found Obama raised about $60,600 from troops deployed abroad, compared to $45,500 for Paul and $10,600 for McCain"

Inhaled Insecticide FLAG LOL

Thanks AU. I read the article, too - and from the one FJ linked:

He's arguing (I think) that Republicans, when you include Paul, the ratio's not 6:1. Of course if you go with Ron Paul's platform - stronger anti-war than Obama's, the message is:

Soldier's serving overseas at the time of their donations gave $106,154 to candidates wanting to quickly end the Iraq war than to McCain. McCain's donations totaled $10,600, a ratio of 10:1 against McCain.

That's a more interesting headline.

Nope. I'm arguing that the "sample size" upon which the so-called study's (headlines) "conclusions" are based are a preposterously insignificant and self-selected sample and that they can in no way serve as a "proxy" for the voting sentiments of the US armed forces stationed abroad, as a whole, OR otherwise. The "dollar totals" in question don't even amount to the money John Edward's mistress expensed during the presidential campaign on the purchase of crotchless panties...

The report tracked donations of $200 or more. It found that 859 members of the military donated a total of $335,536 to Obama. McCain received $280,513 from 558 military donors.

So, what can we conclude from all this...

1) That military members don't have money to waste on presidential campaigns

2) Less than 1 out of every 1,000 soldiers donated anything.

Gee, on an "individual" basis McCain donors gave 25% more than Obama voters...

The lib-minded newspaper headline writer would conclude that McCain supporters were 25% more 'ardent' in their support than their lily-livered pink-panty-wearing Obama-sucking counterparts...

Just remember by military standards McCain was a complete fuckup supported by daddy. His type are hated in the military because they get people killed. Kind of intersting he was in the middle of the Forrestal disaster? He graduated at the bottom of his class and still got a pilot slot which is unheard of. Then he crashed 5 Navy jets. Also got his ass shot down in the process. Being a POW doesn't make a hero just a victim.

Obama was an overacheiver and earned everything on his own.

Obama earned everything on his own...

LOL! Obama was born with an affirmative action silver spoon in his mouth. It obviously went to his head.

Bull FARMER

Obama never listed his race on his applications to either Columbia U or Harvard Law School.

He was admitted to both Ivy League schools based on merit.

Where do you read the wrong stuff you use for retorts? I'd try a more accurate source.....

Obama's the first affirmative action candidate in history. He "won" the Democratic nomination ONLY by disenfranchising 1/2 of the Michigan and Florida delegates and lowering the "totals" needed to become the "presumptive nominee".

The audacity of presumption. Hillary's gonna win the nomination in Denver...

Gee, he never listed his race on the application...

What about his application essay on his struggle to overcome institutional racism?

So,freeper john is claiming Obama graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard because of affirmitive action.LOL. Stick to sucking off the simian swish in the White House.

"LOL! Obama was born with an affirmative action silver spoon in his mouth. It obviously went to his head."

You don't become editor of the Harvard Law Review with affirmative action. Affirmative action gets you into University it doesn't help you graduate. Farmer, take your dick out of your sheep and start catching up with the rest of the world.

Farmer John-
How did you feel about the uppity affirmative action candidate "playing the race card" a few weeks ago?

Try another source Farmer.

You're gettin delived a load of cow manure

Another source. Okay... how about this one...

In her opening remarks to the almost two-hour meeting, she said the article, which was labled commentary in the Georgetown Law Weekly, was misleading. She said it exclusively focused on undergraduate grades and Law School Admissions Test scores, which are two of five factors when applicants are considered for admission.

The article contends that among whites accepted to the law school the average L.S.A.T. score was 43 out of a possible 48. It said that for black students, the average score was 36

---
How did you feel about the uppity affirmative action candidate "playing the race card" a few weeks ago?

I'd say it was par for the course.

Farmer-
re: "I'd say it was par for the course."

Yeah. Leave it to an uppity negro "affirmative action candidate" to inject race into the campaign.

Obama graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard

...because the professors there don't give B's to anyone. You know how important student's self-esteem is....

He really graduated Magna cum Fraude from Harvard...

Yeah. Leave it to an uppity negro "affirmative action candidate" to inject race into the campaign.

Howard Dean is an uppity negro? Whodda thunkit! He's such a pasty white-ish lookin' guy!

"..because the professors there don't give B's to anyone. You know how important student's self-esteem is...."

Random guess here, but you never went to college.

How did you feel about the uppity affirmative action candidate "playing the race card" a few weeks ago?

I'd say it was par for the course.

Posted by Farmer_John

You mean his comment about 'not looking like the other people on bills?'....AFTER the McCain camp put out the ad with Obama's face blown up and placed ON a bill?

Farmer, sorry man, you're gonna lose any argument over Harvard or Columbia U.

This conversation has gotten about as interesting as women's badminton at the Olympics. Time for a nap...

Next post tell us about McCain's exemplary record graduating 5th from the bottom of a class at Annapolis of over 800....

Later

Our party has been a no-majority party for a long time. The fact is that the Democratic Party is made up of lots of different people,-- Dean said.

If you look at folks of color, even women, theyre more successful in the Democratic Party than they are in the white excuse me in the Republican Party.--

Dean laughed as he stumbled over the correction. The interview was posted on the news video Web site Breitbart.tv and credited to an NPR segment Friday.

John McCain adviser Carly Fiorina released a statement afterward condemning the comment.

It is disappointing to see Howard Dean trying to use gender and race to divide voters. His comments are insulting, inappropriate and have no place in this election,-- she said.

Republican National Committee Chairman Mike Duncan added: Howard Deans comments on race and gender today are disappointing and wrong. His efforts to divide Americans are an insult to all our nations citizens and have absolutely no place in the national dialogue.--

Bwok Bwok, AU! Go lay another egg.

Check out this McCain clip. It's guaranteed to make your hair hurt:

talkingpointsmemo.com

Next post tell us about McCain's exemplary record graduating 5th from the bottom of a class at Annapolis of over 800

What were Obama's LSAT scores? What were his SAT scores? Could a white Obama ever even been considered for admission to Annapolis?

"It is disappointing to see Howard Dean trying to use gender and race to divide voters."

Which is not at all like Limbaugh referring to Obama as the "affirmative action candidate". Which isn't in any way related to Rush's comments about a black quarterback that got him fired from his sportscaster job....

FARMER

Lame...LAME retort.

McCain WAS the beneficiary of affirmative action "My daddy's an Admiral".

I asked you a question, and that's the best you could come up with?

But, I hope you have a good day anyway.

Americanunity-
Don't forget the affirmative action that elevated the current moron to the Presidency.

Try measuring the individuals instead of the reps of the institutions they attended for a change.

I'd have more confidence w/Obama's intellectual abilities had he had graduated top in his class from Howard U vs Harvard U. At least there, he couldn't have plead for AA spoon in the mouth treatment... and his performance could be compared w/o having to factor in any inherent liberal bias

Americanunity-
Surely you aren't suggesting that McCain's (who graduated from Annapolis in the bottom half of the bottom 1%) admission to Annapolis had ANYTHING to do with the fact that his dad was an admiral.

I asked you a question, and that's the best you could come up with?

And I asked you what Obama's test scores were. McCain's penis may be only 5" long, but until you measure Obama's and tell us what it is, we'll never know who's Johnson is longer.

Farmer,

Was it so hard to understand, "He did not list his race on his applications to Columbia U and Harvard U"?

AA never played a role.

Now, a better comparison would be:

McCain 5th from the bottom of his 800+ class at Annapolis

vs

Obama top 1% of his class

Wow Farmer. It's not that hard.....

Neither Obama or McCain have released their SAT scores. It's considered in bad taste to do so....

As I posted above, best comparison we have is:

McCaim: Botton 1% of his graduating class

Obama: TOP 1% of his graduating class

Simple really.....

Farmer John-
What were McCain's test scores?

Americanunity-
Don't you understand that blacks are intellectually inferior until proven otherwise?

They also can't be quarterbacks. Everyone knows this.

His measured IQ is 133.

Now show me a "measure" of Obama's that isn't submerged in affirmative action rhetoric...

Like I said... Magna cum Fraude...

As a black guy he's intellectually inferior until proven otherwise, right Farmer?

The man graduates Magna cum Laude and he's an idiot because of those liberal academics who won't fail a black guy?

You really should have gone to college. Maybe it would've cured your susceptibility to racist bullshit.

Later.

Is Obama's IQ The Highest Certified Of Any President Ever?
As was noted earlier hits morning on Sirius Left, the former
Guidance Counselor of Obama's private Hawaiian school
has supplied The Washington Post with a certified copy of
Obama's Stanford-Banai IQ Certification, one of which was taken in 1966 when he was a kindergardener in Hawaii before moving to Indonesia, and one which was taken as entrance protocol as a freshman in his private (extremely exclusive) Honolulu private highschool.

His IQ was clocked at 172 and 166 respectively (IQ's normally have a fluctuation of 6 or 7 points from test to test so that discrepency is normal).

That puts Obama in the certifiable clinical genius category.

Obama's campaign is apparently NOT HAPPY about The Washington Post preparing to disclose this, because they fear it adds to his reputation as no an "everyman" and being too "professorial".

But that aside...if elected, does this make Obama, the retainer of the highest certified IQ of any president in American history?

answers.yahoo.com

Like I said... Magna cum Fraude

At the Naval Academy graduating #894 out of 899 is referred to as graduating Magna cum Forrestal.


Could a white Obama ever even been considered for admission to Annapolis?


LOL the only reason McSame got into the Navy trade school was because he was a legacy brat.

Same drill with the Yalie w. If it wasn't for the family name factor both would not be where they are today.

And anyone with an IQ of over 80 can see Obama outraised McCain 6 to 1 among the military.....

taken in 1966 when he was a kindergardener in Hawaii

LOL? You mean he knew how to use scissors... already? And the link to the WaPo article is... where?

anyone with an IQ of over 80 can see Obama outraised McCain 6 to 1 among the military.....

and anyone with an IQ over 90 can see that the sample was carefully parsed to make the candidate "appear" to be MUCH more popular with the military than he actually is.

The headline SHOULD have been... Only 0.003 percent of the American military is discontent enough with the president to donate money to a 3rd party peace candidate.

FARMER

I took an IQ test in kindergarten, and another a couple of years ago.

They were within 10 points of each other.

Education has nothing to do with IQ.

Most people know that.

You're still not explaining how McCain's graduating 5th from the bottom of his Annapolis class of over 800 is a good thing, nor how Obama's graduating in the top 1% of his class is a bad thing.

The facts in the article this thread is based on are clear.

Case closed.

McCain wasn't a good student and didn't apply himself, Obama did and was a great student.

Case closed

Somebody's rick-rolling you with that "phantom" 172 IQ WaPo article post, Au.

Obama can't even remember how many US States there are.

FYI - there are 50 states, 6 U.S. Territories, and the District of Columbia

57

You're getting so far off track from the points of either this thread of prior conversations I"m going to have to leave you now, Farmer....really.

Have a good day, man.

You're still not explaining how McCain's graduating 5th from the bottom of his Annapolis class of over 800 is a good thing, nor how Obama's graduating in the top 1% of his class is a bad thing.

One of the two guys doesn't pretend to "know it all". One of the two guys doesn't always take both sides in every argument. And one of those guys doesn't walk around claiming to be "the one we've all been waiting for"...

FYI - there are 50 states, 6 U.S. Territories, and the District of Columbia

57

So the right answer is....??? LOL!

Later. Enjoy it!

FYI - there are 50 states, 6 U.S. Territories, and the District of Columbia

57

So the right answer is....??? LOL!

57 FIFTY SEVEN 57 FIVE SEVEN 57 FIFTY SEVEN

LOL

Farmer John-
re: And one of those guys doesn't walk around claiming to be "the one we've all been waiting for"...

When did Obama say that?

It's truly amazing to watch Republicans rant about the "presumptuous" (ie, uppity) "affirmative action candidate" who allegedly plays the "race card".

Surreal.

Want that in print, speech or song, Betelboy?

Furio - Obama earned everything on his own...

FJ - LOL! Obama was born with an affirmative action silver spoon in his mouth. It obviously went to his head.

AU - Bull FARMER

Obama never listed his race on his applications to either Columbia U or Harvard Law School.

He was admitted to both Ivy League schools based on merit.

FJ - Obama's the first affirmative action candidate in history. He "won" the Democratic nomination ONLY by disenfranchising 1/2 of the Michigan and Florida delegates and lowering the "totals" needed to become the "presumptive nominee".

The audacity of presumption. Hillary's gonna win the nomination in Denver...

Betel - How did you feel about the uppity affirmative action candidate "playing the race card" a few weeks ago?

FJ - I'd say it was par for the course.

Betel - Yeah. Leave it to an uppity negro "affirmative action candidate" to inject race into the campaign.

FJ - Howard Dean is an uppity negro? Whodda thunkit! He's such a pasty white-ish lookin' guy!

Betel As a black guy he's intellectually inferior until proven otherwise, right Farmer?

Betel It's truly amazing to watch Republicans rant about the "presumptuous" (ie, uppity) "affirmative action candidate" who allegedly plays the "race card".

Surreal.

Who's argument was that? That would be yours. Furio stated that Obama "earned everything on his own". I'd say you boys failed to prove it. And it also looks like you can't even read your own subliminal mind, Betelboy...

FJ

Obama's factual bio is quite available...the onus is on you to prove US wrong, not the other way around.


BETELG and I have done our homework on Obama and McCain

PS FJ

I remember a hit song when I was a kid:

"Farmer John, I'm in love with your daughter"

Are you too young to remember it?

Obama's factual bio is quite available...the onus is on you to prove US wrong, not the other way around.

Au contraire. I'm not the one who made the claim that Obama earned everything on his own"... I'm simply contesting it. It's up to YOU to back up your claim.

PS - And so far, you've only submitted some VERY circumstantial evidence that would only be "logically" true in a nation that DOESN'T embrace and defend an official race preference policy also known as "affirmative action"

btw - Who certified Obama's bio as factual?

Is his bio "factual" about Obama's associations with Jermiah Wright and/or Frank Marshall Davis?

I suspect your "factual" bio is about as "factual" as John Edward's claims to not being a certain babies daddy...

And of course, a bio which only included the positives in a man's life can kinda be thought of as an affirmative action" bio...

FJ

I"m not doing your homework for you. Not how it works.

We've already proven you wrong on your claim Obama didn't raise 6 to 1 money in the military.

The information's all out there. I've stated my facts.

Happy R E A D I N G

...having little or nothing to do with the truth, the WHOLE truth, and "nothing but" the truth...

"I suspect.." (conjecture)

Well, I suspect there are green men on the Moon too.

We've already proven you wrong on your claim Obama didn't raise 6 to 1 money in the military.

Who proved what? I'm the one who supplied all the numerical evidence... and someone who never disputed the claim or made any argument to the contrary. My argument was not as to the ratio of contributions, but as to the overall insignificance of the facts being reported upon.

Well, I suspect there are green men on the Moon too.

Well then we BOTH admit that neither one of us is arguing froma position of absolute certainty, then.

Farmer John -- Amazing. I guess because I think getting us involved in a needless war based on deception is, well, basically a shitty thing to pull over on your country, that makes folks like me lilly-livered, or something... Hmmmm. Seems to be it makes folks like me, well, from the deeper end of the gene pool. Your Republican or Conservative, or whatever leaders, you call yours have fucked you and your country, which also happens to be mine. And we're not sitting back and playing the tree hugging stereotype your puke friends designed to marginalize us with. The Rushbo argurment of "lefties" having no balls is a floater, so fuck you and the womb you skittered out of. The left, deservedly at times, got labelled as weak, well, fuck y'all conservatives, we're now here to kick ass and chew bubble gum, or whatever the line was to that cool Carpenter B-flick. You're toast, you are,

FJ

You're absolutely right. I suspect there are little green men on the moon, and you suspect facts well established about Obama's bio are false.

Come to think of it, I suspect the moon may be made of cheese too. That's just as rational as those who suspect Obama is a Muslim, the Anti-Christ, yada yada yada

I love the smell of "expletives" in the morning... it smells like... victory!

A claim has been made that since Obama didn't list his race on his college application, that he received No preferential treatment, zip, NONE... and that he has earned everything he has gotten in his life "on his own" through "merit"...

Did he write his name in his college application? "Barack Hussein Obama"... Did he mention that he had been a high school basketball star? Did he mention any of the 6,000 proxies there are for race in daily American life? Yet somehow it is "known" that Hussein received NO preferential treatment.

Stop bogarting that joint, my friend. Pass it over to me. John McCain never claimed to have "made it" through the Naval Academy on the basis of HIS own merits.

One of the candidates would appear to have an "Ego" problem... and THAT candidate isn't McCain...

Does Obama suffer from ESS? Ego Superficiency Syndrome? Could be...

Oh, so now it's 'egotistical' to graduate Magna Cum Laud from Harvard?

Man, pass whatever you're smokin' this way.....

...only if believe that you did it all on your own...w/o ANY help...

Even the most egotistical Hollywood actor will thank their agents and friends.... well... during the acceptance speech, anyways. Afterwords, at the after-party its' ALL ego...

Kinda like Obama trying to stand next to the Brandenberg Gate in Germany

Is he Egotistical? Let the public decide for themselves...

So far, even some top Democrats are beginning to suspect that Obama's nothing more than an empty suit...

Mr. Obama has run for the last 18 months as the candidate of hope. Yet party leaders while enthusiastic about Mr. Obama and his state-by-state campaign operations say he must do more to convince the many undecided Democrats and independents that he would address their financial anxieties rather than run, by and large, as an agent of change given that change, they note, is not an issue.

I particularly hope he strengthens his economic message even Senator Obama can speak more clearly and specifically about the kitchen-table, bread-and-butter issues like high energy costs,-- said Gov. Ted Strickland of Ohio. Its fine to tell people about hope and change, but you have to have plenty of concrete, pragmatic ideas that bring hope and change to life.--

Or, in the blunter words of Gov. Phil Bredesen, Democrat of Tennessee: Instead of giving big speeches at big stadiums, he needs to give straight-up 10-word answers to people at Wal-Mart about how he would improve their lives.--

Republicans used to enjoy a huge advantage from the military vote -- without it Bush wouldn't have come close in Florida in 2000.

Now they don't. They still have the Cuban Americans in S. Florida though if they haven't alienated them too. Difficult to do but if anybody could, it would be Bush and Cheney.

If you think that the average $400 donation from 134 American servicemen represents significant support in the military for Obama or Democrats, then... wow! Gullibility, thy name is Democrat!

With all his popular support in the Armed Services, one wonders why Mr. Obama relies so heavily for his financial support in this campaign in contributions from decadent millionaires like Fred Baron.... not!

I'd love to see Obama try and finance his campaign on the $350K TOTAL that American servicemen have donated to his campaign to date...

Obama can't even remember how many US States there are.

Posted by Farmer_John

......John.......you are sounding desperate........

.....face it......or perhaps you have.......McCain is a blue-blood inbred........the last one really deminished life in America......we don't need another.......


I'd love to see Obama try and finance his campaign on the $350K TOTAL that American servicemen have donated to his campaign to date...

Posted by Farmer_John at 2008-08-16 08:32 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Id love to see what you say about black people who wont pull themselves up by their own bootstraps and make their own way in life.... oh wait that is the same thing you say about those that do...

There is a pattern with you FJ... smells like you are a typical racist.

You seem to have noooooo problem at all with the fact that JM was a terrible performer in studies and obviously got pref. treatment due to family...

......John.......you are sounding desperate........


.....face it......or perhaps you have.......McCain is a blue-blood inbred........the last one really deminished life in America......we don't need another.......

Posted by skizziks at 2008-08-17 09:17 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

very desperate indeed. If McCain can't beat a young, inexperienced, black, democrat can you imagine the raggin' thats comming

he needs to give straight-up 10-word answers to people at Wal-Mart about how he would improve their lives.--

Posted by Farmer_John at 2008-08-16 06:24 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

something in the line of a $600 govt. handout check?
Now thats the fix!

Comments are closed for this entry.

Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | Copyright 2009 World Readable