Obama supporters?

McCain and Bush passing a torture bill is laughable, since the current administration USES TORTURE at Gitmo and Abu Gharib for example.

Again, I don't care what McCain has done in the past. The John McCain of 2000 would never vote for the John McCain of 2008.

The McCain of 2000 is long dead.
 
The problem was "his way".
yup..... yup..... yup..... let me be more specific -

Bush :D: My way or Gitmo Camp
McCain :mad2:: My way or The Cage
Obama :afro: My club or my other club :)laugh2: Yes I know it sounds racist or stereotypical but I can't help it)
 
yup..... yup..... yup..... let me be more specific -

Bush :D: My way or Gitmo Camp
McCain :mad2:: My way or The Cage
Obama :afro: My club or my other club :)laugh2: Yes I know it sounds racist or stereotypical but I can't help it)

You bad!:laugh2:
 
I believe that Barack Obama is puppet and Michelle Obama is the mastermind. :aw:
 
I did said "almost" which mean is their talent and career. They both visited law school and have good school background... McCain? McCain only have military experience, that's it. I know his speech that he is not brighter. I would say that his intelligence is much worst than Bush.
I'm not defending McCain's low standing at the Academy but I want to be sure that you understand that the U.S. Naval Academy is not some college that one can skate through; it's a very difficult college with high standards. Also, McCain attended the National War College, which isn't a walk in the park either.
 
Again, back on topic please.

I think members were responding to the topic. The pervasive element of this thread is the originator's poor logic and downright falsehoods. Then when refuted, the originator wants to dictate that posts can only be supportive.

Ha ha ha, an excellent running mate for the head Democrat! "Party line, the whole party line, and nothing but the party line, so help me God." No, wait, ultra liberals no longer have superior deities. Okay . . . "so help me Clinton."
 
Last edited:
I think members were responding to the topic. The pervasive element of this thread is the originator's poor logic and downright falsehoods. Then when refuted, the originator wants to dictate that posts can only be supportive.

Ha ha ha, an excellent running mate for the head Democrat! "Party line, the whole party line, and nothing but the party line, so help me God." No, wait, ultra liberals no longer have superior deities. Okay . . . "so help me Clinton."

Huh?

I started it clearly for Obama supporters and not those with doubts about Obama.

Whatever though. I see that the Conservative mindset exists here as well. It's pathetic.
 
I think members were responding to the topic. The pervasive element of this thread is the originator's poor logic and downright falsehoods. Then when refuted, the originator wants to dictate that posts can only be supportive.

Ha ha ha, an excellent running mate for the head Democrat! "Party line, the whole party line, and nothing but the party line, so help me God." No, wait, ultra liberals no longer have superior deities. Okay . . . "so help me Clinton."

:lol: :lol: :lol:


Huh?

I started it clearly for Obama supporters and not those with doubts about Obama.

Whatever though. I see that the Conservative mindset exists here as well. It's pathetic.

Simple: shouldn't started the thread to begin with. :)

I've started many threads on this forum and have seen it hi-jacked, detoured to oblivion, derailed, and occasionally :locked: locked :locked:

When starting a thread--take it with a grain of salt because anything can happen!
 
I think members were responding to the topic. The pervasive element of this thread is the originator's poor logic and downright falsehoods. Then when refuted, the originator wants to dictate that posts can only be supportive.

Ha ha ha, an excellent running mate for the head Democrat! "Party line, the whole party line, and nothing but the party line, so help me God." No, wait, ultra liberals no longer have superior deities. Okay . . . "so help me Clinton."

:laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2:
 
Don't you mean constantly shrinking?
Some events were changes:

Recent developments

* On March 9, 2007, Georgia's deputy defense minister was reported as saying that Georgia would likely send additional troops to Iraq, possibly for a total contingent size of about 2,400
* On March 4, 2007, Georgia announced that it would increase the size of its contingent of Iraq, then standing at 850. The size of the increase was not reported.
*Armenia's parliament voted on December 6, 2006, to extend th mandate of its troops contingent in Iraq by an additional 12 months.
* The last contingent of Italian troops in Iraq, numbering between 60 and 70 troops was due to leave the country during the last week of November 2006.
* Georgia completed on the rotation of an infantry battalion from Iraq. The battalion returned to Georgia on November 27, 2006. It was replaced in Iraq by the 31st Light Infantry Battalion which left for Iraq on November 4, 2006 with a size of 300 servicemen. Some 850 Georgian troops were reported to be deployed in Iraq.
* As of November 24, 2006, Australia's Department of Defence reported that it had 1,400 troops taking part in Operation Catalyst. 221 of these were assigned to HMAS Warramunga and Commander Task Force 158. 330 Australian troops were assigned to 2 C-130 Hercules and AP-3C Orion detachments. 518 troops from multiple regiments making up Overwatch Battle Group West Two began deploying in mid-November 2006 to relieve Overwatch Battle Group West One troops stationed in Iraq for 6 months.
* Poland, in mid-November 2006, authorized the extension of the deployment of its contingent in Iraq through mid-2007.
* On October 11, 2006, the Mongolian contingent in Iraq held a ceremony to mark the rotation of a new contingent of troops. 100 Mongolian Infntry Company soldiers were reported to be tasked with providing security for Camp Echo and MND CS
* On September 2, 2006, Slovakia officially rotated in its 7th contingent of troops into Iraq. That contingent is composed of 103 troops
* On August 10, 2006, Lieutenant General Ts. Togoo, Chief of the Generaly Staff of the Mongolian Armed Forces reported that Mongolia would continue to maintain soldiers in Iraq as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Mongolia forces will complete their sixth combat rotation on September 26, 2006, and a seventh rotation will take their place.
* On February 22, 2006, the Bulgarian Parliament approved a measure to send a 150-person non-combat contigent to Camp Ashraf on a humanitarian mission designed to oversee control of the camp. On March 29, Bulgaria sent its first contingent to the camp.
Same link
 
News from 2006 and 2007 links and we are already half-way through 2008...

With respect to the author's thread, we should get back to the topic of Obama and save this debate for the Iraq thread. :)







.
 
Huh?

I started it clearly for Obama supporters and not those with doubts about Obama.

Whatever though. I see that the Conservative mindset exists here as well. It's pathetic.

All rejection of far-left extremist dogma doesn't necessarily come from the far right. Lots of middle-Armerica is sick to death of both extremes.

On the other issue, sorry, but censorship just isn't my bag.
 
This is a weird thread. There are plenty of sites with an exclusively liberal audience where people pat each other on the back for how liberal they are and how much they love Obama. This, however, is a deaf site, so you're likely to get a mix of political persuasions. Why should all the Obama supporters stick in one thread and the Obama opponents stay in another? It might make you feel good to agree with people who agree with you, but it's not very constructive. Throwing back words like naive, ignorant, and pathetic only serve to further the divisiveness that your political hero says he wants to eliminate. Instead, why don't you try engaging those you disagree with in a healthy debate and try to understand the reasoning behind their viewpoint? After all, moderates and conservatives can't all be stupid and "unenlightened". Some of the smartest people I know are conservative. The worst that can happen is you strengthen your own viewpoint or you change it to something that's closer to the truth.
 
All rejection of far-left extremist dogma doesn't necessarily come from the far right. Lots of middle-Armerica is sick to death of both extremes.

On the other issue, sorry, but censorship just isn't my bag.

and limited personal responsibility & dependency on government aren't my thang either. For example -

Obama said "I am not in favor of concealed weapons... I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations." So why does Obama believe trained, law-abiding citizens carrying concealed firearms are a danger to others? It likely stems from his desire for Americans to rely on government to take care of them, rather than taking care of themselves. Right-to-carry permit holders exhibit a self-sufficiency that doesn't fit into Obama's mindset of weak citizens dependent on government.


now about John McCain.... "We start therefore with a strong presumption that the 2nd Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans," said U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. McCain seens Justice Scalia, Alito, Roberts, and Thomas as models for the kind of jurists he would appoint. No matter what other issues might intervene, there is nothing more important than maintaining or increasing the pro-2nd Amendment majority on the high court this November.

The court's decision was a great moment in American history, but it shows how fragile freedom is and how vigilant we must always be, each and every day, to protect it.


This is not whole-fully about guns. My point is - this bit extreme liberal views like Obama's irks me. HANDS OFF MY RIGHTS!
***all/some were excerpted from letters to editor
 
Here is my answer to your 4 questions:
Yes
No
Yes
Yes

:ty: for the response, Liebling. At least someone responded to my query, but I'm more curious about your reasoning behind your answers. The economy is a complex thing that's affected by so many factors. It's not like the president has buttons that say "Good Economy" and "Bad Economy". Anyway, here's my perspective, although I'm no economist and only have a limited understanding of how things work, so I'm sure there's plenty of room for debate here.

To me, it doesn't make sense to give Clinton all the credit for the good economy in the 90s but none of the blame for the recession at the end of his term. The main thing driving the good economy in the 90s was the rise of the internet. He had no control over that. If Clinton deserves credit for anything, it's signing the welfare reform bill, although the Republicans in Congress pushed that on him. The recession at the end of the 90s was caused by the burst of the internet bubble. So the very thing that drove economic progress in the 90s went too far and caused a bubble burst.

As for Bush, the fact that the economy did so well from 2003-2007 is pretty amazing considering the problems he faced- the economic recession left over from Clinton's term, 9/11, and all the corporate scandals like Enron, Tyco, etc. I think his tax cuts helped a lot with that.

I also feel that he deserves some, but not all, of the blame for the current economic slowdown. For his part, he spent and borrowed too much, and allowed the Republicans to spend far too much when they were in power. It was far more than war spending, too. It was entitlements, pork, etc. They were not acting like conservatives. However, the congress of the late 90s was also to blame. The current economic situation is largely due to the housing situation. In the late 90s, congress pushed lenders to give loans to riskier people. They were lamenting how hard it was for the poor to get home loans. So due to pressure, the lenders started giving risker "subprime" loans and sure enough, it didn't go well. Now congress is trying to blame "predatory lenders" for the problem. Some lenders may have been unscrupulous, but as usual, politicians create their own problems and then whine about it and refuse to take the blame. Then there are problems demand for oil going up and commodity prices increasing everywhere.
 
and limited personal responsibility & dependency on government aren't my thang either. For example -

Obama said "I am not in favor of concealed weapons... I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations." So why does Obama believe trained, law-abiding citizens carrying concealed firearms are a danger to others? It likely stems from his desire for Americans to rely on government to take care of them, rather than taking care of themselves. Right-to-carry permit holders exhibit a self-sufficiency that doesn't fit into Obama's mindset of weak citizens dependent on government.


now about John McCain.... "We start therefore with a strong presumption that the 2nd Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans," said U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. McCain seens Justice Scalia, Alito, Roberts, and Thomas as models for the kind of jurists he would appoint. No matter what other issues might intervene, there is nothing more important than maintaining or increasing the pro-2nd Amendment majority on the high court this November.

The court's decision was a great moment in American history, but it shows how fragile freedom is and how vigilant we must always be, each and every day, to protect it.


This is not whole-fully about guns. My point is - this bit extreme liberal views like Obama's irks me. HANDS OFF MY RIGHTS!
***all/some were excerpted from letters to editor

If you are concerned about your civil rights being violated, then you'd better hope and pray that McCain doesn't win the election.
 
If you are concerned about your civil rights being violated, then you'd better hope and pray that McCain doesn't win the election.

Obama = personal rights (pertaining to gun rights, Amendment, etc.)
McCain = civl rights (pertaining to 9/11, surveillance)

different kinds of rights
 
Obama = personal rights (pertaining to gun rights, Amendment, etc.)
McCain = civl rights (pertaining to 9/11, surveillance)

different kinds of rights

No, dear, civil rights are the personal rights of the individual. The ADA is a civil rights law.
 
Back
Top