Obama supporters. I have one question

scubadoo

Active Member
Let's take a look at Obama. he is an admitted druggie. Who knows...maybe he has a chemical dependency or perhaps he folds under pressure.. Should the pressure get to him, he may start doing drugs again. I don;t think I want someone like that in charge of the nukes.
By Lois Romano
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 3, 2007;
Long before the national media spotlight began to shine on every twist and turn of his life's journey, Barack Obama had this to say about himself: "Junkie. Pothead. That's where I'd been headed: the final, fatal role of the young would-be black man. . . . I got high [to] push questions of who I was out of my mind."
 

scubadoo

Active Member
Originally Posted by zman1
http:///forum/post/2499959
The few things about Darfur and this isn't sarcasm. The only thing we would be doing is a humanitarian effort/peacekeeping, there isn't anything we want or need to protect - interest in the area. Unless this counts: petroleum, natural gas, gold, silver, chrome, asbestos, manganese, gypsum, mica, zinc, iron, lead, uranium, copper, kaolin, cobalt, granite, nickel and tin. The other thing is the Arab League doesn't want the UN there either - There are some bad players as members of the league. Is this a potential area for AQ bases?
This is sarcasm - We could fight the war on terrorism there, AQ would surely follow, if they aren't there..
Ask the UN.....
The Charter of the United Nations gives the UN Security Council the power and responsibility to take collective action to maintain international peace and security. For this reason, the international community usually looks to the Security Council to authorize peacekeeping operations. Most of these operations are established and implemented by the United Nations itself with troops serving under UN operational command. In other cases, where direct UN involvement is not considered appropriate or feasible, the Council authorizes regional and other international organizations such as the European Union (EU), the African Union (AU), the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) or “coalitions of willing countries” to implement certain peacekeeping or peace enforcement functions.
 

zman1

Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2500256
As for your chart, nothing is stopping people from moving "to the right" on it. It's up to them.
Would ME and EE engineers be a way to move to the right... We are moving those overseas as well - Outsource -
What ever you do don't atriibute any of it, not one Iota, to Corporate officer greed. There just isn't enough of those jobs for every American.
The Corporations could save a lot by having the corporate officers move to Pakistan, Inida, or China and reduce their salaries and LTPs to pennies on a dollar. They could live very well compared to the standard of living of there local host workers. Taken one for the team, cost reduction......
 

zman1

Active Member
Originally Posted by ScubaDoo
http:///forum/post/2500257
I don;t think I want someone like that in charge of the nukes.
Is this Presidential behavior?
A simple Yes or No or if you like Maybe
He is the same gentleman who -- defending his McCain-Kennedy-Bush “comprehensive immigration reform” -- screamed “f*#@% you” at Texas Republican John Cornyn, one of the bill’s leading opponents. He’s also told Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Arlen Specter that he was a colorful anatomical term and referred to Sen. Charles Grassley a “#$%^#*^ jerk.” It is difficult to even deal with people you abuse. Unifying them is impossible.
Hate to admit it - Clinton may be the best overseer of the nuke button....
 

scubadoo

Active Member
From a democrat economist....
Trying to assess whether offshoring might actually be a larger problem than the Labor Department figures indicate, veteran Democratic economist Charles Schultze tried another approach. He reasoned that if America's production needs were increasingly met by foreign outsourcing (and cheap imports) this would be shown as a rise in the value of U.S. imports relative to the overall economy, as measured by Gross Domestic Product, or GDP. But what he found was that the ratio wasn't rising at all - it had leveled off since 2000. He concluded that "there is nothing in the data to suggest that large increases in. . . offshoring could have played a major role in explaining America's job performance in recent years. "
He told FactCheck.org:
Schultze: It is clear that offshoring has had a relatively modest impact on unemployment when compared to all the other economic factors that create and destroy jobs week by week in the U.S. economy.
He also said that offshoring only holds down US job growth in the short run. Over time, he said it is beneficial:
Schultze: In the short run, an increase in offshoring reduces U.S. job growth. But in the long run it improves the standard of living, increases real wages, and increases the country's economic growth.
 

scubadoo

Active Member
Originally Posted by zman1
http:///forum/post/2500285
Is this Presidential behavior?
A simple Yes or No or if you like Maybe
He is the same gentleman who -- defending his McCain-Kennedy-Bush “comprehensive immigration reform” -- screamed “f*#@% you” at Texas Republican John Cornyn, one of the bill’s leading opponents. He’s also told Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Arlen Specter that he was a colorful anatomical term and referred to Sen. Charles Grassley a “#$%^#*^ jerk.” It is difficult to even deal with people you abuse. Unifying them is impossible.
Hate to admit it - Clinton may be the best overseer of the nuke button....
As I have already stated...there or things regarding McCain I do not like. Of the remaining three that have a chance at becoming president...I beleive McCain to be the overall best choice. I'm sure all three have flown off the handle a few times. What you have posted above does not bother me..as McCain has great respect for our military.
Also, another reason I would not favor Obama is because of his ties to domestic terrorists from the Weather Underground. Perhaps it is just me...but if I were seeking the presidency I would not use the terms friends and/or friendly defining by relationship regarding folks tied to that organization.
I'm not even considering CLinton..as I beleive she has less than a 10% chance of becoming the nominee. Some negative news regrading Obama could come out regarding the Rezko trial scheduled to begin tomorrow. That could hurt barry....most likely in the general. However, it could hurt him come convention time if he gets dragged down during the trial. Super delagates may decide to swing over to CLinton if things get ugly for Barry and democratic public opinion turns against him. That is one way she could get the nomination. Not likely but possible.
Stay tuned...it could get interesting regarding the Rezko trial.
 

stdreb27

Active Member
Your arguments are anecdotal arguments. It is picking and choosing which data to use and to ignore. It doesn’t recognize the bottom line number our unemployment rate, and appeals to our emotions, without taking a step back and looking at a while.
There is a political concept where it is easier to help few people a lot, then it is to help everyone as a whole a little bit. Economic models very clearly indicate that trade protection as a whole hurts our nation. It may help the guy getting paid 70 grand assembling TV’s but we pay for it, a dollar here and a dollar there. We end up paying more in taxes to subsidize these failing industries and a few extra bucks for the product at the retail location.
The perfect example is the sugar industry. They have a strong lobby in congress and we have strict protectionist policies and very generous subsidies that allow them to continue domestically producing sugar. It helps a very small handful of people still producing, locks people out of entering the market, and inflates our price of sugar by double. But since we don’t know any better we don’t notice. And our cokes don’t taste as good since they are sweetened with corn syrup rather than sugar. But that is a whole different story.
In the world today we have 2 schools of economic thought.
1.Socialism
2.Captialism
We can look at historic examples of socialism, and we clearly see failures. The USSR experienced years of famen because of government controlling production. We can look at North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, several nations in South America, and Europe. All have varying degrees of socialism and government controls dragging on their economies. Extreems like North Korea, USSR, Cuba have failed or have or their people are living in EXTREEM poverty. Other countries have been the for runners of government mandated earning equality. Taxing the rich and the poor alike, creating far reaching socialistic styled government programs. Europe is a prime example. You don’t hear about the problems over there, but many of those countries are experiencing double-digit unemployment, growth that here would classify as a recession. I recently read a report detailing how many of the young generation in Europe see no hope in working, and have just blown it off, partying and living off of credit and social programs. I can give you example after example of failed government control policies that were turned around when they let the market and free enterprise take over instead of the government mandating how the market is run.
These socialistic and Keynesian economies just don’t work well if at all.
In the mean time, our current capitalist system has propelled the USA to by far the most powerful successful nation in the world in a very short time. It has its downfalls, it isn’t nice, or kind, one economic called it destructive, but it is fair. Anyone who wants to, can do whatever it is they want to do. They just got to be willing to work. I’ll take a few sorehead CEO’s, vs starving, being unemployed, feeling hopeless, or having to have a friend come cash my paycheck and by groceries because by the time I get out of work my paycheck has lost have its value due to inflation.
And if you have a problem with outsourcing quit shopping for price, because their cost cutting is in response to your price shopping. As discussed earlier.
 

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by zman1
http:///forum/post/2500302
I'll wait, stdreb27 will be able to explain it

give me the link to the whole report, I would like to see the data behind the graph. But on the surface I wouldn't be suprised. The people who were ready to make money made alot of money from the end of Carter till Clinton. The people who were ahead of the curve with investments, developers, and other stuff. The lower bracket of earners just don't make their money in a way that would have benifitted from that growth. You get paid by solving problems people need solved. And some are just better paying than others.
 

1journeyman

Active Member
I hope Obombus doesn't read this latest news article. It will destroy his entire proposed foreign affairs policy: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080302/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq
"A U.S. military helicopter fired a guided missile to kill a wanted al-Qaida in Iraq...a spokesman said Sunday.... Smith said their deaths brought to 142 the number of al-Qaida insurgents killed or captured in Mosul since the end of January
. Al-Saudi was the man who headed up the al-Qaida network in southeast Mosul, an insurgent hotbed where U.S. forces wage daily battles against the group....Mosul is the center of al-Qaida's terrorist activities today. Mosul is a critical crossroads for al-Qaida in Iraq. Baghdad has always been al-Qaida's operational center of gravity, but Mosul remains their strategic center of gravity as it provides access to the flow of foreign fighters...Al-Saudi was a close associate of al-Qaida in Iraq leader Abu Ayyub al-Masri and arrived in Mosul with a group of foreign fighters last August after spending time fighting in Afghanistan.
After fighting and training in Afghanistan, he was brought to Iraq by Abu Ayyub al-Masri in November 2007, one of four Saudi Arabians appointed to supervise al-Qaida activities in Mosul. He was quickly moved up to run all of the terror network's operations in southeast Mosul, becoming the most visible and active al-Qaida operative in the area"
Al Qaeda leaders, "operational center", foreign fighters... all in one nice little AP article.
 

zman1

Active Member
From the same article - Once again, we took our eye off Afghanistan - he should have never made it to Iraq... Also, when are we going to address the continued Saudi Arabia connection since 9/11!!!!!!!!!!!!
[hr]
Al-Saudi was a close associate of al-Qaida in Iraq leader Abu Ayyub al-Masri and arrived in Mosul with a group of foreign fighters last August after spending time fighting in Afghanistan.
"After fighting and training in Afghanistan
, he was brought to Iraq
by Abu Ayyub al-Masri in November 2007
, one of four Saudi Arabians
appointed to supervise al-Qaida activities in Mosul. He was quickly moved up to run all of the terror network's operations in southeast Mosul, becoming the most visible and active al-Qaida operative in the area," Smith said.
 

1journeyman

Active Member

Originally Posted by zman1
http:///forum/post/2500350
From the same article - Once again, we took our eye off Afghanistan - he should have never made it to Iraq... Also, when are we going to address the continued Saudi Arabia connection since 9/11!!!!!!!!!!!!

[hr]
Al-Saudi was a close associate of al-Qaida in Iraq leader Abu Ayyub al-Masri and arrived in Mosul with a group of foreign fighters last August after spending time fighting in Afghanistan.
"After fighting and training in Afghanistan[/B...
If we "took our eye off Afghanistan" then who were they fighting there when they left to go to Iraq??
This is another mistake people too often make. We have the capacity to fight on multiple fronts. NATO is currently in charge of Afghanistan. I am not aware of the General in charge of Afghanistan requesting additional troops and not receiving them.

As we continue to kill their leadership in Iraq they are having to pull less trained leaders out of other operations to fill their ranks. Again, looks to me like the Iraq War is hurting Al Qaeda worldwide...
 

zman1

Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2500353
This is another mistake people too often make. ...
I do agree people too often make this mistake. We need to kill them and their boot camp training grounds in Afghanistan before they export. No matter how you try to twist it.... Then the UN leadership in Afghanistan needs changed, they're not being effective, if they are exporting to Iraq. Why is this so hard to agree with? Perhaps, it doesn't prescribe to the political point you wish to make. Fortunately, it doesn't discount or make it untrue...
They could be exporting from Afghanistan to other countires to attack our interest or should we just wait and hope they go to Iraq.
Originally Posted by 1journeyman

http:///forum/post/2500353
As we continue to kill their leadership in Iraq they are having to pull less trained leaders out of other operations to fill their ranks.
Then they just go get a few more from Saudi Arabia and train them in Afghanistan, again. I am of firm belief, they will never totally run out of crazies...
 

reefraff

Active Member
Wasn't Blackhawk down a result of our last peacekeeping effort in Africa?
We either need to go in with overwhelming force or leave it alone until enough of the general population gets fed up they begin to turn on the thugs, then maybe step in but only after blowing the living snot out of the warlords. I think a bettter solution is for the UN *caugh, gag* organize a force consisting of reasonable africans to play peacekeepers. It wouldn't be seen as such an outside invasion that way.
Originally Posted by zman1
http:///forum/post/2499959
The few things about Darfur and this isn't sarcasm. The only thing we would be doing is a humanitarian effort/peacekeeping, there isn't anything we want or need to protect - interest in the area. Unless this counts: petroleum, natural gas, gold, silver, chrome, asbestos, manganese, gypsum, mica, zinc, iron, lead, uranium, copper, kaolin, cobalt, granite, nickel and tin. The other thing is the Arab League doesn't want the UN there either - There are some bad players as members of the league. Is this a potential area for AQ bases?
This is sarcasm - We could fight the war on terrorism there, AQ would surely follow, if they aren't there..
 

zman1

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2500345
The people who were ahead of the curve with investments, developers, and other stuff. The lower bracket of earners just don't make their money in a way that would have benifitted from that growth.
I get it. It's the old "takes money to make money" scenario...
Perhaps, a connection to CEO compensation to average worker salaries in 77 and today 08 would shed some light as well on the vary large changes in after tax growth of the 1%s.
Do you have those comparisons? 3 x more in 77 - 2 x more in 08.... I believe it's closer to 400+ x in 08
Oct 15, 2007, 14:56
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix....243&highlight=
 

zman1

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2500358
I think a bettter solution is for the UN *caugh, gag* organize a force consisting of reasonable africans to play peacekeepers. It wouldn't be seen as such an outside invasion that way.
There is a UN resolution for it now.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by zman1
http:///forum/post/2500350
From the same article - Once again, we took our eye off Afghanistan - he should have never made it to Iraq... Also, when are we going to address the continued Saudi Arabia connection since 9/11!!!!!!!!!!!!

[hr]
Afghanistan.
.
OK, post 9-11 thinking here.
Iraq had WMD among other weapons it possessed (There is no argument there, the powers that be thought the stuff was there even though they turned out to be wrong.)
Iraq was known to have contacts with the terrorist group that struck the US 9-11 throughout the 90'sand was connected to the same chemical facility in the Sudan Osama Bin Laden was. We know this because the Clinton administration destroyed the facility in a missile attack in 98. The meetings between Iraqi officials and Al Qeada members including Bin Laden are not in dispute, they happened.
After 9-11 Iraq was looking at ways to make terrorist style attacks on US interests both inside and outside the US. There are numerous sources backing that up including Vladimere Putin who wasn't exactly a cheerleader for the Iraq war.
So follow me here. After Gulf war 1 Iraq was bold enough to try to knock off daddy Bush in 95. They repeatedly fired on US and British aircraft patroling the Iraqi no fly zones. Hussein was giving every impression he was still hiding an active WMD program by obstructing the inspectors even to the point of getting nailed by a US missile strick in 98.
Now do you really think it is a stretch to think Hussein might supply chemical or biological agents to Al Qeada so they could hit us again? Most of this stuff became public after we invaded. When Bush first started talking about it I was like do we really need to go back in? I finally figured we really needed to put an end to Husseins crap before he does something crazy like gasing Isreal. Learning that Iraq had been showing enough interest in hitting us somehow that several sources knew of it made me think what the hell were we waiting for.
If we had ignored Iraq and they had supplied Al Qeada with something nasty the same people who are now saying we took our eye of Afghanistan would be saying the same thing about Iraq.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by zman1
http:///forum/post/2500361
There is a UN resolution for it now.
Yep, passed in 2004. Worked real well. They put the African union in charge. Seems kind of like putting the Mafia in charge of cleaning up oganized crime. The UN needs to step up or be desolved. Had they halfassed done their job in Iraq we wouldn't be there now.
 

zman1

Active Member
I am not arguing against the war on Iraq. I am just saying we (UN)aren't doing enough in Afghanistan to kill AQ today, if they are training there and going to Iraq. We should kill them in both Afghanistan and Iraq. However, don't let them leave Afghanistan alive to go to Iraq.
When are we or the UN going to address the Saudi Arabia supplied fighters. Osama is a Saudi and so were a bunch of the 9/11 hijackers. You can't deny a connection, since more are coming from there. Fighting the war on terrorism should include addressing a Saudi connection.
 
Top