Obama supporters. I have one question

rylan1

rylan1

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2517686
Paul didn't make his statement 5 days after the attack, it wasn't part of a barrage including running the country down over the way we ended a war with japan we didn't start. A reasonable case can be made that our foreign policy did cause 9-11 but this sure as hell wasnt it. I agree with Paul in a weird sorta way. Our refusal to let terrorists take over the middle east makes them hate us. That wasn't the point the good reverend was making
No disrpect, but I think you are talking out of both sides of your mouth here.. It doesn't matter when the remarks were made... You say a reasonable case can be made for it, but then say this wasn't it... ??? What wasn't it? I don't think its about terrorist in the sense they weren't terrorist until they were already fed up...I think much of it has to do with our roles in that region, and the Palenstinian state. Regardless of what side you believe is correct... I think they feel that if we are for Israel, then we are against them... and I think our policy has suggested that.
So you say Paul and Wright difer on these views to "why".... my question is how they differ, and how can one be agreeable and not the other?
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
Suzy you comment about the middle of the road people. I find this funny. I know many "Reagan" democrats that refuse to vote for Obama. Their first choice is Hilary, case in point my in-laws and my fiance. They adamantly will NOT vote for Obama. What you don't realize and fail to see is Obama is splitting the democratic party. The democratic party is shooting themselves in the foot, they may have more registered voters, however not all of them like Obama.
You comment on the record registered democrats, last election the Pubs had record registered republicans....we beat you guys to the punch 4 years ago. We may not have as many vote in the primaries but we will support our candidate and McCain wil draw the "reagan" dems. Don't be surprised when Obama only gets 1.3 of the electorate college.
He is running a campaign on an intangible idea. Hope. I could give a speech about hoping to make everyone a millionare, but that is all it is is Hope. This is not a solid platform to run on. Hope dooes not feed your family, hope does not defend this country.
He has no significant accomplishments. He claims to want to bring this countrytogether but his views are so liberal he can't do this as he won't compromise......so how can he bring us together. What you many democrats failed to realize is Clinton did this and his views stayed to the middle. This is how he won his election and reelection.
He didn't get the complete support of the hawks, but he did get the Kennedy Republicans. Obama can not do this....so debate all you want. Use the same rehashed statements all you want. when it comes down to substrance Obama has none as he has not accomplished anything. Can you name one single accomplishment that benefited this country since he was placed in office. Hell, list on that benefitted Illinois.
I can atleast mention a couple that Hillary did.
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2517771
So you say Paul and Wright difer on these views to "why".... my question is how they differ, and how can one be agreeable and not the other?
They differ because the republican party did not make him the nominee. We didn't come out in droves and support or elect him. The majority of us knew he was a nut job. He had a few decent ideas, but all in all we saw a nut for a nut. THAT is the difference.
 
rylan1

rylan1

Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2517769
Except that Wright has been advising Obama's campaign already....
Rylan, don't try to make this a racial thing. That's crap. I'm glad you bring up Ron Paul. Look at how far he got in the Republican Primaries; then compare it to Obama's. See the difference in the way we treat extremists in our party?
I'm not trying to make a racial thing... but I think that is the goal of Obama's attackers or pundits or whatever... There has to be some separation b/w what Paul has said... and the comments of Wright can not be directly attributed to Obama... I think Obama is a double edge sword here... he's already come out and said that he doesn't agree with the statements...he can disassociate himself from this man all together, but he also has to live in his own skin and be comfortable with this decision... I think such a decision to alienate him from Wright who has been a friend, based on political pressures is not a good moral decision, even though he doesn't agree with everything this guy has said.
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
Rylan, please stop using the term Palestinian state. There has not been a palestinian country/state in the history of the world. The palestinnians have been austracized by everyone in that region.
 
rylan1

rylan1

Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/2517775
They differ because the republican party did not make him the nominee. We didn't come out in droves and support or elect him. The majority of us knew he was a nut job. He had a few decent ideas, but all in all we saw a nut for a nut. THAT is the difference.
No the difference is that Wright is not running for President.
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member

Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2517651
Joint Forces Command report: No link between Saddam Hussein, al Qaeda
Interviews with former Iraqi leaders, 600,000 Iraqi documents were reviewed
President Bush cited a link in the runup to the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq
Report says evidence was found of Iraqi government-backed terrorism
I can't remember what thread it was in, but this statement agrees to my point of view. I'm hope Journeyman will find this and respond.
The article also reads that the terrorism that Saadam did support was attacks against other Iraqis, and not the types of terrorism that we have been trying to link him to.

Careful what you wish for Rylan...
"An exhaustive review of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents that were captured after the 2003 U.S. invasion has found no evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime had any operational links with Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda terrorist network..."
Careful Rylan... When you read left wing blogs they tend to leave out key words. "Operational" links. We've known that for years. The 9-11 report, which I've quoted often, said the same thing.
President Bush declared "War on Terrorism" globally. Sorry if you want to try to parse which terrorist groups are ok, and which we declared war on.
"Saddam supported the militant Islamic group Hamas in Gaza, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, a Syrian-based terrorist group..."
http://www.star-telegram.com/nationa...ry/523085.html
Feel free to look up those groups, as well as the number of Americans they have killed.
 
rylan1

rylan1

Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/2517780
Rylan, please stop using the term Palestinian state. There has not been a palestinian country/state in the history of the world. The palestinnians have been austracized by everyone in that region.
Thats the point, there is not one, and they believe that it is their God given right to have one...I don't agree with your point about them being austracized by everyone in the region... If they were they wouldn't exist or have the power or influence that they do.
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member

Originally Posted by Suzy
http:///forum/post/2517657
It's not about being correct. It's about being honest. Taking a Purple Heart Decorated war hero and smearing his service is deplorable.....
"In the end, that's what this election is about. Do we participate in a politics of cynicism or a politics of hope? " Barack Obama
Got Hope?
Was it deplorable when the same Purple Heart Decorated war hero went before Congress and smeared his fellow war heros?
I've got Hope. I Hope America votes for a Candidate that understands Al Qaeda has been in Iraq for 5 years trying to establish a base there... I Hope America doesn't vote for a candidate who has ties to domestic terrorists. I Hope America votes for a candidate with the personal character to not call a known racist and America-hater a friend and mentor..
 
cowfishrule

cowfishrule

Active Member
i've decided to chime in with nothing.
i just wanted to be part of this thread. 13 more posts, and it reaches "epic" status.
toodles.
 
rylan1

rylan1

Active Member

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2517785
Careful what you wish for Rylan...
"An exhaustive review of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents that were captured after the 2003 U.S. invasion has found no evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime had any operational links with Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda terrorist network..."
Careful Rylan... When you read left wing blogs they tend to leave out key words. "Operational" links. We've known that for years. The 9-11 report, which I've quoted often, said the same thing.
President Bush declared "War on Terrorism" globally. Sorry if you want to try to parse which terrorist groups are ok, and which we declared war on.
"Saddam supported the militant Islamic group Hamas in Gaza, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, a Syrian-based terrorist group..."
http://www.star-telegram.com/nationa...ry/523085.html
Feel free to look up those groups, as well as the number of Americans they have killed.
I'm not wishing for anything, I am just stating 2 documents by Pentagan and Congress (or whoever came up w/ 911 report) stating otherwise. So my question is, what is more credible... The report says that Saddam trained terrorist to attack Iraqis in/out of Iraq to maintain his power as the head of the Baath Party. These groups were not Islamist extemists... So don't attack me... attack the report...I don't know who your sources are... I don't know if they are propoganda... but these reports were done by the US government who would have a vested interest in siding w/ your viewpoint.
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2517792
Thats the point, there is not one, and they believe that it is their God given right to have one...I don't agree with your point about them being austracized by everyone in the region... If they were they wouldn't exist or have the power or influence that they do.

Ok time for a history lesson then. When the country of isreal was formed by the U.N. very litlle of the palestinian region is actually part of isreal. It wasn't until that Isreal started playing a fundamental part in the region. There was a large portion of Palestine that went to Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. All three countries refused to create a Palestinian state at the time. Later These countries attacked Isreal. Isreal won and in the process captured the area to be used as a buffer as this was the second time in the short history that arab nations had attacked Isreal.
Early on Syria, Lebanon, and Egypt refuse to recognize Palestine....yet these nations waned Isreal to recognize it? Does that makes sense?
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by Suzy
http:///forum/post/2517703
..."I opposed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. It should be repealed and I will vote for its repeal on the Senate floor. I will also oppose any proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban gays and lesbians from marrying." B Obama
Hmmm.. and yet he said: "I don't think it [a same---- union] should be called marriage".... "If people find that controversial then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans..."
(further scaring me, btw, as the Sermon on the Mount certainly does not, in any way, support gay-mariage, unions, or lifestyle; And saying the passage in Romans is obscure is just goofy romans 1:26 "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion...)
 
rylan1

rylan1

Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/2517772
Suzy you comment about the middle of the road people. I find this funny. I know many "Reagan" democrats that refuse to vote for Obama. Their first choice is Hilary, case in point my in-laws and my fiance. They adamantly will NOT vote for Obama. What you don't realize and fail to see is Obama is splitting the democratic party. The democratic party is shooting themselves in the foot, they may have more registered voters, however not all of them like Obama.
You comment on the record registered democrats, last election the Pubs had record registered republicans....we beat you guys to the punch 4 years ago. We may not have as many vote in the primaries but we will support our candidate and McCain wil draw the "reagan" dems. Don't be surprised when Obama only gets 1.3 of the electorate college.
He is running a campaign on an intangible idea. Hope. I could give a speech about hoping to make everyone a millionare, but that is all it is is Hope. This is not a solid platform to run on. Hope dooes not feed your family, hope does not defend this country.
He has no significant accomplishments. He claims to want to bring this countrytogether but his views are so liberal he can't do this as he won't compromise......so how can he bring us together. What you many democrats failed to realize is Clinton did this and his views stayed to the middle. This is how he won his election and reelection.
He didn't get the complete support of the hawks, but he did get the Kennedy Republicans. Obama can not do this....so debate all you want. Use the same rehashed statements all you want. when it comes down to substrance Obama has none as he has not accomplished anything. Can you name one single accomplishment that benefited this country since he was placed in office. Hell, list on that benefitted Illinois.
I can atleast mention a couple that Hillary did.
What are some Hilary accomplishments?
Why is it you believe Obama is splitting the party, and not Hilary?
Do all Republicans like McCain?
Hope vs Fear is a solid platform... I think if you look at history...and times that have been like this... figures who are similar to Obama did something to change our country..FDR and Kennedy... I would put him in that same category, regardless if you liked their politics.. I think he would be the same type of representative figure.
A difference b/w 2004 and 2008 is that I think many dems were not voting for Kerry, but against Bush... I think this year dems are voting for somebody... not just against the GOP.
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member

Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2517778
I'm not trying to make a racial thing... but I think that is the goal of Obama's attackers or pundits or whatever... There has to be some separation b/w what Paul has said... and the comments of Wright can not be directly attributed to Obama... I think Obama is a double edge sword here... he's already come out and said that he doesn't agree with the statements...he can disassociate himself from this man all together, but he also has to live in his own skin and be comfortable with this decision... I think such a decision to alienate him from Wright who has been a friend, based on political pressures is not a good moral decision, even though he doesn't agree with everything this guy has said.
Then don't say things like this:
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2517642
... These attacks on Obama are simply to remind everyone that he is a black man, and that you should think before you vote for him. ....
Comfortable with his decision? That's our point Rylan. He was comfortable using this "pastor" (and I use the term lightly. If you are a real pastor please do not be offended) as his mentor. He and his wife were comfortable allowing him to officiate their wedding. They've been comfortable going to his church and raising their kids their... It's more than just friendship Rylan. They have placed themselves and their kids directly under his spiritual authority and teachings, by choice.
 
suzy

suzy

Member
Hey, I'm OK if Hillary wins. I go either way. I am excited to watch either one of them in a dedate w McCainBush!
I hope the ol' guy doesn't flip a clot when he gets to ragin"
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2517792
Thats the point, there is not one, and they believe that it is their God given right to have one...I don't agree with your point about them being austracized by everyone in the region... If they were they wouldn't exist or have the power or influence that they do.
I believe it is my God given right to own 20,000 acres in the hills of Jerusalem. Will you join me as I declare a Holy War and try to run out the local inhabitants of my "homeland"?
I've got just as much right to lay claim to the land there as the Palestinians (lol, in fact, I could probably make a better Biblical case for it)
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2517778
I'm not trying to make a racial thing... but I think that is the goal of Obama's attackers or pundits or whatever... There has to be some separation b/w what Paul has said... and the comments of Wright can not be directly attributed to Obama... I think Obama is a double edge sword here... he's already come out and said that he doesn't agree with the statements...he can disassociate himself from this man all together, but he also has to live in his own skin and be comfortable with this decision... I think such a decision to alienate him from Wright who has been a friend, based on political pressures is not a good moral decision, even though he doesn't agree with everything this guy has said.
Based on political pressure? it should be moral pressure, we don't need a president whose pastor for the last 20 years has preached garbage like we are terrorists for nuking japan to win WWII. So we deserved what we got on 9/11.
Come on,
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member

Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2517797
I'm not wishing for anything, I am just stating 2 documents by Pentagan and Congress (or whoever came up w/ 911 report) stating otherwise. So my question is, what is more credible... The report says that Saddam trained terrorist to attack Iraqis in/out of Iraq to maintain his power as the head of the Baath Party. These groups were not Islamist extemists... So don't attack me... attack the report...I don't know who your sources are... I don't know if they are propoganda... but these reports were done by the US government who would have a vested interest in siding w/ your viewpoint.

Rylan, please link the report.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top