Obama supporters. I have one question
- Thread starter darthtang aw
- Start date
1journeyman
Active Member
Originally Posted by Suzy
http:///forum/post/2517891
... Let's face it, some of us want to stop the bleeding ...
Then support the War in Iraq.
The "bleeding" won't stop until we have all converted to Islam or the extremists have been wiped out.
It's up to us to choose the battlefield we want to "bleed" on. It's up to us to decide if we want to have our military, who are the best trained to "bleed", or if we want civilians in planes and buildings, or in su
1journeyman
Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2517922
The problem I realized is that not everyone agrees with or believes the Bible...
But Obama claims to be a Christian. If you claim to be a Christian, and further, say the Bible says things, you dang well better make sure the Bible actually says those things. In this case he was wrong on the Sermon on the Mount and he was wrong on Romans.
http:///forum/post/2517922
The problem I realized is that not everyone agrees with or believes the Bible...
But Obama claims to be a Christian. If you claim to be a Christian, and further, say the Bible says things, you dang well better make sure the Bible actually says those things. In this case he was wrong on the Sermon on the Mount and he was wrong on Romans.
zman1
Active Member
Anyone, see the interview by CNN today of some of American trained Iraq Army personnel?
What are your thought on their responses?
I was actually some what surprised, except for the comments made that they have oil and their economy is a wreck. They want jobs for their youths so they have something to persuade them from going to the extremist. Also, that Democracy is new to them.
What are your thought on their responses?
I was actually some what surprised, except for the comments made that they have oil and their economy is a wreck. They want jobs for their youths so they have something to persuade them from going to the extremist. Also, that Democracy is new to them.
1journeyman
Active Member
Originally Posted by Suzy
http:///forum/post/2517939
So, we are the worlds police? How can we afford to keep being the police for the entire world?
That being said, north Korea has an evil dictator who has WMD. We need to invade there,too, right? We are the police for everywhere! Really, take out North Korea because if we don't fight them there, we will have to fight them here. Pretty soon we'll all be talking in Korean because the Bush Administration did nothing about it. Tell me, what is worth fighting for if don't take out Pakistan, too. They have nukes and flaunt them.
Money is no object. We need to make the world safe from evil and mass destruction.
The more I think about it, Canada has been pretty lippy lately...
The time to invade a country with an evil dictator is BEFORE they get WMD's, not after.
Look, you brought up North Korea. Great example. President Clinton tried diplomace with North Korea. They agreed to end their weapons program for food and oil. We gave them food and oil, they secretly kept working on their weapons program, and now they have a budding nuclear program.
I disagreed with Clinton on that, but he tried diplomacy. Had it worked, awesome. The point is; IT DID NOT WORK. UN inspectors failed, our Intel Agencies failed, bribing them with food and oil failed.
Again, the time to take out tyrants interested in WMD's is before they develop weapons, not after.
You are wrong about the current administration and Korea, btw. Feel free to look up exactly what has been done.
Pakistan is cooperating with us. Why would we take out an ally in the War on Terror? Musharreff has been shot at and bombed more than the USS Arizona was on D-Day for cooperating with us.
http:///forum/post/2517939
So, we are the worlds police? How can we afford to keep being the police for the entire world?
That being said, north Korea has an evil dictator who has WMD. We need to invade there,too, right? We are the police for everywhere! Really, take out North Korea because if we don't fight them there, we will have to fight them here. Pretty soon we'll all be talking in Korean because the Bush Administration did nothing about it. Tell me, what is worth fighting for if don't take out Pakistan, too. They have nukes and flaunt them.
Money is no object. We need to make the world safe from evil and mass destruction.
The more I think about it, Canada has been pretty lippy lately...
The time to invade a country with an evil dictator is BEFORE they get WMD's, not after.
Look, you brought up North Korea. Great example. President Clinton tried diplomace with North Korea. They agreed to end their weapons program for food and oil. We gave them food and oil, they secretly kept working on their weapons program, and now they have a budding nuclear program.
I disagreed with Clinton on that, but he tried diplomacy. Had it worked, awesome. The point is; IT DID NOT WORK. UN inspectors failed, our Intel Agencies failed, bribing them with food and oil failed.
Again, the time to take out tyrants interested in WMD's is before they develop weapons, not after.
You are wrong about the current administration and Korea, btw. Feel free to look up exactly what has been done.
Pakistan is cooperating with us. Why would we take out an ally in the War on Terror? Musharreff has been shot at and bombed more than the USS Arizona was on D-Day for cooperating with us.
zman1
Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2518134
The time to invade a country with an evil dictator is BEFORE they get WMD's, not after. Look, you brought up North Korea. Great example. President Clinton tried diplomace with North Korea.
Bush too -- Since it was brought up
The need to find ways to share nuclear power with the rest of the world in a responsible way means we must address the issue of North Korea’s nuclear program. China is working with us here as well.
http://www.energy.gov/news/5662.htm
Through President Bush’s Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) we have launched an international framework for sharing nuclear power with the developing world. This framework will allow for a greater global reliance on civilian nuclear power to produce the electricity needed to meet the expected growth in demand. And it does it in a way that safeguards against proliferation of materials and deals responsibly with spent fuel.
We believe the answer lies in the development of energy alternatives and new technologies. We need to make America more energy efficient. We need to make America less dependent on imported energy, particularly that which comes from politically unstable areas of the world. And so, through the President’s 20 in 10 plan to reduce projected gasoline consumption by 20 percent in 10 years, through his Advanced Energy Initiative and in other ways, we are taking steps to diversify America’s energy supplies and energy suppliers.
Resposibilites go much further back than both Bushs and Clinton
The North Korean nuclear weapons program dates back to the 1980s. In the 1980s, focusing on practical uses of nuclear energy and the completion of a nuclear weapon development system, North Korea began to operate facilities for uranium fabrication and conversion. It began construction of a 200 MWe nuclear reactor and nuclear reprocessing facilities in Taechon and Yongbyon, respectively, and conducted high-explosive detonation tests. In 1985 US officials announced for the first time that they had intelligence data proving that a secret nuclear reactor was being built 90 km north of Pyongyang near the small town of Yongbyon.
suzy
Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2518091
Then support the War in Iraq.
The "bleeding" won't stop until we have all converted to Islam or the extremists have been wiped out.
It's up to us to choose the battlefield we want to "bleed" on. It's up to us to decide if we want to have our military, who are the best trained to "bleed", or if we want civilians in planes and buildings, or in su
No one believes that anymore. It did work last time, along with the promise of a gay marriage amendment. I hope the right tries to keep playing the politics of fear crap. This will be a landslide.
Politics of fear. Politics of BS.
suzy
Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2518134
The time to invade a country with an evil dictator is BEFORE they get WMD's, not after.
Look, you brought up North Korea. Great example. President Clinton tried diplomace with North Korea. They agreed to end their weapons program for food and oil. We gave them food and oil, they secretly kept working on their weapons program, and now they have a budding nuclear program.
I disagreed with Clinton on that, but he tried diplomacy. Had it worked, awesome. The point is; IT DID NOT WORK. UN inspectors failed, our Intel Agencies failed, bribing them with food and oil failed.
Again, the time to take out tyrants interested in WMD's is before they develop weapons, not after.
You are wrong about the current administration and Korea, btw. Feel free to look up exactly what has been done.
Pakistan is cooperating with us. Why would we take out an ally in the War on Terror? Musharreff has been shot at and bombed more than the USS Arizona was on D-Day for cooperating with us.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Bomb them there before they bomb us here. Don't try to talk or negotiate, just kill people and throw our weight around. How can we afford this forever?
1.7 trillion dollars for this fiasco. 1,700,000,000,000.
Could have won a lot of hearts and minds with that kind of moola.-
http:///forum/post/2518134
The time to invade a country with an evil dictator is BEFORE they get WMD's, not after.
Look, you brought up North Korea. Great example. President Clinton tried diplomace with North Korea. They agreed to end their weapons program for food and oil. We gave them food and oil, they secretly kept working on their weapons program, and now they have a budding nuclear program.
I disagreed with Clinton on that, but he tried diplomacy. Had it worked, awesome. The point is; IT DID NOT WORK. UN inspectors failed, our Intel Agencies failed, bribing them with food and oil failed.
Again, the time to take out tyrants interested in WMD's is before they develop weapons, not after.
You are wrong about the current administration and Korea, btw. Feel free to look up exactly what has been done.
Pakistan is cooperating with us. Why would we take out an ally in the War on Terror? Musharreff has been shot at and bombed more than the USS Arizona was on D-Day for cooperating with us.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Bomb them there before they bomb us here. Don't try to talk or negotiate, just kill people and throw our weight around. How can we afford this forever?
1.7 trillion dollars for this fiasco. 1,700,000,000,000.
Could have won a lot of hearts and minds with that kind of moola.-
zman1
Active Member
Originally Posted by Suzy
http:///forum/post/2518182
No one believes that anymore. It did work last time, along with the promise of a gay marriage amendment. I hope the right tries to keep playing the politics of fear crap. This will be a landslide.
Politics of fear. Politics of BS.
Desperate methods from a desperate party, losing both houses and now potentially the executive branch. Grabbing at straws. Slinging mud at wall, desperately trying to make something stick, anything.
http:///forum/post/2518182
No one believes that anymore. It did work last time, along with the promise of a gay marriage amendment. I hope the right tries to keep playing the politics of fear crap. This will be a landslide.
Politics of fear. Politics of BS.
Desperate methods from a desperate party, losing both houses and now potentially the executive branch. Grabbing at straws. Slinging mud at wall, desperately trying to make something stick, anything.
rylan1
Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/2517941
He got more press coverage than any other senator when he won his seat in the senate...he was a celebrity the day he became elected. I have not seen any other senator have more stories done on him (before he announced his bid even) in their first term
More than Hilary?
You can't be serious... I bet you $1million that less than 10% of people knew who this guy was prior to 2007.
http:///forum/post/2517941
He got more press coverage than any other senator when he won his seat in the senate...he was a celebrity the day he became elected. I have not seen any other senator have more stories done on him (before he announced his bid even) in their first term
More than Hilary?
You can't be serious... I bet you $1million that less than 10% of people knew who this guy was prior to 2007.
rylan1
Active Member
Originally Posted by zman1
http:///forum/post/2518190
Desperate methods from a desperate party, losing both houses and now potentially the executive branch. Grabbing at straws. Slinging mud at wall, desperately trying to make something stick, anything.
This is largely how they won the White House in 2004. They used this marriage thing to sway the parties and public.
http:///forum/post/2518190
Desperate methods from a desperate party, losing both houses and now potentially the executive branch. Grabbing at straws. Slinging mud at wall, desperately trying to make something stick, anything.
This is largely how they won the White House in 2004. They used this marriage thing to sway the parties and public.
rylan1
Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2517821
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)
I am not saying you are wrong.... however they believe they have a claim to the land as well...which is why the problem exists... I don't think God is saying we need to have a Holy war.
http:///forum/post/2517821
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)
I am not saying you are wrong.... however they believe they have a claim to the land as well...which is why the problem exists... I don't think God is saying we need to have a Holy war.
rylan1
Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2517805
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...)
clarify this for me... I don't have access to a Bible right now.... what is the verse in regards to the Sermon on the Mount... ? I believe this is the passage in Romans...
http:///forum/post/2517805
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...)
clarify this for me... I don't have access to a Bible right now.... what is the verse in regards to the Sermon on the Mount... ? I believe this is the passage in Romans...
crimzy
Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2518091
Then support the War in Iraq.
The "bleeding" won't stop until we have all converted to Islam or the extremists have been wiped out.
It's up to us to choose the battlefield we want to "bleed" on. It's up to us to decide if we want to have our military, who are the best trained to "bleed", or if we want civilians in planes and buildings, or in su
You have argued this many times before but a lot of people, myself included, believe that we are not wiping out terrorism, even if our actions do kill some of the extremists.
Take a look at the article below. Here are a couple of examples supporting the notion that our war is robbing young Iraqis of their futures, and thereby creating terrorists as fast or faster than we are killing them.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080314/...glPc0E_eZm.3QA
rylan1
Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/2517856
Ok, one accomplishment. She brought healthcare as an issue to the forefront of america ( I may not agree with this but she has atleast brought up a concern for american and attempted to get the legislature passed). Can you name one similar for Obama, a political issue he has lead the fight on and attempted to get legislature passed by writing the bill himself?
As for splitting the democratic party. The pubs Picked McCain early on. Obama and Hilary are essentially neck and neck and I hear of many Dems (in my family as well) that will not vote for Obama because the guy is an empty suit and is running on celebrity status. Hell the Chicago Sun Times reported that he was TOLD to run by his pastor because of his celebrity status and if he didn't run now he would never have a chance like this again in the future. That tells me his politics aren't strong enough to run a campaign off of accomplishments he needs celebrity status.
Do you honestly believe you all are satisfied with your candidate? I don't think so... Many consevatives are against McCain... the only way to get this fraction of voters is to have a strong conservative VP... which means that many of the GDP votes will not be for McCain, but against the other candidate. So it will be a matter of who they hate more... Clinton or Obama to what your turnout is going to be.
http:///forum/post/2517856
Ok, one accomplishment. She brought healthcare as an issue to the forefront of america ( I may not agree with this but she has atleast brought up a concern for american and attempted to get the legislature passed). Can you name one similar for Obama, a political issue he has lead the fight on and attempted to get legislature passed by writing the bill himself?
As for splitting the democratic party. The pubs Picked McCain early on. Obama and Hilary are essentially neck and neck and I hear of many Dems (in my family as well) that will not vote for Obama because the guy is an empty suit and is running on celebrity status. Hell the Chicago Sun Times reported that he was TOLD to run by his pastor because of his celebrity status and if he didn't run now he would never have a chance like this again in the future. That tells me his politics aren't strong enough to run a campaign off of accomplishments he needs celebrity status.
Do you honestly believe you all are satisfied with your candidate? I don't think so... Many consevatives are against McCain... the only way to get this fraction of voters is to have a strong conservative VP... which means that many of the GDP votes will not be for McCain, but against the other candidate. So it will be a matter of who they hate more... Clinton or Obama to what your turnout is going to be.
1journeyman
Active Member
Originally Posted by Suzy
http:///forum/post/2518182
No one believes that anymore. It did work last time, along with the promise of a gay marriage amendment. I hope the right tries to keep playing the politics of fear crap. This will be a landslide.
Politics of fear. Politics of BS.
Again, you can't really say "no one believes that" when you are talking to me...
Sorry, Al Qaeda attacked us long before we were ever in Iraq. They are now focusing on Iraq. Why would I believe once we leave Iraq they suddenly won't want to kill us anymore?
http:///forum/post/2518182
No one believes that anymore. It did work last time, along with the promise of a gay marriage amendment. I hope the right tries to keep playing the politics of fear crap. This will be a landslide.
Politics of fear. Politics of BS.
Again, you can't really say "no one believes that" when you are talking to me...
Sorry, Al Qaeda attacked us long before we were ever in Iraq. They are now focusing on Iraq. Why would I believe once we leave Iraq they suddenly won't want to kill us anymore?
darthtang aw
Active Member
Originally Posted by Suzy
http:///forum/post/2518186
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Bomb them there before they bomb us here. Don't try to talk or negotiate, just kill people and throw our weight around. How can we afford this forever?
1.7 trillion dollars for this fiasco. 1,700,000,000,000.
Could have won a lot of hearts and minds with that kind of moola.-
we have tried talking with those areas for decades. Has it worked? Can you atleast answer that question. and I would gladly trade 1.7 trillion dollars for innocent lives of Americans civiliansand the chance at freedom and democracy in Iraq.
You know you are the typical quiter, something gets to hard you just walk away instead of finishing what you started or fixing what you broke.
We may have been wrong to go in Iraq, (that is a stretch in my eyes) But as the greatest nation in the world do we not atleast owe it to the iraqi civiliansd to help them protect themselves? Or is that not our problem either?
Where I come from if you believe you screwed up you do everything in you power to make it right.....whether for the reasons of the war or not we OWE it to the civilians in that region. It is called doing right by thy neighbor.......
http:///forum/post/2518186
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Bomb them there before they bomb us here. Don't try to talk or negotiate, just kill people and throw our weight around. How can we afford this forever?
1.7 trillion dollars for this fiasco. 1,700,000,000,000.
Could have won a lot of hearts and minds with that kind of moola.-
we have tried talking with those areas for decades. Has it worked? Can you atleast answer that question. and I would gladly trade 1.7 trillion dollars for innocent lives of Americans civiliansand the chance at freedom and democracy in Iraq.
You know you are the typical quiter, something gets to hard you just walk away instead of finishing what you started or fixing what you broke.
We may have been wrong to go in Iraq, (that is a stretch in my eyes) But as the greatest nation in the world do we not atleast owe it to the iraqi civiliansd to help them protect themselves? Or is that not our problem either?
Where I come from if you believe you screwed up you do everything in you power to make it right.....whether for the reasons of the war or not we OWE it to the civilians in that region. It is called doing right by thy neighbor.......
1journeyman
Active Member
Originally Posted by Suzy
http:///forum/post/2518186
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Bomb them there before they bomb us here. Don't try to talk or negotiate, just kill people and throw our weight around. How can we afford this forever?
1.7 trillion dollars for this fiasco. 1,700,000,000,000.
Could have won a lot of hearts and minds with that kind of moola.-
Really? How many trillions of dollars have we spent since WW2 trying to win over the Middle East? What makes you think a couple trillion more might work?
Face it, it took us bombing Germany and Japan into dust during WW2 to end the war and change their regimes. When did we suddenly decide that bribes and appeasement work?
Again, look to Korea for the "success" of negotiating with dictators to disuade them from persuing WMD's.
http:///forum/post/2518186
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Bomb them there before they bomb us here. Don't try to talk or negotiate, just kill people and throw our weight around. How can we afford this forever?
1.7 trillion dollars for this fiasco. 1,700,000,000,000.
Could have won a lot of hearts and minds with that kind of moola.-
Really? How many trillions of dollars have we spent since WW2 trying to win over the Middle East? What makes you think a couple trillion more might work?
Face it, it took us bombing Germany and Japan into dust during WW2 to end the war and change their regimes. When did we suddenly decide that bribes and appeasement work?
Again, look to Korea for the "success" of negotiating with dictators to disuade them from persuing WMD's.