http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1435522760162795549&q


:blbl:

Obama recieves more military donations then any other candidate

By Fredreka Schouten, USA TODAY


WASHINGTON — Democrat Barack Obama and Republican Ron Paul have little in common politically, except their opposition to the Iraq war.
Both top a new list of presidential candidates receiving campaign contributions from people who work for the four branches of the military and National Guard, according to a study released Thursday by the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics.


Obama, an Illinois senator, brought in more donations from this group than any White House contender from either party.:yay: The Democrat announced Wednesday his plan to withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2008.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2007-09-13-military-donors_N.htm

Oh snap!

Not very compelling, for lots of reasons.

Not very compelling, for lots of reasons.

Obama, an Illinois senator, brought in more donations from this group than any White House contender from either party. The Democrat announced Wednesday his plan to withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2008


:blbl:

Every Soldier we've talked to is voting for Barack Obama

Were they all Democrats? Just who was asked, how many and where? I just don't understand it when the troops seem to understand why they are there that they would ALL want to leave the job undone. :shrug:

because they dont feel its a job worth doing? or that its actually possable?

Every soldier they've talked to is voting for Obama and yet Paul received a nice chunk of that support? Curious.

EDIT: Geez, that USA Today piece is from Sept. 2007 too! I'm sure the amounts of support both have received from the military by now has increased.

Were they all Democrats? Just who was asked, how many and where? I just don't understand it when the troops seem to understand why they are there that they would ALL want to leave the job undone. :shrug:

That's why I posted the video. So why are you asking me?

Personally it will make no difference who sits in the white house. The foreign policy of the US has not changed since WWII (and before), regardless of party in power and domestic policy has been taken over by corporations.

Personally it will make no difference who sits in the white house. Living and learning about the US government - - -
Every soldier they've talked to is voting for Obama and yet Paul received a nice chunk of that support? Curious. That combination doesn't surprise me. Beinteresting to see if Obama can live up to such expectations.

It wasn't the combination I was pointing out but that apparently not one soldier they talked to was for Paul. Pardon my poor wording.

Living and learning about the US government - - -


Will a change in government ensure a difference in policy towards oil, Iran, Israel or trade subsidies?

Will there be changes in military installations, arms trade or ICC membership?

Will anyone be held responsible for Abu Ghraib or Gitmo?

Will Iraq be recompensed?

Obama, an Illinois senator, brought in more donations from this group than any White House contender from either party. The Democrat announced Wednesday his plan to withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2008


:blbl:

It's just not compelling. The fact he received more donations does not mean he is the candidate the military "support". Or that he is capturing said "support" because of his leave-Iraq-now stance.

It's just not compelling. The fact he received more donations does not mean he is the candidate the military "support". Or that he is capturing said "support" because of his leave-Iraq-now stance.

One things for sure, they're donating more money to him the 100 year war Mccain. And that speaks volumes. Ever heard of the term put your money where your mouth is? Nevermind, I don't feel like explaining it to you;)

Who the president is does matter. Which party is in power does matter.

OBAMA BREAKS FUNDRASING RECORD: $32 MILLION -- 170,000 NEW DONORS FOR JANUARY... DEVELOPING...

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8UH03880&show_article=1

Didn't Obama vote to continue to fund the war? Soldiers can't be that stupid can they?

Didn't Obama vote to continue to fund the war? Soldiers can't be that stupid can they?

It would be political suicide if he didn't. The American people would of turned on any politician that defunded the war. The Republican spin machine is to powerful to allow that to happen.

Didn't Obama vote to continue to fund the war? Soldiers can't be that stupid can they?

He voted to get them the equipment they needed, the mine proof trucks that save their lives. Funding the war isn't the same as approving of it.

One things for sure, they're donating more money to him the 100 year war Mccain. And that speaks volumes. Ever heard of the term put your money where your mouth is? Nevermind, I don't feel like explaining it to you;)

It would be compelling if the majority of all the soldiers gave him money, which is very different than saying the majority of the soliders who gave money, gave it to Obama. Most soldiers, I'm willing to bet, don't donate to politicians at all. They don't make enough money to, probably don't care.

What you're doing here is taking one piece of interesting, but trivial information, and spinning it into something larger than it really is, and in doing so, using that inflation to make all sorts of inferences about what this means. The entire excercise is subjective...

Will a change in government ensure a difference in policy towards oil, Iran, Israel or trade subsidies?

On two of those I think there is a good chance. No one can say that any of them will happen in a significant way, but it's hardly out of the picture.



Will there be changes in military installations, arms trade or ICC membership?

Who knows? One step at a time, anyway.

Will anyone be held responsible for Abu Ghraib or Gitmo?

Probably, but not likely enough people. And if it looks like it will happen Bush will pardon them prior to his exit. Gitmo will be shut down, though, as will similar operations of torture.



Will Iraq be recompensed?

Not very likely. But leaving is an improvement, yes? Hardly the same as before.

Iraq is already recieving compensation for it's destruction, not that it will help much.

obama is the media favorite? all the more reason why not to vote for him, besides the fact he has little to no experience.

Were they all Democrats? Just who was asked, how many and where? I just don't understand it when the troops seem to understand why they are there that they would ALL want to leave the job undone. :shrug:

Because most of our grunts are poor blacks. It's not fucking Rambo where some guy screams "I want to win!" and then it plays really terrible music and the credits roll.

Because most of our grunts are poor blacks. It's not fucking Rambo where some guy screams "I want to win!" and then it plays really terrible music and the credits roll.

Please Roman, that's factually inaccurate. Most of Military guys believe we've already won. We've defeated Saddam, ensured there were no remaning WMD's, and we oversaw their free (I don't know if they were fair) elections. So now the soldiers have been relegated to police duty, something that the U.N should be doing, not our Soldiers. The War is won, all the Soliders are doing now is policing the state. That's why they're investing in someone that will bring them home.

It would be compelling if the majority of all the soldiers gave him money, which is very different than saying the majority of the soliders who gave money, gave it to Obama. Most soldiers, I'm willing to bet, don't donate to politicians at all. They don't make enough money to, probably don't care.

What you're doing here is taking one piece of interesting, but trivial information, and spinning it into something larger than it really is, and in doing so, using that inflation to make all sorts of inferences about what this means. The entire excercise is subjective...

Huh...?

All he's saying is that more Military personel are giving money to Obama than any other candidate.

You're the one attempting to defend something that isn't there.

You're support for Hillary continues to cloud your judgement..... Imagine that...? :rolleyes:

obama is the media favorite? all the more reason why not to vote for him, besides the fact he has little to no experience.

Washington experience is a Negative.... not a positive.

And Obama is the media favorite....? You obvioulsy missed Alan Colmes and Chris Matthews drooling over Hillary each time they discuss the Dem candidates.

Tell me, which media/talking head is favoring Obama?

You're support for Hillary continues to cloud your judgement..... Imagine that...? :rolleyes:

My support for Hillary? Gee, you must read a lot of my posts...

My support for Hillary? Gee, you must read a lot of my posts...

:roflmao:

Washington experience is a Negative.... not a positive.

And Obama is the media favorite....? You obvioulsy missed Alan Colmes and Chris Matthews drooling over Hillary each time they discuss the Dem candidates.

Tell me, which media/talking head is favoring Obama?

negative? how is that a negative?

obama is the media favorite? all the more reason why not to vote for him, besides the fact he has little to no experience.

Obama has held elective office longer then Hillary. He was elected to the Illinois State Senate in 1996, Hillary didn't hold elective office until year 2000. So he has more legislative experience then Hillary:cool:

Hillary Cliton and FcCain get the majority of contributions from deceased persons.

with three soldiers in my family, none of which would vote democrat, that must have been quite a unique bunch of soldiers to find!