Bush admin developing plans for for reducing combat forces in Iraq by as much as half next year, NEW YORK TIMES planning to report on Saturday, newsroom sources tell DRUDGE REPORT... MORE.. could 'lower troop levels to roughly 100,000 by the midst of the 2008 presidential election,' paper will claim... Sec. of Defense Gates and Condoleezza Rice proponents of the plan.... Developing...


PAPER: WHITE HOUSE PLANS MAJOR CUT IN IRAQ TROOPS FOR 2008


www.drudgereport.com

HA HA, an obvious attempt to give the Republicans a chance in the 08 Elections. :p

Man...that is disgusting. I'm not for the war in Iraq (I am for the war on terror, however...if there even really is one anymore), but that's disgusting. Bush is using the military like pawns on a chess board.

And yet those of us who don't like him are the ones called anti-American. What a fucking joke.

If this is true, it's another example of how he bungled Iraq and is now playing politics with it as much as the Democrats are.

That's a good point, counter. I wonder why everyone glosses over the fact that the Democrats (not the citizens, but those holding or running for office) don't give a damn about the war, or the soldiers fighting over there. They are just using this massive clusterfuck perpetrated by Bush and Co as a way into office!

The Dems are just as bad the Republicans. The war is just a sexy backdrop for their political aspirations.

And you only have two options- Republicans or Democrats. Man! You are in biiiig shit! LOL! I'm glad I'm not one of you. What a though decision!!! :D

I'm pretty sure that in modern times, the Presidential election--in the minds of the general population, at least--has involved figuring out who was the lesser of two evils. There hasn't been a great candidate in as long as I can think of...not to say that our past Presidents haven't accomplished anything, but the process just makes it impossible for anyone who really does want to change things for the better to get into office.

No kiddin'. Time for a reform?

That's a good point, counter. I wonder why everyone glosses over the fact that the Democrats (not the citizens, but those holding or running for office) don't give a damn about the war, or the soldiers fighting over there. They are just using this massive clusterfuck perpetrated by Bush and Co as a way into office!
Yes, thats seems to be the case. They suported him when it was popular, and now they turn on him now its unpopular. Only a few people seemed to actually be consistent about this issue.

No kiddin'. Time for a reform?

I'm not sure there's a way to do that.

but the process just makes it impossible for anyone who really does want to change things for the better to get into office.

What do you mean?

If true, we'll see what its effect is. Some part of me is thinking "Well, the Democrats have apparently won." I'm not sure that that translates to "So, vote Republican."

Why was my first thought "oh shit, Bush is going to screw something ELSE up".

We can and must withdrawal troops is a thoughtful and delicate way. However, I really do not trust the current administration to do it...

Withdrawing troops will give alQaeda the stronghold they have been fighting for. Iraq will become a cesspool.

Withdrawing troops will give alQaeda the stronghold they have been fighting for. Iraq will become a cesspool.

OH MY GOD and REPUBLICANS ARE PLANNING TO DO THIS!!!!

I have just spent over a half an hour trying to find confirmation of this on the web, and going through the Drudge Report, and I can find no story that shows the President is thinking about such a troop cut.
All Troop cut stories that I find trail back to the Demorats, and their cut and run, choke the Troops strategies.

It's in the NYTimes, the same paper that gave us plagarist/fake reporters, and treasonous stories so I don't totally believe them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/26/washington/26strategy.html?ei=5065&en=693b2898aabb81e2&ex=1180756800&adxnnl=1&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print&adxnnlx=1180200478-noT31MtuiAOZVriGS2fpmQ

We'll see.

...the Demorats, and their cut and run, choke the Troops strategies.

We're actually trying to pass legislation to be able to torture our troops, and get them to stop fighting. I know that sounds harsh, but it's a Time 'o War™.

And one of those reporters was "faker" on the Republican side, Sandy.

Seriously, I have problems with the NYT, too, but overall it's a good paper and it should not be judged based on the actions of less than a handful of people...

What do you mean?

Well, for starters, money is involved. The biggest bankroll wins the election. The candidates who raise the most money do so through connections to big business, and special interest groups...which can only be achieved through a long career in politics, or in big business itself. You average presidential candidate can't afford to keep up with the big candidates (who are all connected to big money suppliers), and thus can't win the election.

Just consider the 2000 Presidential Election...Energy interests gave Bush $2.9 million in 1999-2000, compared to the $325,000 they gave to Gore. Of course, that industry has heavily favored Republicans over Democrats for years, so it wasn't as if Bush was "special", but the numbers are there. Big Oil, for example, contributed $13 to Bush for ever $1 they contributed to Gore.

To make it simple, the candidate who raises the most money almost always wins their party's nomination.

Look at the 2008 candidate's fund raising: Clinton and Obama (the top two Democratic candidates) have raised nearly 62 million dollars, which is more than double the money raised by the six other Democratic candidates combined.

On the Republican side, the top three candidates (Romney, Giuliani, and McCain) have raised more than $53 million, compared to the $5.5 million by the seven other Republican candidates.

Does this m

Now, does this mean that Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, McCain, Obama, and Clinton are better candidates? Does it mean that they would do a better job in office than, say, Dennis Kucinich, who has raised less than $345 thousand to this point? Not at all. But Mr. Kucinich isn't going to get a chance to prove it, because he won't be able to raise the money required to win the Presidency.

Plus, the interest groups that funded these campaigns are expecting to see some return on their investment. How can any newly-elected President change the nation for the better, when they have to spend so much time paying back these groups? They don't do it with cash, they do it, for example, by calling for drilling operations in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, as President Bush did when he took office.

Now, do you think it matters if Bush wanted these companies to drill in the Wildlife Refuge? No, it doesn't. He has to call for things like this, because if he does not, oil companies will fund the Democratic candidate next time around, and his party will stop supporting him while he's in office. And if your own party stopped supporting him, he wouldn't be able to push a Bill through Congress with a fucking bulldozer.

So yeah, money = winning. The idealists, the people who actually want to get into office to better the nation, can't. They wouldn't receive the support of the big companies that provide the money needed to run.

Withdrawing troops will give alQaeda the stronghold they have been fighting for. Iraq will become a cesspool.
So Iraq is NOT a cesspool right now. Riiiiiiight..... :rolleyes:

Come on, kiddos, don't kid yourself.

There might be a temporary REDUCTION just for the election, but after that still the same old, and no matter who wins the election.

Now let's get back to our regular programming....

Sandy, Thanks for the link,

It's in the NYTimes, the same paper that gave us plagarist/fake reporters, and treasonous stories so I don't totally believe them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/26/wa...iAOZVriGS2fpmQ

Now here is the weasel in the supposed report,

The officials declined to be quoted for attribution because they were discussing internal deliberations that they expected to evolve over several months.

No official confirmation? and this is considered as a viable news story? sounds like a fishing expedition to see what they can stir up, a denial, and they will say some one is lying, a confirmation and they will run a full assault on the President for wasting lives and playing politics.

Yeah, as a fellow reporter, I'm not sure I would have "run with it," especially if it's going to "evolve."

And one of those reporters was "faker" on the Republican side, Sandy.

Seriously, I have problems with the NYT, too, but overall it's a good paper and it should not be judged based on the actions of less than a handful of people...

The NYSlimes is a liberal piece of sh!t that I wouldn't line my catbox with. Ugh.:mad:

Sandy, I have a tip of the day for you.

Before you state an opinion statement be sure to say "In my opinion..." or "I believe...". It would help with your personal attack problem I think.

Iraq became a stronghold the moment the U.S stepped foot in it.

I have just spent over a half an hour trying to find confirmation of this on the web, and going through the Drudge Report, and I can find no story that shows the President is thinking about such a troop cut.

All Troop cut stories that I find trail back to the Demorats, and their cut and run, choke the Troops strategies.


Then you have horrible research skills.

Here:


US plans to halve troops in Iraq on way to early exit (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1845497.ece)

THE American combat force in Iraq could be cut in half next year as a result of political pressure in Washington to begin a process of withdrawal from the war.

Plans are under way for US troops to switch to a “postsurge” strategy that would concentrate on training the Iraqi army, hunting down Al-Qaeda terrorists and guarding the country’s borders.

The climbdown is in response to growing pressure from the Democratic majority in Congress and increasingly restive Republicans. Senator John Warner, a senior Republican on the Senate armed services committee, said last week it was time for Iraqi troops to show their professionalism and “step up”.

So you were half right. It is Democrats, AS WELL AS Republicans LOL!!!

The new thinking is taking place in the midst of the original surge. Troops are still arriving and US forces will not be at full strength until next month. But the signs are that the initial success in reducing sectarian violence has been halted.

Our military cannot defeat this enemy. Guerrilla and assymmetric warfare at it's finest.




Bush Mulling Sharp Cuts in Troops in Iraq -- NYT (http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3215801&page=1)

The Bush administration is developing "concepts" for cutting U.S. combat forces in Iraq by up to half next year, The New York Times reported in Saturday editions.

They also included a significant scaling back of President George W. Bush's stated mission in January that the U.S. military take back control of Baghdad and restive Anbar province.

This mission is FAILING.

One administration official who has participated in the talks told the Times the plan "stems from a recognition that the current level of forces aren't sustainable in Iraq, they aren't sustainable in the region, and they will be increasingly unsustainable here at home."

Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice were said to be pushing for the troop cuts as well as scaling back the mission next year, the newspaper said, as were some generals at the Pentagon who have long held doubts about the Iraqis' making real political headway via the troop increase.

Not only is it the Democrats and Republicans in Congress, it's within the Bush Administration as well!!!

I have seen all of those items, Sandy gave me a link, and the funny thing is there is no official source for this information, and it wouldn't be the first time reporters from the Gray Lady were caught making up the news stories.

Bush is mulling a possible troop reduction. The plan all along was to train Iraqis and withdrawl our troops as Iraqis take over.

I'm sure Bush also has a plan for increasing the troop levels, say, if he invaded Iran. We have plans for full out nuclear war, too.

Bush will not withdrawl troops until it is appropriate based upon the situation on the ground, or until Congress cuts the funding.

What's it matter? won't the democrat winner of the presidential election reduce troops anyway?

A democrat won't win the election. Hillary is too controversial/disliked, Barack Hussein Obama is inexperienced/muslim, and Edwards can't win.

A Republican will win. Again.;)

I doubt that, Sandy.

And why do you call him "Hussein"? I understand that it is his middle name...but why won't you call him by his last name?

And this is the first time that I can remember where we've had both a minority and a woman candidate that were actually popular. Hillary and Obama have both raised more money so far than any other Democrate...and I believe more than any other republican. So it's not as if they're not being taken seriously.

Forgetting to type "Obama" mistake corrected.

I don't think Americans will elect a democrat. Just a hunch.

Forgetting to type "Obama" mistake corrected.

That wasn't a mistake, Sandy. Why didn't you type out Hillary's full name, as well? Was it because it doesn't include the name of a very infamous Middle Eastern authority figure? That's what I'm thinking...

I don't think Americans will elect a democrat. Just a hunch.

They sure elected a bunch of them into Congress and the House last time around. I just think Americans are sort of sick of Republicans right now.

It was a mistake. Look at all my other posts where I refer to him. I always call him Barack HUSSEIN Obama. And I'm done responding to you. Your rude comments on the other thread were noted.:rolleyes:

Your ignorant comments from every thread were noted, and REPORTED. So I'm officially ignoring you...now.

The Republicans had their chance at governing and totally blew it, so I think it will be some years before they reclaim the Congress, though given the dreadful brew Pelosi and company are cooking, it could be sooner rather than later...

However, presidential races are a whole other ballgame. Hillary has negative numbers that no other candidate has overcome, and Edwards and Obama don't have much of a record to run on, so it's very possible that a strong Republican candidate could knock off any of the three. Problem is, I'm none to impressed with the Elephants in the field, either. I was marginally a Guilliani guy, but his campaign has so far been less than impressive. McCain? Romney? Don't even get me started...

Sandy, Thanks for the link,



Now here is the weasel in the supposed report,



No official confirmation? and this is considered as a viable news story? sounds like a fishing expedition to see what they can stir up, a denial, and they will say some one is lying, a confirmation and they will run a full assault on the President for wasting lives and playing politics.

You've just defined the Bush Administration. Every piece of evidence they present is nothing that can be independently verified. Try not to be so selective.

Ganymede, that's a lie and you know it. "Every piece?" Like all those daily briefings you don't watch about subjects that have absolutely nothing to do with the war or whatever other issue is your holy grail? Think about what you say before you open your gob with that sort of foolishnesses...

Ganymede

You've just defined the Bush Administration. Every piece of evidence they present is nothing that can be independently verified. Try not to be so selective.

The subject was the veracity of the Gray Lady's reporters, as for the Administration, you have the inside connections to know positively that ever thing that is reported by them is in fact false? dam you got better connections then the reporters from the Gray Lady.

Barack Hussein Obama is inexperienced/muslim
That's why he attends church on Sundays. Oh, and why doesn't his wife dress hijab if they are Muslim? Why does Obama walk around on beaches showing off his knees if he is Muslim.

C'mon- give me a break. Stop pretending to be ignorant and arrogant, you are giving conservatives a bad name. Unless you WANT to give conservatives a bad name...

I agree. He's obviously not a Muslim, though I doubt he's much of a Christian, either...

I agree. He's obviously not a Muslim, though I doubt he's much of a Christian, either...

It depends how you define Christian. I know that he and his wife have done more good for the world than most Christians. I also know that he attends church more frequently that most Christians. I do not know much about his personal theology.

I voted for Obama three years ago and I lived in the same Chicago neighborhood he does. Thus I am biased...

I voted for Obama three years ago and I lived in the same Chicago neighborhood he does. Thus I am biased...
Obama couldn't have a worse name (husain, osama). Saturday Night Live even did a bit about him saying he had changed his name from Hitler Jew Killer to what it is now.

Then, of course, there's the fact that he's almost as liberal as Kucinich! According to the presidential selection thread, he and I agree on only 16% of the issues.

Exploradora

It depends how you define Christian. I know that he and his wife have done more good for the world than most Christians. I also know that he attends church more frequently that most Christians. I do not know much about his personal theology.

Frequent Church attendance does not make you a Christian, to judge a persons faith by his attendance in church is like saying that you can spot AIDs by looking at a persons dating patterns.

Frequent Church attendance does not make you a Christian, to judge a persons faith by his attendance in church is like saying that you can spot AIDs by looking at a persons dating patterns.

He is the only person, in my opinion, who can judge if he is or is not a Christian. We cannot judge it by party affiliation or certain moral convictions because these vary within Christianity.

Frequent church attendance is not a mandate of Christianity, and I attend church and I am not Christian.

Politicians in this country cannot be atheists or else they risk their political careers. Do you think that Rudy Gulianni or John McCain are more religious than him? I doubt it.

Beyond Romney's inclusion in that pseudo-cult of a religion, I could care less about any of the candidates personal beliefs. However, I'm curious how you conclude that "(Obama) and his wife have done more good for the world than most Christians."

In order to make claims for "most Christians" you need to be able to demonstrate some evidence that you understand what "most Christians" do, so far as "good" is concerned. Secondly, I'm curious what "good" Obama has done with his time in office. From my limited knowledge of the man I haven't seen him do much of anything "good" or "bad."

In order to make claims for "most Christians" you need to be able to demonstrate some evidence that you understand what "most Christians" do, so far as "good" is concerned. Secondly, I'm curious what "good" Obama has done with his time in office. From my limited knowledge of the man I haven't seen him do much of anything "good" or "bad."

I was specifically referring to his work before entering politics- he worked with churches to get charity support. He worked on civil rights lawsuits. He taught law. His wife worked with AmeriCorps and currently oversees volunteer services and other such things and U of C Hospitals (I'm not sure what her official title is). Obama also helped create the framework for universal health care proposition in Illinois.

My observation of most Christians I know is that they preach but do not work towards social justice or other causes. Some do, however considering 75% of the country is Christian and we are a woefully uninvolved country when it comes to social service and social justice issues. I am an atheist and am more involved is social service activities than most Christians who I know.

I would also like to add that judging a person for being Mormon is silly and probably demonstrates that you have little experience with members of the LDS church.

Barack HUSSEIN Obama is a muslim. Do the research. It's all there*. He (seldom) attends his "Christian" Trinity Unity church which is a black-power/anti-white church. He is qualified for nothing.

*His father is muslim. He attended muslim schools. He hides everything muslim about his past because he thinks it will prevent him from winning.

He is just what the US needs.
I think you should get on your knees and thank Jesus for sending him.

Barack HUSSEIN Obama is a muslim. Do the research. It's all there*. He (seldom) attends his "Christian" Trinity Unity church which is a black-power/anti-white church. He is qualified for nothing.

*His father is muslim. He attended muslim schools. He hides everything muslim about his past because he thinks it will prevent him from winning.

Actually, how it works is *you* present *your* sources to validate *your* claims, which look like BS to me. The only thing you got right is that his father was Muslim, which I he writes in his book and has discussed on several occasions. The church he attends in Trinity United Church of Christ- it's on the south side of Chicago in a low income African American community. Much of the African American community is proud of their African heritage. It can be called being "Afrocentric". Why shouldn't they be? I know people who attend that church, they aren't "anti-white" (whatever the hell that means). I also know members of the Nation of Islam- it's funny that Obama wouldn't go to Mosque when they have such a strong presence in the community.

Gawd.

Barack HUSSEIN Obama is a muslim. Do the research. It's all there*. He (seldom) attends his "Christian" Trinity Unity church which is a black-power/anti-white church. He is qualified for nothing.

*His father is muslim. He attended muslim schools. He hides everything muslim about his past because he thinks it will prevent him from winning.

LOL, I'm not going to vote for Obama (assuming he is the Democrat candidate), but your post is absolutely absurd.

Obama is not a Muslim. He may have been when he was young (that's not an issue of debate, he admits it). But he is Christian now. I bet in your freaky little world, people cannot convert. Sandy, you claim to be a Christian right? I bet in your world where people cannot convert, St. Paul (who wrote most of the books of the New Testament after the Gospel) isn't a Christian either? I mean, he was Jewish and persecuted Christians, but he converted. OH NO HE DIDN'T. In your world, people cannot convert to Christianity!

Can YOU show me the research you did that proves that he's a Muslim? You state, "do the research". No, you do it for me, because I bet you cannot show definitive proof. You, like others, like to throw around accusations, but back it up with shady/lie-filled (often conservative) evidence.

Show me pictures of Obama attending a mosque. Show me pictures of Obama praying 5 times a day. Show me pictures of Obama making a pilgrammage to Mecca.

Yes, he was schooled in a madrassah in Indonesia when he was a young (from 8 years old to 10 years old). Did he have a choice? Were you able to choose which primary school you went to? Besides, that madrassah, if you're wondering, isn't an extremist madrassah. That school had boys and girls learning side by side. How many extremist schools have boys and girls learning side by side? NONE. CNN actually tracked down that school, so before you quote some obscure conservative source on the net about this, actually watch the broadcast where CNN finds the exact school.

BTW, before you point and fingers and start squealing like a little girl, "SEE! SEE! HE WENT TO A MADRASSAH". Madrassah, in Arabic, means school. Usually religious school. Not all of them are extremist. In fact, most aren't. A lot of them in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are extremist.

Oh wait, in your freaky world, anyone who lives in a Muslim country is Muslim, right? So I guess all our brave men and women serving in Iraq are ALL Muslims, since they've been there for years. All our brave men and women are Muslims in Kuwait? All our brave men and women in Italy are Catholic. All our brave men and women in Japan are Zen Buddhist?

And to be clear- madrassah just means school. All schools in Indonesia would be called madrassah- secular to religious. The school, or madrassah, he went to is considered secular. Where, exactly, should he have gone to school while in Indonesia. He also went to high school in Hawaii- a private Christian school.

Barack HUSSEIN Obama is a muslim

Seeing as I'll see all of your BS comments through other people quoting you...I might as well just deal with you directly.

Apparently, Obama spent five years in Indonesia, where he attended both Catholic School, and public school. But his father had little to do with his education, as he and Obama's mother were divorced by the time Barak was two years old.

People have been claiming that he spent four years attending a radical "Muslim Seminary", but that just isn't true. CNN sent reporter John Vause to investigate, and he found out that it was a public school, not a private, religious school. The teachers wore Western-style clothes, and the only person who wore traditional Muslim headdress was the Religion teacher. So...

And Obama has been attending that Church in Chicago since the 1980s.

So calm down, Sandy...someone with a different religious viewpoint than you won't be running for President.





http://http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-070325obama-islam-story,0,7180545.story?coll=chi-news-hed&?track=sto-relcon (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-070325obama-islam-story,0,7180545.story?coll=chi-news-hed&?track=sto-relcon)
http://http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/ (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/)

A democrat won't win the election. Hillary is too controversial/disliked, Barack Hussein Obama is inexperienced/muslim, and Edwards can't win.

A Republican will win. Again.;)
:puke:

Forgetting to type "Obama" mistake corrected.

I don't think Americans will elect a democrat. Just a hunch.
Why? Because God forgot to put a brain in half of teh americans?

What is "teh Americans":confused:

Obama can't verbally dis Islam. It would be political suicide.

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2006/12/barack_hussein.html

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2007/03/barack_hussein_1.html

In that one link, the whole point of contention is that Obama is a Muslim simply because Muslims see him that way? It doesn't matter what everyone else thinks, it only matter what Barak does. He has been a practicing Christian for as long as he has been able to make the choice on his own.

He didn't choose his schools, his mother did. And the only religious school he went to in Indonesia was a Catholic school, not a Muslim school. And regardless, even if he attended fucking terrorist training camps, he was a kid, and had no ability to make the decision for himself.

And of course he shouldn't verbally "dis" Islam. There's nothing wrong with being a Muslim. He does, however, want to make it clear that he isn't a Muslim, and even if his parents felt that the family was when he was a child, he made the decision on his own to become a Christian as an adult.

Hopefully, none of this will matter in the election. His middle name shouldn't matter. All that should matter is his merit as a candidate, not his childhood religious practices, or even his current religious practices.

If religion didn't matter Romney would be a shoe-in. He is being rejected by most of the Christian base. Too bad. He would be good.

And Barack Hussein Obama has no merit as a candidate. He is an empty suit.

JDawg, do you believe the American populace is intelligent enough to separate and respect Barak's private life and background?

"For example, only a third of American adults agree that more than half of human genes are identical to those of mice and only 38% of adults recognize that humans have more than half of their genes in common with chimpanzees. In other studies (1, 14, 15), fewer than half of American adults can provide a minimal definition of DNA. Thus, it is not surprising that nearly half of the respondents in 2005 were not sure about the proportion of human genes that overlap with mice or chimpanzees."

"When presented with a description of natural selection that omits the word evolution, 78% of [American] adults agreed to a description of the evolution of plants and animals (see table S2 in SOM). But, 62% of adults in the same study believed that God created humans as whole persons without any evolutionary development."

Source (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/313/5788/765)

If religion didn't matter Romney would be a shoe-in. He is being rejected by most of the Christian base. Too bad. He would be good.

I didn't say it didn't matter. I said I hoped it didn't matter. I know that's just wishful thinking, that we as Americans look past religious differences, and vote for the person who actually can do some good.

And Barack Hussein Obama has no merit as a candidate. He is an empty suit.

What do you base that on? Can you elaborate?

JDawg, do you believe the American populace is intelligent enough to separate and respect Barak's private life and background?

It depends. We did it for Clinton.

No presidential candidate's private life and background will EVER be free from scrutiny. We want to know everything about who we elect as POTUS. It is our JOB to discover everything.

It is our JOB to discover everything.

And that's fine. The only problem I have with the process is how we let certain things about the candidates' personal lives cloud our judgment. We take little things and blow them out of proportions. Remember the whole thing about Clinton smoking pot as a kid? Or Bush doing coke and drinking? Like...I'm sorry, but the shit you did as a teenager should not be held against you as a middle-aged person, especially if you haven't done those things since you were a teen.

Agreed. That's why no one is saying anything about Barack Hussein Obama's coke use. He's just an empty (muslim) suit and can't win. Neither can Hillary. Edwards is the least offensive candidate but I don't think he can win.

No one comes to the election a perfect little angel. Some of the best candidates never get in because they can't afford to run.

He's just an empty (muslim) suit and can't win.

The only thing you've been clear about in your stance on Barak is that you think he's Muslim--which he isn't. And when I just asked you to elaborate on the empty suit comment, you said "Muslim". So the reason you don't like him is because you think he's Muslim.

Well, he's already raised more money than any other candidate in either party. So I'd say he's got a good shot.

Some of the best candidates never get in because they can't afford to run.

That's the only lucid thought you've ever had in your entire life, I imagine.

Obama is a junior senator with no accomplishments of any kind. Name one thing he's done. You can't because he hasn't done anything. He's trying to convince us he's like Oprah/JFK. I'm not fooled. He should have waited and ran in 12. Maybe he'd have a chance then.

"That's the only lucid thought you've ever had in your entire life, I imagine."
..."Oh, OK, so you are an idiot. Thanks for clearing that up."

That's it. I'm done. You're back on ignore. Too bad you can't discuss things without personal attacking.:(

Waaah! I can't handle the truth! Waaaah!

hahaha

Or Bush doing coke and drinking? Like...I'm sorry, but the shit you did as a teenager should not be held against you as a middle-aged person, W drank and did coke long past his teenage years - into his forties, by most accounts.

The jury's still out on whether he has actually quit drinking yet - few sober people choke on pretzels to the point of passing out and hitting their head on the coffee table.

Agreed. That's why no one is saying anything about Barack Hussein Obama's coke use. He's just an empty (muslim) suit and can't win. Muslim? A Muslim who did coke? You can tell by his name, I supppose. Some guy named Barack Obama is a secret Muslim, the same way a guy named Abe Lincoln is a secret Jew.

Even an empty suit that looks like it isn't a complete fuckup is going to have a good chance in this election.

If religion didn't matter Romney would be a shoe-in. He is being rejected by most of the Christian base. Too bad. He would be good.

And that's their loss. Instead of electing, as you say, a good shoe-in of a candidate, such as Romney, you're going to instead vote for the lesser of two evils, a republican you don't like and a democrat you obviously don't like. As usual, religion hinders this country. You religious whackos are flippin' retarded.

JDawg, do you believe the American populace is intelligent enough to separate and respect Barak's private life and background?

It depends. We did it for Clinton.

And for young Dubya as well, since there's talk about Obama and coke, Georgie boy did tons of coke (as did Clinton [but also smuggled it in to Mena, AR as governor], not just the infamous silly inhaling comment) and was an alcoholic.

Obama is a junior senator with no accomplishments of any kind. Name one thing he's done. You can't because he hasn't done anything.

Hell, Dubya couldn't even make it up to senator, heh. I can't name any accomplishes he made in TX, other than increasing prison executions. After those years as governor and another 8 years as president, I still can't think of anything good he's done, lol, but here he is.

- N

Most American presidents didn't "make it up to senator" because Americans rarely elect senators as presidents....

JDawg, do you believe the American populace is intelligent enough to separate and respect Barak's private life and background?

"For example, only a third of American adults agree that more than half of human genes are identical to those of mice and only 38% of adults recognize that humans have more than half of their genes in common with chimpanzees. In other studies (1, 14, 15), fewer than half of American adults can provide a minimal definition of DNA. Thus, it is not surprising that nearly half of the respondents in 2005 were not sure about the proportion of human genes that overlap with mice or chimpanzees."

"When presented with a description of natural selection that omits the word evolution, 78% of [American] adults agreed to a description of the evolution of plants and animals (see table S2 in SOM). But, 62% of adults in the same study believed that God created humans as whole persons without any evolutionary development."

Source (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/313/5788/765)As I said, when God created americans, He forgot the brain in at least half of them.

After those years as governor and another 8 years as president, I still can't think of anything good he's done, lol, but here he is.

- N

If it was 8 years he'd be out of the white house ;) .

Sandy- if you don't like Obama then DON'T VOTE FOR HIM. Vote for Rudy Guilliani because he is such a more moral person that Barrack Obama (do you know Rudy Guilliani's middle name? How about John McCain's middle name?). But please do not come here, get on a soap box, and spread lies about his religious affiliations. This is just an attempt to bring Obama down to the moral level of some of your candidates- and it doesn't work. One reason it doesn't work is it is an outright lie. Another reason it doesn't work is that Islam does not equate to being immoral.

And why, exactly, do you like John Edwards? Is it because *gasp* he is a white southern male? On certain issues he is the MOST liberal candidate out there.

Gawd.

And for young Dubya as well, since there's talk about Obama and coke, Georgie boy did tons of coke (as did Clinton [but also smuggled it in to Mena, AR as governor], not just the infamous silly inhaling comment) and was an alcoholic.


I don't consider Bush's election a good example of that. Bush was elected because he was the son of a former president, and because of his uber-religious views. Clinton was, I think, the best example of it, because he had been entrenched in scandal through a good portion of his political career, and seemed to just manage, somehow, to keep advancing.

But yeah, to some degree, the American people just ignored Bush's past. The only thing I worry about now is that people will make the connection between his habits beforehand, and his horrible decisions as President. I don't believe that his drinking affected his ability to be a leader...I think his inability to be a leader affected his ability to be a leader... :D

Sandy is a sheep, Explora. She just goes along with whatever her husband tells her, probably. I mean, talk about a self-hating woman. She defends that freakshow Baron, despite the fact that if Baron had his way, Sandy would be chained to the stove.

It's a lost cause, Explora. She's a troll, always has been and always will be. She never ever brings anything worthwhile to the discussion. She drops her little opinions on us as "facts" and then runs away. When she does respond, it either isn't to your question, or it's another one of her broad, sourceless claims.

And don't you love how she writes Obama's middle name every time? The first time, she only wrote "Barrack Hussein", then tried to act like it was a typo. Yeah, right. She hates him because his middle name is Hussein. How shallow, and how ignorant can one person be?

Ignorant enough to call herself a "hottie" when, judging by the picture, she is anything but that.

Anyway, stop wasting your time on her. It's pointless. And honestly, I've already been PMed by three people who are leaving the site because there isn't any real discussion involved whenever her or Baron enter the conversation--it's all them being idiots, and us screaming at them to get their shit straight.

On certain issues he is the MOST liberal candidate out there.


I guarantee that Sandy has no idea what John Edwards thinks about any of the issues. She only cares that he's white, and that he's Christian.

Who's leaving? I don't want to be left alone here with her!!!!!! :eek:

:bawl: