View Poll Results: Do you think Barack got laid last night?

Voters
195. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes - Michelle wanted to enjoy the "Presidential Erection"

    136 69.74%
  • No - Sorry Barry, I've got a headache!

    59 30.26%
Page 70 of 101 FirstFirst ... 2161686970717279 ... LastLast
Results 3,451 to 3,500 of 5011

Thread: President Barack Obama

  1. #3451
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    4,006
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicki View Post
    What do you think....does Ben Quayle have any validity? IS Barack on his way out for his next election? Can he turn things around?
    Clinton's popularity didn't do up until he had a Republican congress.
    That happened 2 years into his first term.
    I guess the answer is 'it depends on how the economy is going".

    Just from looking at past elections, I don't think the voters who went to the polls two years ago will show up.
    They were promised hope and change.

    Just from looking at comments, The Obama Administration always looks for someone to blame, saying how much worst it could be.
    Meanwhile, this genius, isn't doing a lot for important things like Unemployment and Government Spending/
    I shall die, but that is all that I shall do for Death; I am not on his pay-roll.

    Edna St. Vincent Millay

  2. #3452
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Petaluma Ca
    Posts
    4,672
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicki View Post
    What do you think....does Ben Quayle have any validity? IS Barack on his way out for his next election? Can he turn things around?

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot...ent-in-history

    Thu Aug 12, 2:37 pm ET Quayleâ??s son: Obama is the â??worst president in historyâ??


    By Holly Bailey holly Bailey â?? Thu Aug 12, 2:37 pm ET
    Is President Obama the "worst president in history"? That's what the son of former Vice President [COLOR=#366388! important][COLOR=#366388! important]Dan [COLOR=#366388! important]Quayle[/color][/color][/color] claims in a new TV ad aimed at boosting his congressional bid in Arizona.


    Ben Quayle, running for the GOP nomination in the state's 3rd Congressional District, speaks directly to the camera in the spot, which began airing in the Phoenix area Wednesday. "Barack Obama is the worst president in history," [COLOR=#366388! important][COLOR=#366388! important]Quayle[/color][/color] says in the ad's opening seconds. Because of Obama, the 33-year-old says, "my generation will inherit a weakened country."
    Citing "drug cartels in Mexico" and "tax cartels in D.C.," Quayle asks, "What's happened to America?" He goes on to ask voters to send him to Congress. "I love Arizona. I was raised right," he says. "Somebody has to go to [COLOR=#366388! important][COLOR=#366388! important]Washington[/color][/color] and knock the hell out of the place." You can watch the ad after the jump.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4jiqYcUoOk

    Ben Quayle commercial @ Yahoo! Video

    Quayle, an attorney from Scottsdale, has never held public office, and until this week, his congressional bid had gotten little notice. He has cast himself as a family man, no doubt hoping to get a boost from his famous dad.
    [Flashback: Dan Quayle's P-O-T-A-T-O-E incident among top gaffes]
    But not all is as it appears. Quayle was photographed with a pair of kids for a recent campaign mailer, but he later had to clarify that they weren't actually his children.

    And his latest ad dropped the same day Quayle was forced to admit that he used to write for a notoriously raunchy gossip blog, Dirty Scottsdale.
    Quayle faces nearly a dozen other candidates in the state's Aug. 24 GOP primary.

    He's a tool.

    Just getting the publicity

    Dubya was the worst, what an embarrassment that was.

  3. #3453
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    4,027
    Quote Originally Posted by coconn04 View Post
    Clinton's popularity didn't do up until he had a Republican congress.
    This is true, but it is because he course corrected to be a little more moderate.

    Most presidents come into office with a head of steam about what they are going to accomplish until they find out that the people in general lack the appetite for the far left or the far right. The president must come back near the center if he wishes to accomplish anything.

    The politics among the population can be illustrated on a bell curve. The far left and the far right has the thinnest are under the curve. As you move towards the center the population for which your politial views appeal to gets larger with the largest overall area being dead center.

    The democratic candidate or the republican candidate begins their campaign deep into their side of the bell curve in order to secure their party's nomination, but must come back near center to win the election (usually).

    This dynamic changed over the last election because of the rejection of Bush and the charismatic nature of Obama. Obama was able to win without being anywhere near center.

    Obama's popularity is tanking because many of his policies are seen as socialistic in nature and that is just not what most americans percieve as the american way.

  4. #3454
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    18,062
    Clinton lucked out. He rode the crest of the dot com wave.
    I am a sick puppy....woof woof!!!
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    Carping the living shit out of the Diem. - Me!!
    http://www.pinterest.com/neilmpenny

  5. #3455
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Upstate NY
    Posts
    328
    Quote Originally Posted by theotherlondon View Post
    I think President Barack Obama is the
    coolest American since Miles Davis.
    YOU have got to be kidding me! Please tell me you are joking....

    Obama is the farthest thing from cool. He's an empty suit that the biased media "poofed" up which helped him get elected. He's making Jimmy Carter look like another Einstein.

    He's been nothing but an enormous disaster and major disappointment since. He is NOT a leader....he can't even speak to a 6th grade class without the help of his tele-prompters.

    His "leadership" in the Gulf oil disaster was a joke. If it was a Republican President running the show the way he did during the disaster...holy hell would have broken loose.

    Oh...and where are all the anti-war liberals calling to an end of the war in Afghanistan and the 30,000 troop surge??? Hmmm...calling Hollywood and all it's anti-war stars....calling Sean Penn...calling Alec Baldwin...calling Susan Sarandon...gee...it's been awfully quiet....where is everyone???

    Don't they know that 30-50 troops are getting killed every month???

    God, I hate hypocrits!

  6. #3456
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Upstate NY
    Posts
    328
    Oh...one last thing - Obama is a 1 term president....he'll be 4 and done. He's already lost all the swing voters that stupdily voted for him the first time.

    Also forgot to mention the almost 10% unemployment rate that he promised wouldn't go over 8%.......

    G'nite

  7. #3457
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    WI
    Posts
    2,152
    I've been saying for a while that I think the next group of elections are going to be very interesting. People are getting tired of our government not listening to the people and a lot of incumbents have already been voted out. About a year ago, I thought we were stuck with Obama for 8 years, hubby disagreed even then- its looking more and more like he will be a one term pres.
    Performing my signature monkey hump move since 10/16/2007...

    RIP Dad- 11/14/1947 to 12/16/2013

  8. #3458
    Giada Guest
    The numbers show a dissatisfaction of politics in general. Pubs have a 24% approval rating, Dems 47%, (overall).

    Good possibility Obama will be voted in a second term. The Pubs have zero platform and zero candidates.

    (In CA Meg is considered a, "fundraiser," for her party, not a viable candidate. She hasn't voted in 28 years, is against same sex marriage, and Prop 19, our proposed marijuana law).

  9. #3459
    endsleigh03 Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by NYSDeathhag View Post
    YOU have got to be kidding me! Please tell me you are joking....

    Obama is the farthest thing from cool. He's an empty suit that the biased media "poofed" up which helped him get elected. He's making Jimmy Carter look like another Einstein.

    He's been nothing but an enormous disaster and major disappointment since. He is NOT a leader....he can't even speak to a 6th grade class without the help of his tele-prompters.

    His "leadership" in the Gulf oil disaster was a joke. If it was a Republican President running the show the way he did during the disaster...holy hell would have broken loose.

    Oh...and where are all the anti-war liberals calling to an end of the war in Afghanistan and the 30,000 troop surge??? Hmmm...calling Hollywood and all it's anti-war stars....calling Sean Penn...calling Alec Baldwin...calling Susan Sarandon...gee...it's been awfully quiet....where is everyone???

    Don't they know that 30-50 troops are getting killed every month???

    God, I hate hypocrits!
    Are you kidding me?
    How do you think we got INTO the wars in those countries in the first place?

    30-50 troops per month? The dying started way before the current POTUS.

  10. #3460
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    4,027
    Quote Originally Posted by endsleigh03 View Post
    Are you kidding me?
    How do you think we got INTO the wars in those countries in the first place?
    I think 3000 dead on 9/11 by Islamic terrorist got the ball rolling. Hate Bush all you want but to think us not being hit since is a coincidence is just foolish.

  11. #3461
    endsleigh03 Guest
    The same card is always played.

    We weren't attacked again.

    Always the same when defending the wars.
    Maybe we didn't get attacked again because we just didn't.

    We can't win over there. We will never have a handle on it because there are always more up and coming. They hate us, and that will never change. What will change is the death count. Up and up.

  12. #3462
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Upstate NY
    Posts
    328
    Quote Originally Posted by endsleigh03 View Post
    The same card is always played.

    We weren't attacked again.

    Always the same when defending the wars.
    Maybe we didn't get attacked again because we just didn't.

    We can't win over there. We will never have a handle on it because there are always more up and coming. They hate us, and that will never change. What will change is the death count. Up and up.

    Sitting here just waiting to get attacked again isn't an answer either. That's what Clinton did for 8 years and look where it got us. Our Navy was attacked (USS Cole?? Does anyone remember that one??) and Clinton did NOTHING......

    We can't just hope these people will go away....they won't. It's a different world and we need to fight them in a different way.

    Playing nice-nice with the radical muslims and letting them build a fucking mosque right where the twin towers were leveled is NOT the way to do it.

    That's a sign of weakness on Obama's part and it's going to cost him the second term....mark my words.

    He blew it big time here, folks.

  13. #3463
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Upstate NY
    Posts
    328
    Quote Originally Posted by endsleigh03 View Post
    Are you kidding me?
    How do you think we got INTO the wars in those countries in the first place?

    30-50 troops per month? The dying started way before the current POTUS.
    Umm....9/11 ring a bell??? Or did you forget that one.....

  14. #3464
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    San Antonio
    Posts
    30,241
    Quote Originally Posted by NYSDeathhag View Post
    Sitting here just waiting to get attacked again isn't an answer either. That's what Clinton did for 8 years and look where it got us. Our Navy was attacked (USS Cole?? Does anyone remember that one??) and Clinton did NOTHING......

    We can't just hope these people will go away....they won't. It's a different world and we need to fight them in a different way.

    Playing nice-nice with the radical muslims and letting them build a fucking mosque right where the twin towers were leveled is NOT the way to do it.

    That's a sign of weakness on Obama's part and it's going to cost him the second term....mark my words.

    He blew it big time here, folks.
    Iraq hit a US Navy vessel with a missile back when Reagan was pres and nothing happened.
    I doubt Obama has the authority to or the time to interven on a local matter such as the building of a house of worship.
    Only reason we are in Iraq and Afghanistan is for their mineral wealth.
    A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another.

  15. #3465
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Upstate NY
    Posts
    328
    Quote Originally Posted by ichabodius View Post
    Iraq hit a US Navy vessel with a missile back when Reagan was pres and nothing happened.
    I doubt Obama has the authority to or the time to interven on a local matter such as the building of a house of worship.
    Only reason we are in Iraq and Afghanistan is for their mineral wealth.
    Wow....mineral wealth?? Are you still buying that one?? OK..what proof do you have that we took ONE drop of oil (and other "mineral wealth) from Iraq and Afghanistan....

    No..Obama doesn't have the authority to intervene in New York which is why he should have kept his mouth shut....but as I said...he BLEW IT and showed is cards. Now he's trying to back track......too late. We know where he stands now.

    Call the mosque what you will....it shouldn't be going there and it's an insult to all of those that were murdered at the hands of these subhuman radical muslims.

  16. #3466
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Upstate NY
    Posts
    328
    Quote Originally Posted by ichabodius View Post
    Iraq hit a US Navy vessel with a missile back when Reagan was pres and nothing happened.
    I doubt Obama has the authority to or the time to interven on a local matter such as the building of a house of worship.
    Only reason we are in Iraq and Afghanistan is for their mineral wealth.

    Crude Oil and Total Petroleum Imports Top 15 Countries
    May 2010 Import Highlights: July 29, 2010
    Monthly data on the origins of crude oil imports in May 2010 has been released and it shows that five countries exported more than 1.00 million barrels per day to the United States (see table below). The top five exporting countries accounted for 66 percent of United States crude oil imports in May while the top ten sources accounted for approximately 86 percent of all U.S. crude oil imports. The top five sources of US crude oil imports for May were Canada (1.997 million barrels per day), Mexico (1.290 million barrels per day), Saudi Arabia (1.093 million barrels per day), Venezuela (1.011 million barrels per day), and Nigeria (1.004 million barrels per day). The rest of the top ten sources, in order, were Angola (0.423 million barrels per day), Iraq (0.394 million barrels per day), Russia (0.358 million barrels per day), Algeria (0.352 million barrels per day), and Brazil (0.312 million barrels per day). Total crude oil imports averaged 9.622 million barrels per day in May, which is a decrease of 0.119 million barrels per day from April 2010.

    Canada remained the largest exporter of total petroleum in May, exporting 2.527 million barrels per day to the United States, which is an increase from last month (2.486 thousand barrels per day). The second largest exporter of total petroleum was Mexico with 1.428 million barrels per day.
    Crude Oil Imports (Top 15 Countries)

  17. #3467
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    San Antonio
    Posts
    30,241
    The mosque is close to but not on the site of the WTC towers.
    There is a large muslim populaton in the proximity.
    They want a place to worship and have the same rights as any christian, hindu, jewish or whatever other congregation you can think of to build a place of worship.
    I dont believe muslim terrorists attacked us that day but regardless of whether they did or not the people that want to build a mosque were not involved in the event.
    Personally, I'd love to see the whole country free of all religious establishments but that aint gonna happen and Im cool with it.
    A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another.

  18. #3468
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    San Antonio
    Posts
    30,241
    Oil reserves by country:
    Rank Countries Amount # 1 Saudi Arabia:262,700,000,000 barrels
    # 2 Canada:178,900,000,000 barrels
    # 3 Iran:133,300,000,000 barrels
    # 4 Iraq:112,500,000,000 barrels
    # 5 United Arab Emirates:97,800,000,000 barrels
    # 6 Kuwait:96,500,000,000 barrels
    # 7 Venezuela:75,590,000,000 barrels
    # 8 Russia:69,000,000,000 barrels
    # 9 Libya:40,000,000,000 barrels
    # 10 Nigeria:36,000,000,000 barrels
    # 11 Mexico:33,310,000,000 barrels
    # 12 Kazakhstan:26,000,000,000 barrels
    # 13 Angola:25,000,000,000 barrels
    # 14 United States:22,450,000,000 barrels
    # 15 China:18,260,000,000 barrels

    I doubt that the U.S. is not appropriating Iraqi oil.
    I doubt it would be reported if so.
    What other reason do we have for still being there?
    Last edited by ichabodius; 08-15-2010 at 08:04 PM.
    A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another.

  19. #3469
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    18,062
    It has been recently discovered that Afghanistan has one of the largest deposits of lithium. Potentiall worth at least a trillion dollars. Bet the US corporations are lining up to get their mitts on it.

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...istan-lithium/
    I am a sick puppy....woof woof!!!
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    Carping the living shit out of the Diem. - Me!!
    http://www.pinterest.com/neilmpenny

  20. #3470
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Upstate NY
    Posts
    328
    Quote Originally Posted by ichabodius View Post
    Oil reserves by country:
    Rank Countries Amount # 1 Saudi Arabia:262,700,000,000 barrels
    # 2 Canada:178,900,000,000 barrels
    # 3 Iran:133,300,000,000 barrels
    # 4 Iraq:112,500,000,000 barrels
    # 5 United Arab Emirates:97,800,000,000 barrels
    # 6 Kuwait:96,500,000,000 barrels
    # 7 Venezuela:75,590,000,000 barrels
    # 8 Russia:69,000,000,000 barrels
    # 9 Libya:40,000,000,000 barrels
    # 10 Nigeria:36,000,000,000 barrels
    # 11 Mexico:33,310,000,000 barrels
    # 12 Kazakhstan:26,000,000,000 barrels
    # 13 Angola:25,000,000,000 barrels
    # 14 United States:22,450,000,000 barrels
    # 15 China:18,260,000,000 barrels
    OK....so this says what? Because Iraq is number 4 on the list, we are going there ...or went there....for the oil?? C'mon, dude.....if that's your argument, then we blew it and should have attacked Saudi Arabia.....

  21. #3471
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Upstate NY
    Posts
    328
    Quote Originally Posted by neilmpenny View Post
    It has been recently discovered that Afghanistan has one of the largest deposits of lithium. Potentiall worth at least a trillion dollars. Bet the US corporations are lining up to get their mitts on it.

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...istan-lithium/

    Well...it's Obama's war now....let's see what he does with all these newly found resources.

    Wow.....

  22. #3472
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    San Antonio
    Posts
    30,241
    Quote Originally Posted by NYSDeathhag View Post
    OK....so this says what? Because Iraq is number 4 on the list, we are going there ...or went there....for the oil?? C'mon, dude.....if that's your argument, then we blew it and should have attacked Saudi Arabia.....
    Because Saudi Arabia has Mecca, Iraq had an evil dictator (put in place by the cia), Iran has too large a population and Canada is Americas 51st state basically. Iraq was the best scenario.
    A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another.

  23. #3473
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    San Antonio
    Posts
    30,241
    Quote Originally Posted by NYSDeathhag View Post
    Well...it's Obama's war now....let's see what he does with all these newly found resources.

    Wow.....
    Yeah its Obamas war and he has stated he will maintain our presence indefinitely like any stooge or tool would. I posted that a few months ago.
    A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another.

  24. #3474
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Upstate NY
    Posts
    328
    Quote Originally Posted by ichabodius View Post
    Yeah its Obamas war and he has stated he will maintain our presence indefinitely like any stooge or tool would. I posted that a few months ago.

    Dude...I gotcha....your posts clearly define your stance and ideas about our country. You might as well suit up with the enemy.

    I am proud to be an infidel....

  25. #3475
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    San Antonio
    Posts
    30,241
    Quote Originally Posted by NYSDeathhag View Post
    Dude...I gotcha....your posts clearly define your stance and ideas about our country. You might as well suit up with the enemy.

    I am proud to be an infidel....
    Really?
    Could you be more specific as to how my posts infer that I am treasonous?
    I love my country but it is not beyond criticism.
    A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another.

  26. #3476
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Upstate NY
    Posts
    328
    Quote Originally Posted by ichabodius View Post
    Really?
    Could you be more specific as to how my posts infer that I am treasonous?
    I love my country but it is not beyond criticism.
    You are not criticizing my country....you are shitting on it...making unfounded accusations.....that's not criticizing. You are believing these stupid theories that the left came up with since 9/11 happened.

    So, if you don't believe we are in a Jihad....or that jihad was started on 9/11.....what do you think we are in?? I know...it was ALL our fault, wasn't it. We brought it upon ourselves and alll we want is the oil.

    That was a political argument to get democrats elected and it worked.

  27. #3477
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    San Antonio
    Posts
    30,241
    Many people of all politcal spectrums dont buy into versions of reality as dictated by governments or mass media outlets.
    Could you please explain how my posts infer that I am a traitor as I asked?
    Im not angry just curious as to why you would make the accusation.
    A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another.

  28. #3478
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    4,027
    As far as the Iraq war is concerned, there are two liberal theories as to why we invaded:

    1) Bush finishing the job his father didn't as vindication.
    2) The blood for oil argument.

    Neither one has been even close to substantiated. What has been substantiated is the Bush AND congress was given faulty information by the CIA. Congress believed it, the president did as well. Hell, I'm not even sure of how faulty it was. In the ever looming certainty of an invasion by the US, Sadaam Husein remained defiant in his resolve not allow the UN or the US to thoroughly investigate the presence of MWD's. He is as much at fault for this war as anyone.

    The biggest tell tale sign that neither one of these scenarios is true is Oliver Stones portrayal of the events in "W". OS would have liked nothing more than to prove, or at least suggest based on the loosest analysis nefarious intentions by the administration but at the end of the day, he settled for what it was; an overzealous CIA trying to provided what it thought the president wanted.

    BTW, as for blood for oil, has anyone seen any oil? Any US oil tankers docked outside of Iraq lately? Paying less at the tank?

  29. #3479
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    San Antonio
    Posts
    30,241
    A year and a half ago I was paying 4 bucks a gallon its hovered around $2.50 for over a year.
    A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another.

  30. #3480
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Wolfsschanze
    Posts
    7,554




    January 26, 1998
    The Honorable William J. Clinton
    President of the United States
    Washington, DC

    Dear Mr. President
    We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.
    The policy of “containment” of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.
    Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.
    Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
    We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.
    We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.
    Sincerely
    Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett
    Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
    Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad
    William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman
    Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber
    Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick
    Last edited by JefeStone; 08-15-2010 at 09:00 PM.

  31. #3481
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Wolfsschanze
    Posts
    7,554
    Section V of Rebuilding America's Defenses, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", includes the sentence: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor"
    Though not arguing that Bush administration PNAC members were complicit in those attacks, other social critics such as commentator Manuel Valenzuela and journalist Mark Danner,[37][38][39] investigative journalist John Pilger, in New Statesman,[40] and former editor of The San Francisco Chronicle Bernard Weiner, in CounterPunch,[41] all argue that PNAC members used the events of 9/11 as the "Pearl Harbor" that they needed––that is, as an "opportunity" to "capitalize on" (in Pilger's words), in order to enact long-desired plans.


    http://www.newamericancentury.org/Re...asDefenses.pdf

  32. #3482
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Wolfsschanze
    Posts
    7,554
    In short most of the men who sent that letter to Clinton in 98 all had a place in George Bush's White house. They wanted to invade even before 9/11.

  33. #3483
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    4,027
    Quote Originally Posted by ichabodius View Post
    A year and a half ago I was paying 4 bucks a gallon its hovered around $2.50 for over a year.

    The Iraq war started in 2003. There is no correlation between the war and the swelling of prices a year and a half ago or the prices now. The chaotic swells and decline was due to the speculation market and the scrutiny that followed after over it's practices.

  34. #3484
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    4,027
    Quote Originally Posted by JefeStone View Post
    In short most of the men who sent that letter to Clinton in 98 all had a place in George Bush's White house. They wanted to invade even before 9/11.
    Look, there is no doubt in my mind that the Bush administration saw 9/11 as an opportunity to exact policy that it felt was overdue in the region. The difference between pre 911 and post 911 was that the american people were willing to follow the Bush administration where it intended to go. I just don't think that policy was inherently flawed.

  35. #3485
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Nunya Bidness
    Posts
    10,179
    9/11 doesn't really have anything to do with it anymore, does it? This war has lasted longer than WW1, WW2, and Korea. It's not about 9/11 any longer, it's about the fact that we became involved a situation that our leaders at the time knew we couldn't get out of. I'm tired of throwing money at it while people here go hungry.
    The most dangerous woman of all is the one who refuses to rely on your sword to save her because she carries her own.

    - R.H. Sin

  36. #3486
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    San Antonio
    Posts
    30,241
    Quote Originally Posted by Paulination View Post
    The Iraq war started in 2003. There is no correlation between the war and the swelling of prices a year and a half ago or the prices now. The chaotic swells and decline was due to the speculation market and the scrutiny that followed after over it's practices.
    I think you mean the reducing of prices a year and a half ago.
    I would suspect that the U.S. would not wait until market supplies were critical before appropriation of a major source. I may very well be wrong. I doubt it though. We got Saddam out why are we still there? I couldnt imagine it would be counter-terrorism or to set up a new democracy. Our very presence in the country would be a foil to the purpose.
    A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another.

  37. #3487
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Wolfsschanze
    Posts
    7,554
    Quote Originally Posted by Paulination View Post
    Look, there is no doubt in my mind that the Bush administration saw 9/11 as an opportunity to exact policy that it felt was overdue in the region. The difference between pre 911 and post 911 was that the american people were willing to follow the Bush administration where it intended to go. I just don't think that policy was inherently flawed.
    The American people were willing to follow because they were being deceived. He can't blame faulty intelligence. A lot of the intelligence the Bush white house used to sell the war to the public was sketchy and some proven wrong even before we invaded.
    Last edited by JefeStone; 08-16-2010 at 01:39 AM.

  38. #3488
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    4,006
    Quote Originally Posted by Nessa View Post
    9/11 doesn't really have anything to do with it anymore, does it? This war has lasted longer than WW1, WW2, and Korea. It's not about 9/11 any longer, it's about the fact that we became involved a situation that our leaders at the time knew we couldn't get out of. I'm tired of throwing money at it while people here go hungry.
    Talk about people going hungry. I thought this was an interesting article.

    Dems may use food stamp money to pay for Michelle Obama's nutrition initiative


    By Russell Berman - 08/14/10 06:00 AM ET

    Democrats who reluctantly slashed a food stamp program to fund a state aid bill may have to do so again to pay for a top priority of first lady Michelle Obama.

    The House will soon consider an $8 billion child nutrition bill that’s at the center of the first lady’s “Let’s Move” initiative. Before leaving for the summer recess, the Senate passed a smaller version of the legislation that is paid for by trimming the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, commonly known as food stamps.




    The proposed cuts would come on top of a 13.6 percent food stamp reduction in the $26 billion Medicaid and education state funding bill that President Obama signed this week.


    Food stamps have made multiple appearances on the fiscal chopping block because Democrats have few other places to turn to offset the cost of legislation.

    Party leaders raided the budget to find off-setting tax increases and spending cuts to pay for their top legislative priorities, including the roughly $900 billion healthcare law. Congressional pay-as-you-go rules require lawmakers to offset all non-emergency spending.

    Democrats have turned to the food stamp program because funding increases enacted in the stimulus package last year were already scheduled to phase out over time. The changes proposed in the state aid and nutrition bills would simply cut off that increase early, in March 2014. Because the cuts would not take effect for more than three years, Democratic leaders have voiced the hope that they will be able to stop them in future legislation.
    B
    ut House liberals are balking now, saying that while they swallowed the food stamp cuts to pay for urgent funding for Medicaid and teachers, they will not vote for more cuts in the child nutrition bill. In a letter sent this week to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), 106 House Democrats urged the speaker to take the House version of the child nutrition bill, which does not slash food stamps, rather than the Senate version.

    “This is one of the more egregious cases of robbing Peter to pay Paul, and is a vote we do not take lightly,” the lawmakers, led by Reps. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) and Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) said of their vote on the state aid bill.

    The House version of the child nutrition bill, authored by Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), passed the Education and Labor Committee earlier this year, but lawmakers must find a way to pay for it before it comes to the floor for a vote. “Chairman Miller is working to find other ways to pay for this bill,” a spokeswoman said when asked if cuts to the food stamp program would be used.

    A House leadership aide noted that the food stamp decrease approved in the state aid bill will not take effect right away and will leave the program at the same funding level it was at before the stimulus law was signed. “That doesn’t mean many Democrats are not concerned about the issue, but this is a process which gives us time to deal with immediate issues (like jobs) and helping the economy grow, while giving you time to deal with the food stamp issue,” the aide said.

    The nutrition bill is clearly a priority for Michelle Obama, who has made a push for healthy eating one of her signature policy issues at White House. When the House version of the nutrition bill won committee approval in July, it marked the first time she weighed in publicly on pending legislation.
    The Obama administration has not directly addressed the debate over the food stamp cuts, but it is backing the Senate bill. “We strongly supported the Senate action and look forward to working with the House to get a final bill onto the president’s desk,” an administration official told The Hill.
    The $4.5 billion Senate bill would expand eligibility for school meal programs, establish nutrition standards for all food sold in schools and provide a 6-cent increase for each school lunch to help cafeterias serve healthier meals. The $8 billion House version includes more money for expanding access to school lunches for children in low-income households.

    The deeper food stamp reductions in the Senate version would set an earlier date — in November 2013 — for eliminating the increased benefits passed last year. A family of four would see their benefit reduced by $59 a month, or about 9 percent. The bill would also cut funding for nutrition education programs aimed at low-income neighborhoods and households.
    “It’s very sad. I think it’s just illustrating what dire straits our federal government budget is in,” said Sheila Zedlewski, director of the Urban Institute’s Income and Benefits Center. “It’s unprecedented to raid one safety net program to feed another.”
    http://thehill.com/homenews/house/11...nutrition-bill
    I shall die, but that is all that I shall do for Death; I am not on his pay-roll.

    Edna St. Vincent Millay

  39. #3489
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    On this forum, obviously!
    Posts
    4,221
    If they would take a closer look at the Food Stamps and Welfare systems and stop all funds going to people who are so blatently working the system, I would bet they would find whatever monies they needed - and then some.
    For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 8:38-39

  40. #3490
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    4,006
    Quote Originally Posted by SheBoss View Post
    If they would take a closer look at the Food Stamps and Welfare systems and stop all funds going to people who are so blatently working the system, I would bet they would find whatever monies they needed - and then some.
    If this were under a different adminstation and you said you were going to cut the budget on food stamps, all you would hear about was starving children and the elderly ...ETC.

    By the way, this is robbing Peter to Pay Paul.
    This is using one entitlement to fund another.
    The argument I have always heard was to fund more entitlements, by taking out on the military.
    WE are United States for more than one reason, The major one is so we could have a national defense.
    I shall die, but that is all that I shall do for Death; I am not on his pay-roll.

    Edna St. Vincent Millay

  41. #3491
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    4,027
    Quote Originally Posted by endsleigh03 View Post
    We can't win over there. We will never have a handle on it because there are always more up and coming. They hate us, and that will never change. What will change is the death count. Up and up.
    When Bush went to war with Iraq the underlying strategy was to create a pro-America democracy that would allow us to maintain a presense in an Arab nation on the border of Iran. This would have created the most ideal circumstance to combat terrorism in the region. It also would help in the Afghanistan effort. Whether there was an oil agenda, or revenge agenda, who knows.

    I believed it was right at the time but I now concur with you endsleigh. We can't win it. We can't even define what win is. Eradicate a whole religion? Impossible (nor should we want to). We can't change these people any more than they would be able to change us.

    So what to do? We can't just leave both country's and come home without significant changes here. We would have to lock down the borders, change our visa screenings and policies, a bunch of things I can't even fathom. Or, we just let them hit us every couple of years and call it collateral damage. I am not being sarcastic, I truly don't know what to do. I surely think our Iraq troops should come home but I am still on the fence about Afghanistan. Seems that we are at least hurting AlQaidas ability to train recruits.

  42. #3492
    Giada Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Nessa View Post
    9/11 doesn't really have anything to do with it anymore, does it? This war has lasted longer than WW1, WW2, and Korea. It's not about 9/11 any longer, it's about the fact that we became involved a situation that our leaders at the time knew we couldn't get out of. I'm tired of throwing money at it while people here go hungry.
    I'm in complete agreement with you. No surprise when Bush left office he had the lowest rating of any US president, 16%.

    There is an overall dissatisfaction with politicians, and I think Obama will have more power in his second term.

  43. #3493
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    4,027
    Quote Originally Posted by Giada View Post
    I'm in complete agreement with you. No surprise when Bush left office he had the lowest rating of any US president, 16%.
    .
    I'm not trying to nitpick but his final rating from gallop was 34%. Nothing to raise your glass over, just trying to keep things accurate.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/113770/bu...sapproval.aspx

  44. #3494
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    The Sticks
    Posts
    37,601
    Quote Originally Posted by Paulination View Post
    I think 3000 dead on 9/11 by Islamic terrorist got the ball rolling. Hate Bush all you want but to think us not being hit since is a coincidence is just foolish.
    I agree, Pauli. Bush had to do something. Had he not, he would have been damned, just as he is being damned for doing something. And, no, it's not a coincidence that we have not been hit since then.
    GOD IS NOT DEAD





  45. #3495
    sablegsd Guest
    But we have. That hassan mofo. Like I say they are muslim first. If I had my way they could be kicked out if not a citizen. And the citizens watched closely.

    It's a victory mosque plain and simple. I think islam is a stone age form of government, not a religion.
    They are brainwashed, braindead barbarians. Stoning, beheading, bombing, what the hell is there to like? They sure are thin skinned about being, "offended" over a cartoon, where the hell is that thin skin when they are torturing and killing women for their nonexisent "honor?" I hate them. Plain and simple. And for the moment, that's allowed. Keep placating them like the UK has and we will have sharia too. I would die before I accept their crap. And damn sure I would take a few out with me.

  46. #3496
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Wolfsschanze
    Posts
    7,554
    Quote Originally Posted by sablegsd View Post
    But we have. That hassan mofo. Like I say they are muslim first. If I had my way they could be kicked out if not a citizen. And the citizens watched closely.

    It's a victory mosque plain and simple. I think islam is a stone age form of government, not a religion.
    They are brainwashed, braindead barbarians. Stoning, beheading, bombing, what the hell is there to like? They sure are thin skinned about being, "offended" over a cartoon, where the hell is that thin skin when they are torturing and killing women for their nonexisent "honor?" I hate them. Plain and simple. And for the moment, that's allowed. Keep placating them like the UK has and we will have sharia too. I would die before I accept their crap. And damn sure I would take a few out with me.
    SO you hate a whole people because of their religion? Isn't that what the Nazi's and Al-Qaeda and Fred Phelps are all about?

  47. #3497
    smooches27 Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by JefeStone View Post
    SO you hate a whole people because of their religion? Isn't that what the Nazi's and Al-Qaeda and Fred Phelps are all about?
    I agree with your point Jefe. You can't judge/condemn a whole group of people because there are radicals within that group. Every religion, race, group, ethnicity and so on, have radicals.

  48. #3498
    Giada Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Paulination View Post
    I'm not trying to nitpick but his final rating from gallop was 34%. Nothing to raise your glass over, just trying to keep things accurate.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/113770/bu...sapproval.aspx
    It's ok Paul ... I know I read it somewhere out there. If I find it I'll post it.

    As I say ... NBD

    I understand the overall frustration Americans feel.

    (When I jump on tables and scratch under my arms it's for gay rights ... no one touches momma monkeys chimps)

    22% lowest rating of any president

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/...n4728399.shtml
    Last edited by Giada; 08-19-2010 at 08:49 AM. Reason: added link

  49. #3499
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    On this forum, obviously!
    Posts
    4,221
    Quote Originally Posted by Giada View Post
    It's ok Paul ... I know I read it somewhere out there. If I find it I'll post it.

    As I say ... NBD

    I understand the overall frustration Americans feel.

    (When I jump on tables and scratch under my arms it's for gay rights ... no one touches momma monkeys chimps)

    22% lowest rating of any president

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/...n4728399.shtml

    I was just about to post that ironically, he is the President with the highest approval rating as well, but your article beat me to it. Kinda underlines what I've been saying about a fickle society that we live in today.
    For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 8:38-39

  50. #3500
    Giada Guest
    She Boss ...

    I know, super charged issues, especially war and economic downturn affect approval ratings.

    And there are the human characteristics, bias, belief systems, religious affiliations, all affect outcome in elections/approval ratings.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •