PDA

View Full Version : Serious Questions for the Guys on the left...


revefsreleets
10-09-2008, 10:30 AM
OK, I’m taking a different approach here…I have some serious reservations about Obama as President, and I’m hoping for some honest, well thought out, and intelligent responses to assuage some of my fears. PLEASE don’t send this spiralling into yet another partisan debate thread or just spout off speculative nonsense, as I’m seeking true insight into these problems I have with him as President. Make me understand where and why I'm wrong. And I'm equally not looking for crap from the right like "He's a muslim sleeper" or any of that ridiculous "bigfoot stole my baby" type garbage either. No conspiracy theories, nobody extrapolating or taking wild guesses, just the facts, ma'am!

I promise to keep this civil and above-board. I’m ignoring anything reactionary or clearly flame baiting.

These are serious issues I’d like addressed as a moderate centrist Republican. If you don’t like the way I ask the question, or think I’m being biased, that’s fine, just try and answer the questions anyway in a civil manner.

A) Military- It’s no secret that the military will be cut under Obama. He may withdrawal from Iraq. Tell me why this is a good thing in such a turbulent time in our country?


B) Taxes. By rolling back Bush’s tax cuts (which DOES equate to a tax increase) which will affect small business and big business, explain to me how this will HELP keep corporations from increased outsourcing and simply moving to countries where labor and taxes are cheaper, most countries ahveing SUBSTANTIALLY lower corporate tax rates? Why would I stay in a country that has 40% higher labor costs and 20% higher tax rates? Why would Obama think that raisuing my taxes even HIGHER if I outsource to offset his already increased taxes would keep me from moving to another country altogether?

C) Green Mandates? How are we going to pay for all these new environmental mandates that will inevitably be brought to the fore?


D) How will we pay for the new (Let’s face it, it’ll be much close to) socialized medical system?

E) With a Democratic House, Senate and White House, how will we keep social program spending in check? How will we stave off further deficits? Everything I’ve seen has Obama creating between 281 billion and 500 billion in NEW deficit even with his tax increases.

Atlanta Dan
10-09-2008, 10:52 AM
Rev - I will get back to you in detail, although for the record IMO I am not on "the left" anymore than I pigeonhole you into being on "the right"

Serious questions merit a serious response and I do have a day job to take care of in addition to posting here:chuckle:

:drink:

MACH1
10-09-2008, 11:02 AM
A) All I know is his plan is not good. Tuck and run plan. With the times were in it's not the right time to neuter the defense of this country.

B) Its going to make Carter look good. The tax increases he plans on small business's will put a great deal of them out of business. (Small business's are any place that employs 500 or less) Not only is he going to let the Bush cuts expire he going to raise the business tax to something like 40%. So basically small business owners take it in rear three times by Uncle Sam. You say why three, see D.
If you all think the economy's bad now, just wait and see what happens if Obama is elected.

C) See A & B.

D) This is where small business's get smacked again. They will be required to pay to the government a certain percentage per employee to go into some super fund for health care.

E) Not gonna happen. With Obama's plan he say's he's cutting tax's for 95% of the people? Yet he wants to expand government and pay for all these nifty little plans of his. Its kinda like an oxymoron, cut tax's and increase spending. :doh: He's got a lot of people fooled into believing it too.

Although I don't think either party would be able to keep spending in check.

revefsreleets
10-09-2008, 11:11 AM
Edit: For you guys further left than me...because Obama is significantly more liberal than me on almost every fiscal plank of his platform.

Mosca
10-09-2008, 11:33 AM
A) All I know is his plan is not good. Tuck and run plan. With the times were in it's not the right time to neuter the defense of this country.

B) Its going to make Carter look good. The tax increases he plans on small business's will put a great deal of them out of business. (Small business's are any place that employs 500 or less) Not only is he going to let the Bush cuts expire he going to raise the business tax to something like 40%. So basically small business owners take it in rear three times by Uncle Sam. You say why three, see D.
If you all think the economy's bad now, just wait and see what happens if Obama is elected.

C) See A & B.

D) This is where small business's get smacked again. They will be required to pay to the government a certain percentage per employee to go into some super fund for health care.

E) Not gonna happen. With Obama's plan he say's he's cutting tax's for 95% of the people? Yet he wants to expand government and pay for all these nifty little plans of his. Its kinda like an oxymoron, cut tax's and increase spending. :doh: He's got a lot of people fooled into believing it too.

Although I don't think either party would be able to keep spending in check.


But you aren't on the "left". I think he asked for reasons WHY, not reasons WHY NOT.

Rev, it's a beautiful day, and I'm off, and I'm going to drive around and take pictures. But I will take some time later and answer your questions as best I can. Realize that the Dem candidate doesn't have a crystal ball either. Are his guesses going to be better than McCain's?

revefsreleets
10-09-2008, 11:40 AM
But you aren't on the "left". I think he asked for reasons WHY, not reasons WHY NOT.

Rev, it's a beautiful day, and I'm off, and I'm going to drive around and take pictures. But I will take some time later and answer your questions as best I can. Realize that the Dem candidate doesn't have a crystal ball either. Are his guesses going to be better than McCain's?

Guesses? These are planks in the platform, fundamental philosophical differnces in policy from Republican to Democrat. I specifically ignored the usual hotbed isues like abortion and things of that vein to concentrate on these few issues where the differences are clear cut.

The fact that Obama is "guessing" scares me...and they are guesses, because he simply lacks any record to fall back on.

I'm not voting for him. Period. But I'm afraid he might win and I want someone to set my mind at ease about that.

Vis
10-09-2008, 11:46 AM
Back up your questions. Tell me your exact understanding of military cuts under Obama. Then we can discuss it. But you seem to be just repeating the rightwing meme

Vis
10-09-2008, 11:50 AM
Defense platform:

Barack Obama and Joe Biden's Plan. Tell me where you have a problem

Invest in a 21st Century Military

Rebuild the Military for 21st Century Tasks:

As we rebuild our armed forces, we must not simply recreate the military of the Cold War era. Obama and Biden believe that we must build up our special operations forces, civil affairs, information operations, and other units and capabilities that remain in chronic short supply; invest in foreign language training, cultural awareness, and human intelligence and other needed counterinsurgency and stabilization skill sets; and create a more robust capacity to train, equip, and advise foreign security forces, so that local allies are better prepared to confront mutual threats.

Expand to Meet Military Needs on the Ground:

Barack Obama and Joe Biden support plans to increase the size of the Army by 65,000 soldiers and the Marines by 27,000 troops. Increasing our end strength will help units retrain and re-equip properly between deployments and decrease the strain on military families.

Leadership from the Top:

Barack Obama and Joe Biden will restore the ethic of public service to the agenda of today's youth, whether it be serving their local communities in such roles as teachers or first responders, or serving in the military to keep our nation free and safe.

Lighten the Burdens on Our Brave Troops and Their Families:

An Obama-Biden administration will create a Military Families Advisory Board to provide a conduit for military families' concerns to be brought to the attention of senior policymakers and the public. Obama and Biden will end the Bush administration's stop-loss policy and establish predictability in deployments so that active duty and reserves know what they can and must expect.

Build Defense Capabilities for the 21st Century

Fully Equip Our Troops for the Missions They Face:

Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe we must get vitally needed equipment to our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines before lives are lost. We cannot repeat such failures as the delays in deployment of armored vehicles, body armor and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles that save lives on the frontlines.

Review Weapons Programs:

We must rebalance our capabilities to ensure that our forces have the agility and lethality to succeed in both conventional wars and in stabilization and counter-insurgency operations. Obama and Biden have committed to a review of each major defense program in light of current needs, gaps in the field, and likely future threat scenarios in the post-9/11 world.

Preserve Global Reach in the Air:

We must preserve our unparalleled airpower capabilities to deter and defeat any conventional competitors, swiftly respond to crises across the globe, and support our ground forces. We need greater investment in advanced technology ranging from the revolutionary, like Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and electronic warfare capabilities, to essential systems like the C-17 cargo and KC-X air refueling aircraft, which provide the backbone of our ability to extend global power.

Maintain Power Projection at Sea:

We must recapitalize our naval forces, replacing aging ships and modernizing existing platforms, while adapting them to the 21st century. Obama and Biden will add to the Maritime Pre-Positioning Force Squadrons to support operations ashore and invest in smaller, more capable ships, providing the agility to operate close to shore and the reach to rapidly deploy Marines to global crises.

National Missile Defense:

An Obama-Biden administration will support missile defense, but ensure that it is developed in a way that is pragmatic and cost-effective; and, most importantly, does not divert resources from other national security priorities until we are positive the technology will protect the American public.

Ensure Freedom of Space:

An Obama-Biden administration will restore American leadership on space issues, seeking a worldwide ban on weapons that interfere with military and commercial satellites. He will thoroughly assess possible threats to U.S. space assets and the best options, military and diplomatic, for countering them, establishing contingency plans to ensure that U.S. forces can maintain or duplicate access to information from space assets and accelerating programs to harden U.S. satellites against attack.

Protect the U.S in Cyberspace:

An Obama-Biden administration will work in cooperation with our allies and the private sector to identify and protect against emerging cyber-threats.

Restore the Readiness of the National Guard and Reserves

Barack Obama and Joe Biden will provide the National Guard with the equipment it needs for foreign and domestic emergencies and time to restore and refit before deploying. They will make the head of the National Guard a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to ensure concerns of our citizen soldiers reach the level they mandate. They will ensure that reservists and Guard members are treated fairly when it comes to employment, health, and education benefits.

Develop Whole of Government Initiatives to Promote Global Stability
Integrate Military and Civilian Efforts:

An Obama-Biden administration will build up the capacity of each non-Pentagon agency to deploy personnel and area experts where they are needed, to help move soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines out of civilian roles.

Create a Civilian Assistance Corps (CAC):

An Obama-Biden administration will set a goal of creating a national CAC of 25,000 personnel. This corps of civilian volunteers with special skill, sets (doctors, lawyers, engineers, city planners, agriculture specialists, police, etc.) would be organized to provide each federal agency with a pool of volunteer experts willing to deploy in times of need at home and abroad.


Restore Our Alliances

Engage Our Allies in Meeting Our Common Security Challenges:

America's traditional alliances, such as NATO, must be transformed and strengthened, including on common security concerns like Afghanistan, homeland security, and counterterrorism. Obama and Biden will renew alliances and ensure our allies contribute their fair share to our mutual security.

Organize to Help Our Partners and Allies in Need:

An Obama-Biden administration will expand humanitarian activities that build friends and allies at the regional and local level (such as during the response to the tsunami in South and Southeast Asia), and win hearts and minds in the process.


Reform Contracting


Create Transparency for Military Contractors:

Barack Obama and Joe Biden will require the Pentagon and State Department to develop a strategy for determining when contracting makes sense, rather than continually handing off governmental jobs to well-connected companies. An Obama-Biden administration will create the transparency and accountability needed for good governance. Finally, it will establish the legal status of contractor personnel, making possible prosecution of any abuses committed by private military contractors.


Restore Honesty, Openness, and Commonsense to Contracting and Procurement:

An Obama-Biden administration will realize savings by reducing the corruption and cost overruns that have become all too routine in defense contracting. This includes launching a program of acquisition reform and management, which would end the common practice of no-bid contracting.Obama and Biden will end the abuse of supplemental budgets by creating a system of oversight for war funds as stringent as in the regular budget. Obama and Biden will restore the government's ability to manage contracts by rebuilding our contract officer corps. They will order the Justice Department to prioritize prosecutions that will punish and deter fraud, waste and abuse.

revefsreleets
10-09-2008, 11:51 AM
Back up your questions. Tell me your exact understanding of military cuts under Obama. Then we can discuss it. But you seem to be just repeating the rightwing meme

This is the first post I'm ignoring. Again, I'm looking for answers to my questions.

Wait, wait...I see you DID post something of worth. So Obama is EXPANDING our military? How then, will he pay for this?

This:
An Obama-Biden administration will realize savings by reducing the corruption and cost overruns that have become all too routine in defense contracting. This includes launching a program of acquisition reform and management, which would end the common practice of no-bid contracting.Obama and Biden will end the abuse of supplemental budgets by creating a system of oversight for war funds as stringent as in the regular budget. Obama and Biden will restore the government's ability to manage contracts by rebuilding our contract officer corps. They will order the Justice Department to prioritize prosecutions that will punish and deter fraud, waste and abuse.
Alone won't do it. You can't add a bunch of government programs, increase the size of the military, and expect to pay for it JUST by changing the way we buy things.

Vis
10-09-2008, 11:53 AM
This is the first post I'm ignoring. Again, I'm looking for answers to my questions.

Your questions are loaded. Why does McCain hate Jews? I'm looking for the reason he does and will ignore all posts not giving a reason.

That's what you are doing. You don't want honest debate if you aren't honest in what you ask.

But ignore this too - It's telling.

revefsreleets
10-09-2008, 11:59 AM
Your questions are loaded. Why does McCain hate Jews? I'm looking for the reason he does and will ignore all posts not giving a reason.

That's what you are doing. You don't want honest debate if you aren't honest in what you ask.

But ignore this too - It's telling.

You are posting stuff right from their website, which is a bunch of campaign BS, and NOT what I want. But it's better than nothing. And, no, my questions are not loaded: They are serious questions that many people in the GOP would like to have answered, and, believe me, many would not be so civil.

Your completely biased and blinded approach is SO vastly different from mine it's hard for me to remain civil. I don't want regurgitation. I don't want party line-toeing. I don't want somebody who buys campaign rhetoric hook-line-and-sinker. I want synthetic knowledge. I want analysis. NOT repeating what others have said. THAT'S telling...and your inability to bring anything new to the table is why you aren't going to be helpful to me or any other Republican asking these kinds of questions.

Vis
10-09-2008, 12:03 PM
This is the first post I'm ignoring. Again, I'm looking for answers to my questions.

Wait, wait...I see you DID post something of worth. So Obama is EXPANDING our military? How then, will he pay for this?

This:
An Obama-Biden administration will realize savings by reducing the corruption and cost overruns that have become all too routine in defense contracting. This includes launching a program of acquisition reform and management, which would end the common practice of no-bid contracting.Obama and Biden will end the abuse of supplemental budgets by creating a system of oversight for war funds as stringent as in the regular budget. Obama and Biden will restore the government's ability to manage contracts by rebuilding our contract officer corps. They will order the Justice Department to prioritize prosecutions that will punish and deter fraud, waste and abuse.
Alone won't do it. You can't add a bunch of government programs, increase the size of the military, and expect to pay for it JUST by changing the way we buy things.


So does this mean you were just educated? I'm interested in hearing on what basis you asked your original question on cutting the military. All of your questions are similarly based on misconceptions. Debate isn't want you want. You're looking to score points. Don't pretend you want answers.

Vis
10-09-2008, 12:06 PM
You are posting stuff right from their website, which is a bunch of campaign BS, and NOT what I want. But it's better than nothing. And, no, my questions are not loaded: They are serious questions that many people in the GOP would like to have answered, and, believe me, many would not be so civil.

Your completely biased and blinded approach is SO vastly different from mine it's hard for me to remain civil. I don't want regurgitation. I don't want party line-toeing. I don't want somebody who buys campaign rhetoric hook-line-and-sinker. I want synthetic knowledge. I want analysis. NOT repeating what others have said. THAT'S telling...and your inability to bring anything new to the table is why you aren't going to be helpful to me or any other Republican asking these kinds of questions.

If you can't tell me where you got the BS about cutting the military what can I do? If you republicans want answers to questions based on assumption you pulled out of your collective ass you're out of luck. We won't play.

If you want an explanation of actual Obama positions let me know.

Leftoverhard
10-09-2008, 12:14 PM
I'm tired of playing defense with you guys.
Why don't you tell me what the _____ is so special about McCain so I feel better when the GOP steals the election again?
Tell me how McCain is going to pay for the next 100 years of this war?
Tell me how he's going to fix this economy?
Has he given you some secret answers that I have heard yet?
Tell me Palin's plan on - everything - when she inherits the Presidency from John McStroke in a year or two.
Tell me why I shouldn't be considerably nervous about that scenario?

Or don't. But I've been playing defense longer than the Eagles game 2 weeks ago, so I'll pass, thanks.

revefsreleets
10-09-2008, 12:24 PM
I'll tell you exactly why. Because I think Obama is going to win. I didn't, but I do now. I see this kind of rhetoric from you guys, and it's not critical thinking, and if reasonably educated people are going to vote for something different, just because it's different, it's certainly no stretch to think that "Joe Six Pack" who can't think critically (as opposed to those who WON'T approach this critically) is going to be any different.

Hung up on the military? My assertion is based on this:

Clinton cut it
Carter cut it
Obama voted to cut it repeatedly

Now he's saying he isn't going to cut it? The TRACK RECORD shows differently.

OK, let's take his campaign promise at face value, that's he's going to increase the military AND cut costs by doing so (which will make his the first executive to ever do so).

Let's throw that one out then. Care to address the tax issue?

stlrtruck
10-09-2008, 12:29 PM
Defense platform:

Barack Obama and Joe Biden's Plan. Tell me where you have a problem

Invest in a 21st Century Military

Rebuild the Military for 21st Century Tasks:

As we rebuild our armed forces, we must not simply recreate the military of the Cold War era. Obama and Biden believe that we must build up our special operations forces, civil affairs, information operations, and other units and capabilities that remain in chronic short supply; invest in foreign language training, cultural awareness, and human intelligence and other needed counterinsurgency and stabilization skill sets; and create a more robust capacity to train, equip, and advise foreign security forces, so that local allies are better prepared to confront mutual threats.

Expand to Meet Military Needs on the Ground:

Barack Obama and Joe Biden support plans to increase the size of the Army by 65,000 soldiers and the Marines by 27,000 troops. Increasing our end strength will help units retrain and re-equip properly between deployments and decrease the strain on military families.

Leadership from the Top:

Barack Obama and Joe Biden will restore the ethic of public service to the agenda of today's youth, whether it be serving their local communities in such roles as teachers or first responders, or serving in the military to keep our nation free and safe.

Lighten the Burdens on Our Brave Troops and Their Families:

An Obama-Biden administration will create a Military Families Advisory Board to provide a conduit for military families' concerns to be brought to the attention of senior policymakers and the public. Obama and Biden will end the Bush administration's stop-loss policy and establish predictability in deployments so that active duty and reserves know what they can and must expect.

Build Defense Capabilities for the 21st Century

Fully Equip Our Troops for the Missions They Face:

Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe we must get vitally needed equipment to our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines before lives are lost. We cannot repeat such failures as the delays in deployment of armored vehicles, body armor and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles that save lives on the frontlines.

Review Weapons Programs:

We must rebalance our capabilities to ensure that our forces have the agility and lethality to succeed in both conventional wars and in stabilization and counter-insurgency operations. Obama and Biden have committed to a review of each major defense program in light of current needs, gaps in the field, and likely future threat scenarios in the post-9/11 world.

Preserve Global Reach in the Air:

We must preserve our unparalleled airpower capabilities to deter and defeat any conventional competitors, swiftly respond to crises across the globe, and support our ground forces. We need greater investment in advanced technology ranging from the revolutionary, like Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and electronic warfare capabilities, to essential systems like the C-17 cargo and KC-X air refueling aircraft, which provide the backbone of our ability to extend global power.

Maintain Power Projection at Sea:

We must recapitalize our naval forces, replacing aging ships and modernizing existing platforms, while adapting them to the 21st century. Obama and Biden will add to the Maritime Pre-Positioning Force Squadrons to support operations ashore and invest in smaller, more capable ships, providing the agility to operate close to shore and the reach to rapidly deploy Marines to global crises.

National Missile Defense:

An Obama-Biden administration will support missile defense, but ensure that it is developed in a way that is pragmatic and cost-effective; and, most importantly, does not divert resources from other national security priorities until we are positive the technology will protect the American public.

Ensure Freedom of Space:

An Obama-Biden administration will restore American leadership on space issues, seeking a worldwide ban on weapons that interfere with military and commercial satellites. He will thoroughly assess possible threats to U.S. space assets and the best options, military and diplomatic, for countering them, establishing contingency plans to ensure that U.S. forces can maintain or duplicate access to information from space assets and accelerating programs to harden U.S. satellites against attack.

Protect the U.S in Cyberspace:

An Obama-Biden administration will work in cooperation with our allies and the private sector to identify and protect against emerging cyber-threats.

Restore the Readiness of the National Guard and Reserves

Barack Obama and Joe Biden will provide the National Guard with the equipment it needs for foreign and domestic emergencies and time to restore and refit before deploying. They will make the head of the National Guard a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to ensure concerns of our citizen soldiers reach the level they mandate. They will ensure that reservists and Guard members are treated fairly when it comes to employment, health, and education benefits.

Develop Whole of Government Initiatives to Promote Global Stability
Integrate Military and Civilian Efforts:

An Obama-Biden administration will build up the capacity of each non-Pentagon agency to deploy personnel and area experts where they are needed, to help move soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines out of civilian roles.

Create a Civilian Assistance Corps (CAC):

An Obama-Biden administration will set a goal of creating a national CAC of 25,000 personnel. This corps of civilian volunteers with special skill, sets (doctors, lawyers, engineers, city planners, agriculture specialists, police, etc.) would be organized to provide each federal agency with a pool of volunteer experts willing to deploy in times of need at home and abroad.


Restore Our Alliances

Engage Our Allies in Meeting Our Common Security Challenges:

America's traditional alliances, such as NATO, must be transformed and strengthened, including on common security concerns like Afghanistan, homeland security, and counterterrorism. Obama and Biden will renew alliances and ensure our allies contribute their fair share to our mutual security.

Organize to Help Our Partners and Allies in Need:

An Obama-Biden administration will expand humanitarian activities that build friends and allies at the regional and local level (such as during the response to the tsunami in South and Southeast Asia), and win hearts and minds in the process.


Reform Contracting


Create Transparency for Military Contractors:

Barack Obama and Joe Biden will require the Pentagon and State Department to develop a strategy for determining when contracting makes sense, rather than continually handing off governmental jobs to well-connected companies. An Obama-Biden administration will create the transparency and accountability needed for good governance. Finally, it will establish the legal status of contractor personnel, making possible prosecution of any abuses committed by private military contractors.


Restore Honesty, Openness, and Commonsense to Contracting and Procurement:

An Obama-Biden administration will realize savings by reducing the corruption and cost overruns that have become all too routine in defense contracting. This includes launching a program of acquisition reform and management, which would end the common practice of no-bid contracting.Obama and Biden will end the abuse of supplemental budgets by creating a system of oversight for war funds as stringent as in the regular budget. Obama and Biden will restore the government's ability to manage contracts by rebuilding our contract officer corps. They will order the Justice Department to prioritize prosecutions that will punish and deter fraud, waste and abuse.

Unless I missed it in your post, and that's possible, from what I heard the other day in the debate, Obama plans on making the US Army a group of construction workers. To help rebuild areas that have been war ravished for years, not there as peace keepers or peace makers but from what I gathered, there as engineers and rebuilders of nations without the use of firearms. Forgive me for my blindness but please tell me how eliminating one branch of the US Military to become (in layman's terms) a group of construction workers around the world is a benefit for the United States and it's defense?

Vis
10-09-2008, 12:41 PM
Unless I missed it in your post, and that's possible, from what I heard the other day in the debate, Obama plans on making the US Army a group of construction workers. To help rebuild areas that have been war ravished for years, not there as peace keepers or peace makers but from what I gathered, there as engineers and rebuilders of nations without the use of firearms. Forgive me for my blindness but please tell me how eliminating one branch of the US Military to become (in layman's terms) a group of construction workers around the world is a benefit for the United States and it's defense?

I don't get that from Obama's statements. Do you have the quote?

Vis
10-09-2008, 12:46 PM
I'll tell you exactly why. Because I think Obama is going to win. I didn't, but I do now. I see this kind of rhetoric from you guys, and it's not critical thinking, and if reasonably educated people are going to vote for something different, just because it's different, it's certainly no stretch to think that "Joe Six Pack" who can't think critically (as opposed to those who WON'T approach this critically) is going to be any different.

Hung up on the military? My assertion is based on this:

Clinton cut it
Carter cut it
Obama voted to cut it repeatedly

Now he's saying he isn't going to cut it? The TRACK RECORD shows differently.

OK, let's take his campaign promise at face value, that's he's going to increase the military AND cut costs by doing so (which will make his the first executive to ever do so).

Let's throw that one out then. Care to address the tax issue?


I'm not voting for Obama because he's different, I'm voting for him so the Bill of Rights survives. I'm in it for the Supreme Court. And because "elite" isn't a bad word. We want elite forces in the military but not elite people in our government? I don't want Joe-sixpack in control. I want someone smarter than Putin. We don't have that now. We won't have that with McCain or Palin.

MACH1
10-09-2008, 12:49 PM
I'm not voting for Obama because he's different, I'm voting for him so the Bill of Rights survives. I'm in it for the Supreme Court. And because "elite" isn't a bad word. We want elite forces in the military but not elite people in our government? I don't want Joe-sixpack in control. I want someone smarter than Putin. We don't have that now. We won't have that with McCain or Palin.

And you think Obama's smarter than Putin? Whats Obama going to do, talk his ears off then run home to mommy?

revefsreleets
10-09-2008, 12:49 PM
And I think you guys are missing my point. I'm ADMITTING I'm partisan. I'm approaching this from the standpoint of "Tell me something I don't know or am not seeing". Don't quote campaign promises, because I guarantee you the more promises made, the fewer will be actually fufilled.

I want my mind set at ease. I want someone to explain the changes in policy Obama has made over the last few months. I want someone from the other side of the aisle to make me feel okay about the Democrats controlling both the legislative and executive. I'm not asking for defense (but I am asking for you to stop attacking as I've already said I don't think McCain will win). Presuming Obama wins, McCain becomes irrelevant anyway.

Why should I not be worried about tax and spend Democrats? It's MY perception and probably almost every single Republicans perception that we will have at least 4 years of rampant taxing and spending. Should we not fear that? Why? Based on what?

Don't sound like a radio commercial. I don't want high-minded ideals or Utopian ideas...they aren't realistic. I want sound and real grounded reasons why I should feel okay about Obama being in charge of this Country with Reid and Pelosi in his court....

Vis
10-09-2008, 12:54 PM
And you think Obama's smarter than Putin? Whats Obama going to do, talk his ears off then run home to mommy?


Obama is brilliant. You just don't like what he has to say. I can admit that Cheney and Gingrich are brilliant while still saying they are scary mfers

Leftoverhard
10-09-2008, 01:14 PM
I'm not voting for Obama because he's different, I'm voting for him so the Bill of Rights survives. I'm in it for the Supreme Court. And because "elite" isn't a bad word. We want elite forces in the military but not elite people in our government? I don't want Joe-sixpack in control. I want someone smarter than Putin. We don't have that now. We won't have that with McCain or Palin.

Well said.

MACH1
10-09-2008, 01:26 PM
Obama is brilliant. You just don't like what he has to say. I can admit that Cheney and Gingrich are brilliant while still saying they are scary mfers

He only says what people want to here. It doesn't make him much different than any other politicians in that fact. But he flops around like a fish on every issue and he can't have it both ways with big gov.,big spending policy and supposedly cutting tax's, which isn't really a tax cut. Its more of a rebate.

I also agree with Suit that he's probably going to win.

Vis
10-09-2008, 02:28 PM
He only says what people want to here. It doesn't make him much different than any other politicians in that fact. But he flops around like a fish on every issue and he can't have it both ways with big gov.,big spending policy and supposedly cutting tax's, which isn't really a tax cut. Its more of a rebate.

I also agree with Suit that he's probably going to win.

Suit? Hmmmmm.

X-Terminator
10-09-2008, 03:49 PM
PLEASE don’t send this spiralling into yet another partisan debate thread or just spout off speculative nonsense

Too late.

Preacher
10-09-2008, 04:04 PM
Suit, this is a great idea....

as is the thread on the one for those on the right.

Let's play partisan slash and burn politics on the other threads... but keep these to good, strong discussions...

Mosca... Atl Dan...

I look forward to reading both your responses. I have reason to expect, from previous threads, that when we get into good, critical thinking threads, you both (and some others) bring an excellent line of thought...

stlrtruck
10-09-2008, 05:03 PM
I don't get that from Obama's statements. Do you have the quote?

I must have misunderstood him. I looked through the transcripts of the last debate and there was no wording as to what I referred to in my original post. If I hear it in the next debate then I'll make sure to reference the question so I can do a better job of finding it in the future.

Not sure how I heard what I heard but it wasn't in the transcripts so I'll have to apologize for my original post.

revefsreleets
10-09-2008, 05:23 PM
I've been thinking about the military thing again, and I've changed me mind. I do want an answer.

How is Obama going to bolster and add to the military AND reduce spending again? JUST by changing the procurement procedure? It's a big deal because it seems to me we need to keep our military pretty strong right now, and it also seems a little disingenuous to say that we can do say AND save money at the same time...a little bit like promising what everyone wants to hear.

MACH1
10-09-2008, 05:26 PM
I've been thinking about the military thing again, and I've changed me mind. I do want an answer.

How is Obama going to bolster and add to the military AND reduce spending again? JUST by changing the procurement procedure? It's a big deal because it seems to me we need to keep our military pretty strong right now, and it also seems a little disingenuous to say that we can do say AND save money at the same time...a little bit like promising what everyone wants to hear.

BINGO

Dino 6 Rings
10-09-2008, 05:43 PM
I'm not voting for Obama because he's different, I'm voting for him so the Bill of Rights survives. I'm in it for the Supreme Court. And because "elite" isn't a bad word. We want elite forces in the military but not elite people in our government? I don't want Joe-sixpack in control. I want someone smarter than Putin. We don't have that now. We won't have that with McCain or Palin.

BRAKES!!!!

Woah there fella...I may be just some dumb redneck from Arkansas, but I think I have a firm grasp of the bill of rights...
1st Article:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Obama stifles Free Speech, time and time again:
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2008/09/29/obama-campaign-stifles-free-speech-university-rally

http://governor.mo.gov/cgi-bin/coranto/viewnews.cgi?id=EkkkVFulkpOzXqGMaj&style=Default+News+Style&tmpl=newsitem

http://www.americandaily.com/article/23336

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=34897

2nd Article:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Obama is against guns, its well documented:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g3fAiwPDfo1yrqXHLMY2xx8sv5ygD93MKL501

SO there you have it.

The First TWO Articles of the Bill of Rights. and He fights against both.

Heads up. The 2nd one was put in place to safegaurd the first. If you take away people's guns, you can take away their right to free speech.

Dino 6 Rings
10-09-2008, 05:46 PM
but I'm still voting 3rd party...just saying...if You're a fan of the True Real Bill of Rights as was established in 1789, then I'd take a harder look into Obama's real policies, votes and activities that have been against the Bill of Rights as they are written.

Leftoverhard
10-09-2008, 06:24 PM
but I'm still voting 3rd party...just saying...if You're a fan of the True Real Bill of Rights as was established in 1789, then I'd take a harder look into Obama's real policies, votes and activities that have been against the Bill of Rights as they are written.

Sorry Dino, those articles don't hold any water, very biased, I don't even think most of that could be called journalism. Your "news sources" are suspect at best.

MACH1
10-09-2008, 06:59 PM
Sorry Dino, those articles don't hold any water, very biased, I don't even think most of that could be called journalism. Your "news sources" are suspect at best.

Truth hurts doesn't it.

Mosca
10-09-2008, 07:20 PM
You are posting stuff right from their website, which is a bunch of campaign BS, and NOT what I want. But it's better than nothing. And, no, my questions are not loaded: They are serious questions that many people in the GOP would like to have answered, and, believe me, many would not be so civil.

But rev; if it doesn't come right from the website, then what you are going to get is our opinions on what the guy is going to do; what value to you is THAT, if you don't even know me outside this forum? I was going to go grab the platform. It does look particularly well thought out, and it looks like they are planning on at least TRYING to stay strong on defense. You asked about cost... but can the military be kept strong, and can it evolve, WITHOUT cost? If so, how could McCain (the other choice) pull it off, and if he can't, then why bother to ask the question, if you can't have it both ways but you need to?

That's what I meant by "guess"; MY OPINION. But part of it is what I meant by "guess"; it's not like they (McCain and Obama) are calling a coin toss, what I mean is that they don't have a crystal ball that will tell them they're right. Therefore it is a "guess". It was a poor choice of words, but remember, just because some moke with a keyboard (me) used the word doesn't mean that I have any idea... you would be giving my opinion far too much weight. My opinion should weigh about 1 mole.

Preacher
10-09-2008, 07:22 PM
But rev; if it doesn't come right from the website, then what you are going to get is our opinions on what the guy is going to do; what value to you is THAT, if you don't even know me outside this forum? I was going to go grab the platform. It does look particularly well thought out, and it looks like they are planning on at least TRYING to stay strong on defense. You asked about cost... but can the military be kept strong, and can it evolve, WITHOUT cost? If so, how could McCain (the other choice) pull it off, and if he can't, then why bother to ask the question, if you can't have it both ways but you need to?

That's what I meant by "guess"; MY OPINION. But part of it is what I meant by "guess"; it's not like they (McCain and Obama) are calling a coin toss, what I mean is that they don't have a crystal ball that will tell them they're right. Therefore it is a "guess". It was a poor choice of words, but remember, just because some moke with a keyboard (me) used the word doesn't mean that I have any idea... you would be giving my opinion far too much weight. My opinion should weigh about 1 mole.

Don't cut yourself short...

3 moles! :wink02:

Mosca
10-09-2008, 08:07 PM
And I think you guys are missing my point. I'm ADMITTING I'm partisan. I'm approaching this from the standpoint of "Tell me something I don't know or am not seeing". Don't quote campaign promises, because I guarantee you the more promises made, the fewer will be actually fufilled.

I want my mind set at ease. I want someone to explain the changes in policy Obama has made over the last few months. I want someone from the other side of the aisle to make me feel okay about the Democrats controlling both the legislative and executive. I'm not asking for defense (but I am asking for you to stop attacking as I've already said I don't think McCain will win). Presuming Obama wins, McCain becomes irrelevant anyway.

Why should I not be worried about tax and spend Democrats? It's MY perception and probably almost every single Republicans perception that we will have at least 4 years of rampant taxing and spending. Should we not fear that? Why? Based on what?

Don't sound like a radio commercial. I don't want high-minded ideals or Utopian ideas...they aren't realistic. I want sound and real grounded reasons why I should feel okay about Obama being in charge of this Country with Reid and Pelosi in his court....

If what you want is your mind put at ease, this isn't the place. And I speak to you as a friend. We're just a bunch of folks like you. I'm worried as hell, too, but IMO the greater enemy is the one from within; it's the one where we give up our freedoms for a false security, where we allow an oligarchy to own and run the country. It's the one where we accept an imperial presidency.

Part of the reason I am going to vote Obama is that I'm not as cynical as you, and as many Republicans seem to be. There seems to be an attitude that I can best describe as, "Both of them suck, and both of them are going to rob us blind and pocket the money, so I'm going to vote for the ticket that is going to keep me safe while it happens." Well, I don't see it that way. I believe that there IS a fundamental difference between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. The Democrats still believe in government of the people, whereas the Republicans despise it. The Republicans have done everything possible to destroy our belief in the system, they have actually created an industry to destroy government of the people, including whole groups dedicated to spreading the belief that liberalism is evil and the media is evil. And people suck it right up, because it is easy to be cynical. It absolves you of responsibility.

I believe that it is possible to run the country responsibly. I believe that the people are tired of cynicism. I believe that the people are tired of "anti-ideaism" and anti-intellectualism... tell me, why is it that we want the very best possible education for our own children, but we jeer as "ELITIST!" a candidate who went to Harvard? I believe that the best choice for our country is not to go along with the guy who has the same cynicism, but is also cynical enough to fight with his own party onhow to implement that cynicism... I believe that the best choice is to go with the guy who believes that government can actually lead and make a difference. Because that's what I believe, too.

Atlanta Dan
10-10-2008, 01:03 AM
Rev - Sorry for the delay in responding

I will preface my response to your specific points by attempting to summarize why I support Obama, which is not based upon unequivocally supporting his position on each issue, and which may place in perspective why I do not rest that support exclusively on the issues you raise. I initially started to support Obama by looking for a credible alternative to Hillary, the defeat of which I regarded as the primary necessity of the 2008 campaign (as Peggy Noonan has written, Obama might lie in office if elected, McCain might lie in office if elected, but Clinton would lie in office if elected). As Charles Krauthammer grudgingly conceded last week, leaving specific issues aside, Obama has a first class intellect and a first class temperament.

As a former Republican who regarded Ronald Reagan as the greatest President in my memory (since Eisenhower gave no speeches on Romper Room I have no memories of Ike), my inclination to vote for the Dems again this cycle (I voted for W in 2000 and Kerry in 2004) was initially based on my admitted rage at the malfeasance of the Bush Administration. Regular posters here know of my views on such subjects as: 1) Cheney and Addington (I now am not sure W really knew) using the NSA to conduct telecommunications monitoring in a manner that at one point was going to result in the en masse resignation of senior officials at DOJ from Ashcroft on down; 2) the botched Iraq war; 3) conducting the war on terror in a manner that has repeatedly been smacked down by the Supreme Court and used “enhanced interrogation techniques” (torture is the non-Orwellian term for the practice) that has degraded the image of America at a time where our declining economic pre-eminence requires cooperating with other nations; and 4) a feckless domestic policy that lacked any coherent effort to bring revenues and expenditure in to some sort of balance while using the mantra of deregulation to help drive us to the current economic precipice.

Moreover, as the Gipper said about leaving the Dems, I have come to the conclusion I did not leave the Republican party - the Republican party left me. A party of limited government and fiscal responsibility has devolved into the party of the unitary executive and profligate deficits

It is simplistic, but political dynasties (McKinley to Hoover/FDR to Johnson/Gipper to W) run out of intellectual energy just as football dynasties run out of talent. Just as big liberal government ran out of gas in the late 1960s, the idea that every problem can be solved by deregulation and lower taxes seems played out to me. Instead, we get whatever McCain is about (it certainly is not about less government in the marketplace if Tuesday’s mortgage bailout scheme is any indication) and Palin is a joke (David Brooks calls her a “fatal cancer to the Republican Party” who appears to scorn ideas entirely, not me) http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_10/015089.php

So as this country faces a need to rebuild both its economy and standing internationally, which will require greater governmental involvement, I think Obama is more likely and better suited to address those challenges, just as Reagan in 1980 was more suited to address the challenges of that time while leaving a dying political movement behind. With that preface, which I do not regard as speculative nonsense, I will attempt to address your specific points.

1. The military and Iraq - I went to the Obama web site and could not find the section on plans to shrink the military. But as Eisenhower said, military power rests on economic power. When economic power declines, a decline in military power follows, or, as a Paul Kennedy wrote in The Rise and Fall Of the Great Powers, great nations eventually succumb to “imperial overstretch.” It is both good and necessary for a nation to live within its economic means, which includes being able to maintain a military you can afford. At this time, the military is uncertain whether its primary mission for the next several decades is to prepare to eventually face a military peer in China or engage in “nation building” tasks. That mission needs to be resolved, during which time the U.S. cannot buy everything it wants. My assumption is you will see a continuation of what Gates (whom I would like to stay as DoD Secretary if Obama wins) is doing in terms of doing battle with the Air Force over expensive weapons systems of dubious immediate utility such as the F-22 (an admittedly sweet piece of technology).

As for Iraq, the war was based on false pretenses (that does not require any proof W lied - it means the justifications for going in were not true) and the actual plan abysmal in terms of design and execution. When we went over the berm in 2003, nobody plausibly can contend we anticipated still having a major presence in 2009. Since we cannot afford financially to maintain an open-ended major presence, there is no definition as to when “victory” will be achieved, and the Iraqi government wants us out, we are leaving regardless of whether McCain or Obama wins. We have established a government that is more favorable to Iran and enhanced the power of Iran in southwest Asia through the policies of this Administration. But whoever wins will have to deal with those consequences through some policy that will not include remaining in Iraq.

Counter-questions - if you are contending it is in our national interest not to reduce the rate of increase of defense spending, how do we pay for it? If you are contending we should maintain a significant presence in Iraq, how would that work?

2. Tax increases - Tax rates increase and decrease. Ronald Reagan increased taxes numerous times after the 1981 tax cuts in order to take into account unpleasant fiscal realities. The 2001 Bush cuts were predicated upon the assumption the budget was facing a long term surplus and would not be adversely impacted by major tax cuts:

Feb. 24, 2001
President Bush said Saturday that the most important number in the budget he sends to Congress next week is the $5.6 trillion surplus it projects over the next 10 years.
That huge projected surplus provides the underpinning of all the administration's tax-cut and spending plans, Mr. Bush said in his recorded weekly radio address.
"A surplus in tax revenue, after all, means that taxpayers have been overcharged," the president said. "And usually when you've been overcharged, you expect to get something back." The surplus figure "counts more than any other" in the budget,.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/02/24/national/main274334.shtml

The underpinnings for the tax cuts disappeared, the tax cuts did not. As we head into a significant recession, Obama has stated he may delay repeal of the Bush cuts on income above a certain level, but will not extend those cuts beyond their scheduled sunset date.
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/07/obama-recession-could-delay-end-to-bush-tax-cuts/

Restoring tax rates on higher income earners and the capital gains rate (who the hell is going to have capital gains?:chuckle:) to the rates imposed under Clinton is hardly confiscatory and returns to the rates for a period of the sustained economic growth. As for your contention marginal rates on business taxes will increase, “for the small remaining group of businesses that file corporate taxes, Obama proposes leaving the corporate tax rate at 35 percent. McCain would drop it to 25 percent.” McCain’s crack about Obama taxing small businesses at a higher rate actually seems to be the return to the Clinton level tax rates on individual income discussed above. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/07/eveningnews/main4508167.shtml
It is my understanding Obama would seek to repeal more favorable treatment of offshore profits by U.S. headquartered companies, which arguably encourages U.S. companies to enhance production offshore. http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2008-03-20-corporate-tax-offshoring_N.htm For those that actually pay it, the U.S. corporate tax rate is higher than most other nations. As is the case with defense spending, policies need to be steered toward increasing revenues and reducing expenditures, not the converse.

With regard to the “death tax” I oppose any effort to repeal it. Warren Buffett, everyone’s favorite capitalist these days, states:
"Without the estate tax, you in effect will have an aristocracy of wealth, which means you pass down the ability to command the resources of the nation based on heredity rather than merit," Buffett told the New York Times in 2001. "[Repeal would be like] choosing the 2020 Olympic team by picking the eldest sons of the gold-medal winners in the 2000 Olympics."
http://money.cnn.com/2007/11/13/pf/taxes/buffett_estate_tax/index.htm

The bottom line is that the U.S. needs to not only figure out where to cut the rate of increase in spending but to increases revenues; the assumptions and economic conditions under which the 2001 tax cuts were passed are gone with the wind. Obama proposes certain tax hikes to increase revenue; I support them. McCain apparently will not propose any tax increases and further tax cuts, which IMO represents someone in serious denial about the situation we face.

Counter-questions for you - do you agree with McCain’s position no tax rates should be increased? And if corporate rates should match those of other nations, what is your defense of McCain only proposing cutting the rate for 25% - will that save any jobs or is that just a revenue loser with no economic benefit?

Long day at work and now past midnight - I am attempting to provide serious responses to your serious questions and will follow up with responses to the remaining questions tomorrow.

:drink:

augustashark
10-10-2008, 01:21 AM
If what you want is your mind put at ease, this isn't the place. And I speak to you as a friend. We're just a bunch of folks like you. I'm worried as hell, too, but IMO the greater enemy is the one from within; it's the one where we give up our freedoms for a false security, where we allow an oligarchy to own and run the country. It's the one where we accept an imperial presidency.

Part of the reason I am going to vote Obama is that I'm not as cynical as you, and as many Republicans seem to be. There seems to be an attitude that I can best describe as, "Both of them suck, and both of them are going to rob us blind and pocket the money, so I'm going to vote for the ticket that is going to keep me safe while it happens." Well, I don't see it that way. I believe that there IS a fundamental difference between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. The Democrats still believe in government of the people, whereas the Republicans despise it. The Republicans have done everything possible to destroy our belief in the system, they have actually created an industry to destroy government of the people, including whole groups dedicated to spreading the belief that liberalism is evil and the media is evil. And people suck it right up, because it is easy to be cynical. It absolves you of responsibility.

I believe that it is possible to run the country responsibly. I believe that the people are tired of cynicism. I believe that the people are tired of "anti-ideaism" and anti-intellectualism... tell me, why is it that we want the very best possible education for our own children, but we jeer as "ELITIST!" a candidate who went to Harvard? I believe that the best choice for our country is not to go along with the guy who has the same cynicism, but is also cynical enough to fight with his own party onhow to implement that cynicism... I believe that the best choice is to go with the guy who believes that government can actually lead and make a difference. Because that's what I believe, too.

This is exactly why Rev can not get the answers he wants. I could not disagree more with this post. Now that does'nt mean I will not show respcet to mosca, cause I will because he has shown respect to me. Mosca and myself could probably be friends if we knew each other. Hell my best buddy is a huge dem/lib. I am not cynical. I believe that McCain is best for this country and it would not matter who is on the other side. Why? Because he shares my values and the way government should be ran.

I also wanted to point out one more thing about "intellectualism" Dems always want the smartest guy in the room. Question, ceo of AIG, Lehman bros and Wamu, you think they were the smartest in the room most of the time? That's what I thought. I don't base any of my votes on who is smarter, I base it on who is the BEST.

Atlanta Dan
10-10-2008, 01:26 AM
I don't base any of my votes on who is smarter, I base it on who is the BEST.

Fair enough. Leave aside McCain being your guy this year.

What factors do you take into account in determining whether a candidate is "the best" if intelligence is not one of them?

augustashark
10-10-2008, 01:29 AM
Just a quick question dan, I think you are an attorney? If you are, then I ask you. If your firm is losing money do the partners (you could be one I don't know) raise the amount they charge clients or do they cut spending like inventory, salaries? Just wanted to know.

augustashark
10-10-2008, 01:39 AM
Fair enough. Leave aside McCain being your guy this year.

What factors do you take into account in determining whether a candidate is "the best" if intelligence is not one of them?

Intelligence will never be the problem, you don't get to this stage unless you are intelligent.

Being conservative is number one. I also need that person to have the same views I have about how government should be ran. Not every view, but alot of them. Never waivers on the love they have for america, good days or bad ones. To me Ronald Reagan was as close to perfect as any other president (to me) since I've been alive. Never waiver on national security, bulid it up and keep it up. To me a president's number one priority is to keep us safe!

Live by the dukes old line "Trust but verify".

Preacher
10-10-2008, 01:56 AM
Intelligence will never be the problem, you don't get to this stage unless you are intelligent.

Being conservative is number one. I also need that person to have the same views I have about how government should be ran. Not every view, but alot of them. Never waivers on the love they have for america, good days or bad ones. To me Ronald Reagan was as close to perfect as any other president (to me) since I've been alive. Never waiver on national security, bulid it up and keep it up. To me a president's number one priority is to keep us safe!

Live by the dukes old line "Trust but verify".

Which is why I am no longer a Republican. However, when you don't have what you want, you find what is closest. On that sliding scale, McCain is much closer to Reagan than Obama ever will be.

Regardless of party, whoever lines up closest with Reagan gets my vote. The problem is, I look for a track record, and when I don't have that, I look at their associates track record. Obama does not have a track record. So look at his associates. Biden, Chicago/Daly machine... no, those are records that drive further from Reagan, which is why I can't trust Obama.

For all the dems desire to tie McCain to Bush, the fact is, McCain has a twenty some odd year record that stands by itself. On THAT record, I trust him more.

Atlanta Dan
10-10-2008, 02:17 AM
Just a quick question dan, I think you are an attorney? If you are, then I ask you. If your firm is losing money do the partners (you could be one I don't know) raise the amount they charge clients or do they cut spending like inventory, salaries? Just wanted to know.

It is a much more free agent system than it used to be in private practice- the big firm model is for partners (and attorneys who want to make partner) building a book of business that not only keeps them busy but generates work for other attorneys and support staff in the firm. Boutique firms and solos do not face the same need as partners to generate business for other attorneys in the firm but stioll need to do marketing.

You get churn in firms with associates leaving that do not make partner and new hires coming in. You can slow down the rate of new hires but then the public perception is the firm is struggling.

Partners get a draw of the profits - if total profits go down then the draw goes down. If profits go down too far, producing partners will walk with their clients (aka portables) and some associates to another firm, non-producing partners will be shown the door (which used to be unheard of), associates and non-attorneys will be laid off, or the firm may seek a merger partner.

An extinction event can be for a firm to lose a major client, either by the client going elsewhere or going bust (firms that had Lehman Brothers, Wachovia, and WaMu as clients are presumably not happy these days). Also, if your firm is focused on a particular area of practice, it can be grim if that area goes dry. Raising rates is tough unless you have a real niche, since another firm can do the work unless it is "bet the company" case where money is no object.

Hope that answers your question.:drink:

Vis
10-10-2008, 07:34 AM
BRAKES!!!!

Woah there fella...I may be just some dumb redneck from Arkansas, but I think I have a firm grasp of the bill of rights...
1st Article:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Obama stifles Free Speech, time and time again:
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2008/09/29/obama-campaign-stifles-free-speech-university-rally

http://governor.mo.gov/cgi-bin/coranto/viewnews.cgi?id=EkkkVFulkpOzXqGMaj&style=Default+News+Style&tmpl=newsitem

http://www.americandaily.com/article/23336

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=34897

2nd Article:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Obama is against guns, its well documented:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g3fAiwPDfo1yrqXHLMY2xx8sv5ygD93MKL501

SO there you have it.

The First TWO Articles of the Bill of Rights. and He fights against both.

Heads up. The 2nd one was put in place to safegaurd the first. If you take away people's guns, you can take away their right to free speech.


Call me when you get to the 4th and 5th

Dino 6 Rings
10-10-2008, 07:37 AM
Call me when you get to the 4th and 5th

really? so being against the 1st two isn't enough?

sigh...

3rd party, and term limits. That's my answer...oh and a flat sales tax.

revefsreleets
10-10-2008, 09:09 AM
Wow...a lot to answer here.

OK, I have to start at Mosca. I DON'T believe that the Republican party is "against government by the people". Just don't . I don't see one party as evil and the other as good. THIS "all or nothing" mentality is destroying this country. It's making people paint themselves as black or white, and ignoring the 95% gray area.

Hell, I see it every day here, reasonably intelligent people simply unable or unwilling to level any kind of critical thinking at their own party, not being able to spot the chinks in their own armor, and covering these flaws by just dumping on the opposition. I'm honestly trying to step above that here and have an honest dialogue...

Frankly I'm disapointed in these kinds of answers because they weren't really answers, just more of what Vis and Leftover are fobbing off, basically saying that my questions are flawed. They may be...but a significant proprtion of this country is going to be asking these very same questions November 5th.

I also want to touch the military thing. I'll bring up McCain briefly because he is the touchstone of comparrison. McCain has made no bones about it: He will increase military expenditures (and, this has been largely ignored, he will FREEZE SPENDING on everything else but Veterans Affairs). I would MUCH rather have a guy tell me the truth than try and have it both ways,even if the truth hurts. McCain will continue to exapnd the military, and will increase spending to do so. It's my understanding that he is also looking to change the procurement process, and HAS BEEN for awhile. He also is in favor of a "smarter military", better suited to the 21st century, and has a record of moving towards that aim.

My point is, McCain is telling us the truth, not what we want to hear. He'll increase the military, and it will cost money to do so. Obama is not telling us the truth. He's saying that he will expnad the military, but also CUT spending there. That's not possible, certainly not through simply changing the procurement process.

This illustrates why I want better answers...I want someone to explain to me why I'm wrong in the last paragraph. Why should I believe a guy who has NO record for increasing the military or changing the way the military procures things over a guy who already has a strong pro-military record? Why should I believe a guy when he tells me we are going to increase the military but without spending more on it?

I'm also becoming increasingly concerned about Obama's campaign ads. They are ubiquitous here in Ohio, and it really shows the extra spending power he has by shunning public money. The REAL problem is they are drifting further and further from the truth. Remember, this IS NOT about McCain. I concede his defeat in November. This is 100% about Obama. I heard an ad today that was 100% inaccurate about McCains health care plan. That means that not ONE single statement in the ad was true. The ad was a lie. I thought Obama was about change? I thought he was about integrity? I thought he was going to be something different? Why trash out an arguably better healthcare plan instead of propping up your own?

Atlanta Dan
10-10-2008, 09:42 AM
[QUOTE=revefsreleets;452652]

Frankly I'm disapointed in these kinds of answers because they weren't really answers, just more of what Vis and Leftover are fobbing off, basically saying that my questions are flawed. They may be...but a significant proprtion of this country is going to be asking these very same questions November 5th.


My point is, McCain is telling us the truth, not what we want to hear. He'll increase the military, and it will cost money to do so. Obama is not telling us the truth. He's saying that he will expnad the military, but also CUT spending there. That's not possible, certainly not through simply changing the procurement process.

This illustrates why I want better answers...I want someone to explain to me why I'm wrong in the last paragraph. Why should I believe a guy who has NO record for increasing the military or changing the way the military procures things over a guy who already has a strong pro-military record? Why should I believe a guy when he tells me we are going to increase the military but without spending more on it?

QUOTE]

If you are refering to my response, if I disappointed you that is your call - i note you did not respond to any of my questions embedded in my lengthy post.

We obviously are motivated by different concerns and have a different approach to how those concerns should be addressed. Such is life and reasonable people can disagree.

I am disappointed if your respose to replies to your initial inquiry is that you want Obama supporters to attempt to convince you to vote for him or, faiing to do so, concede you have the better arguments

I see no productive purpose in continuing to post in this thread. You are voting for McCain, I am voting for Obama, and absent some unforeeseeable event in the next 25 days nothing is going to change that situation for either of us. Such differences do not make eiither of us unreasonable or intellectually dishonest.

As the cliche goes when a case cannot settle, we will agree to disagree.

:drink:.

Leftoverhard
10-10-2008, 10:42 AM
Hell, I see it every day here, reasonably intelligent people simply unable or unwilling to level any kind of critical thinking at their own party, not being able to spot the chinks in their own armor, and covering these flaws by just dumping on the opposition. I'm honestly trying to step above that here and have an honest dialogue...

Rev - I can only speak for myself when I say that would be great. And I have done that quite a few times here only to have my post picked apart for the juicy bits and the rest, all but ignored. Then I'm on defense with talking points until I'm done for the day and have to go do other things. The Democratic party even isn't my party. I'm way more left leaning than that. :wave: I see plenty of chinks in the armour of both parties. I support Obama for President for a variety of reasons.

Frankly I'm disapointed in these kinds of answers because they weren't really answers, just more of what Vis and Leftover are fobbing off, basically saying that my questions are flawed.

I never said your questions were flawed. I think I said I was tired of playing defense. Your questions are great. I hope someone answers them and I hope ten conservative posters don't spin it into oblivion.

I would MUCH rather have a guy tell me the truth than try and have it both ways,even if the truth hurts.

The thing here is that you believe what McCain says and I don't. That's really what this boils down to. I think we've got a pretty raw deal when it comes to having to decide who is lying less. These guys are trying to get elected. I know you aren't naive. Aside from some of your views, you are clearly very intelligent. These guys are going to say what we want to hear to get elected. Both of them. I don't want to get caught up believing the intricacies of fibs in the month before the election.

Vis
10-10-2008, 11:00 AM
I did say the questions were flawed. They assume facts that are incorrect.

Is there Anything that could be said to make you vote for anything Democratic, Suit?

Dino 6 Rings
10-10-2008, 11:10 AM
Sorry Dino, those articles don't hold any water, very biased, I don't even think most of that could be called journalism. Your "news sources" are suspect at best.

Really? The AP is biased and so is newsbusters. Holy cow.

to think I purposely left out the sites that I knew would be attacked for being "biased to the right" like Malking, Pipes, Fox news...

can't win for losing.

Clearly Obama is against guns. That's clear. He had to retract his statement about the DC handgun ban. His campaign also did in fact, slam the phone lines of a radio station and email it into oblivion when they had an author of a book they didnt like on a show. That's a fact.

So believe what you want...I'll just sit down here in little old Arkansas and 'cling' to my guns and religion while the socialists march on DC.

Vis
10-10-2008, 11:18 AM
Really? The AP is biased and so is newsbusters. Holy cow.

to think I purposely left out the sites that I knew would be attacked for being "biased to the right" like Malking, Pipes, Fox news...

can't win for losing.

Clearly Obama is against guns. That's clear. He had to retract his statement about the DC handgun ban. His campaign also did in fact, slam the phone lines of a radio station and email it into oblivion when they had an author of a book they didnt like on a show. That's a fact.

So believe what you want...I'll just sit down here in little old Arkansas and 'cling' to my guns and religion while the socialists march on DC.

Isn't it Bush who's about nationalize banking?

Leftoverhard
10-10-2008, 11:32 AM
I'm going to answer your first question best I can.

Military- It’s no secret that the military will be cut under Obama. He may withdrawal from Iraq. Tell me why this is a good thing in such a turbulent time in our country?

Answer: He will withdraw from Iraq. That’s the main reason I want him in the oval office. Iraq didn’t attack us. We attacked Iraq. If we get out of Iraq, we won’t need any more of our precious tax dollars invested in Bush’s war. After we leave, we'll have the funding that we aren't spending and the military spending can be cut without depleting our defense.
We need to start rebuilding our great country and our place in the world needs to be re-established. IMHO, the only way this country can remain great is to abolish the aggressive foreign policy we’ve used over the past few decades. We’ve been an aggressive bully. Our government has spent billions and billions of tax dollars to prop up dictators. We’ve armed many - Osama bin Laden, the "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan, Saddam Hussein, and Manuel Noriega, only to spend billions and billions more to use military force on these guys later on. I think it’s safe to say that is not how things should work.
I’ve tried to see this from another perspective. I’ve tried to understand how leaving Iraq would be “cutting and running.” I’m sorry, I truly can’t. We gave Bush more than enough time to figure it out and he failed. Time’s up.
Now, on the details of how we would leave Iraq, I’m not a General. I’m sure it won't be easy but it can be figured out and I’m also sure there’s no perfect answer on that from either candidate.

Dino 6 Rings
10-10-2008, 11:38 AM
Isn't it Bush who's about nationalize banking?

Good thing he isn't running again huh.

Vis
10-10-2008, 12:28 PM
Good thing he isn't running again huh.


And McCain who wants to buy all the mortgages?

stlrtruck
10-10-2008, 12:44 PM
We need to start rebuilding our great country and our place in the world needs to be re-established.

Now, on the details of how we would leave Iraq, I’m not a General. I’m sure it won't be easy but it can be figured out and I’m also sure there’s no perfect answer on that from either candidate.

I agree with the first statement. Involved in that I think we need to eliminate all of this, "Let's help out the world every time there is a crisis" only to have those nations stab us in the back in return. Especially when there are plenty of issues that need to be fixed in the United States - like homelessness, education, off-shoring American jobs to third world countries.

The last statement, I don't think has a simple and secure answer. We withdraw too soon and it's see you later Iraq. Stay too long and their government never gets off the ground either. It's going to be tricky but I don't think Obama or McCain for that matter have the real answer on this one. I think this one has to be taken over by the generals on the ground in order for it to be functional for both countries.

tony hipchest
10-10-2008, 01:07 PM
And I think you guys are missing my point. I'm ADMITTING I'm partisan. I'm approaching this from the standpoint of "Tell me something I don't know or am not seeing". Don't quote campaign promises, because I guarantee you the more promises made, the fewer will be actually fufilled.

I want my mind set at ease. I want someone to explain the changes in policy Obama has made over the last few months. I want someone from the other side of the aisle to make me feel okay about the Democrats controlling both the legislative and executive. I'm not asking for defense (but I am asking for you to stop attacking as I've already said I don't think McCain will win). Presuming Obama wins, McCain becomes irrelevant anyway.

Why should I not be worried about tax and spend Democrats? It's MY perception and probably almost every single Republicans perception that we will have at least 4 years of rampant taxing and spending. Should we not fear that? Why? Based on what?

Don't sound like a radio commercial. I don't want high-minded ideals or Utopian ideas...they aren't realistic. I want sound and real grounded reasons why I should feel okay about Obama being in charge of this Country with Reid and Pelosi in his court....first of all, have you had a hug today? :hug:

2nd of all im not ready to accept your concession, cause the 1 thing i think could still derail obamas brilliant campaign is simple booth fright. to use an analogy, alot of people are in favor of the death penalty but when it comes down to it, hardly anybody wants to be the one to flip the switch.

3rd of all, i was gonna leave this thread alon cause it will probably be ignored, glossed over or shat upon. but here it goes anyways-

it seems as if you want empirical truths, scientific data, and hardcore facts to look into the future and prove obama will not be a bad choice.

logic and critical thinking has taught me that sometimes in life you just gotta take a leap of faith, go with your gut, and "dont worry, be happy", let the chips fall where they may and all that good stuff.

ave already said im trying to take the "greater of 2 goods" approach as opposed to the "lesser of 2 evils".

ive worn the devils advocate hat, and ive poked, prodded, and provoked, and ive been labeled as a mccian basher, and thats fine. i just hope ive opened up some eyes to some of the hypocricy that was flying around pretty thick.

ive never seen the sheer hatred of obama questioned on this board like "mine" was for sarah palin. palin may be a fine person. nobody knows. i hate the selection. i admire mccain. my critisizm for him hasnt been him, his policies or his stance or record.

it has been his decision making capabilities, or more importantly the decision making capabilities of his campaign.

mccain took his eye off the ball while obama has kept his eye on the prize. all these cliches and analogies are what will give me the comfort with obama at the helm.

i hate to keep using them but i liken it to mike tomlin taking over the steelers. i had the same concerns, but the undeniable similarities are there. hell, tomlin was even gonna go to law school. i just hope the results are the same. tomlin may never win a SB, but i doubt he is gonna run the team into the ground. i rest assured.

i will get a bit more specific on the military as it is VERY important to me and part of my past, present, and future. you cut military spending by getting the hell out of iraq. you spend the savings to beef it back up.

im not talking about cut 'n run. im talking about and end game. the finish line must be in sight instead of running around in circles the next 100 years. we cannot have a mission that changes on a yearly basis. i am not comfortable with that. we cannot have a mission that seems to be in place to let corporations such as haliburton and all the big oil co's profit and syphon our funds. that is not what is best for america.

we cannot keep flip flopping on whether or not to keep north korea on some stupid list. (bush wants to take them off now mccain would probably take them off never.) bill richardsons good faith efforts made w/ the koreans were practically distroyed.

experience or not, i have faith obama will be a great pr move for our nation. foreign leaders will feel more comfortable with him as our leader. i think through no real fault of his own (other than coming off as cranky and on edge) other world leaders would feel nervous about mccain, both because this economic crisis is hitting all peoples, and concerns of his military hardline stance and resistance to negotiations.

a comfortable world creates better national security as opposed to putting a stick in the hornets nest all across the planet.

if mccain wins, he wins. i will still sleep good at night and hug my little girl every day, and when we say our prayers will will put in a good word for our presidents continued health and well being.

and if obama wins we will pray for those who wish for a bullet.

oh yeah, i almost forgot "My name is Atlanta Dan and i approve this message". :rofl:

(just messin' around dan :cheers: )

lamberts-lost-tooth
10-10-2008, 02:23 PM
it seems as if you want empirical truths, scientific data, and hardcore facts to look into the future and prove obama will not be a bad choice.



Actually I think he asked for.. emperical truths, scientific data, and hardcore facts to prove that... Obama will be a Good Choice. Big difference...the fact that Obama hasnt eaten his children would be proof that he isnt a bad choice....the fact that Obama hasnt ran over a group of Nuns crossing the street would be proof that he isnt a bad choice....
.....much harder to come up reasons why he is a good choice.

logic and critical thinking has taught me that sometimes in life you just gotta take a leap of faith, go with your gut, and "dont worry, be happy", let the chips fall where they may and all that good stuff.

Or if that doesnt work....gotta go with the Hollywood "Oscar Award" mentality and vote for the person with the "it" factor:doh:

i just hope ive opened up some eyes to some of the hypocricy that was flying around pretty thick.

OHHHH believe me you have. By example if nothing else.


ive never seen the sheer hatred of obama questioned on this board like "mine" was for sarah palin. palin may be a fine person. nobody knows. i hate the selection.

Let me help you with that Tony....You calling Palins son "retarted" is the moral equivelant of someone using the "N" word when talking about Obama...both are disgusting and ignorant...the difference is...no one did the second...you most certainly did the first.

mccain took his eye off the ball while obama has kept his eye on the prize. all these cliches and analogies are what will give me the comfort with obama at the helm.

There ya go...that must be your... emperical truth...scientific fact.... as to why he will be a good president...Cliches and Analogies...hope that works out for ya!!!

i hate to keep using them but i liken it to mike tomlin taking over the steelers. i had the same concerns, but the undeniable similarities are there. hell, tomlin was even gonna go to law school. i just hope the results are the same. tomlin may never win a SB, but i doubt he is gonna run the team into the ground. i rest assured.

In this you have been consistant....It was a stupid comparison when first made...and its still a stupid comparison..

i will get a bit more specific on the military as it is VERY important to me and part of my past, present, and future. you cut military spending by getting the hell out of iraq. you spend the savings to beef it back up.

Thats called circular logic......"We need to build up our military in case they need to be sent somewhere ...so we can protest them being there and wasting money that could be used to ....build up our military in case they need to be sent somewhere....so we can protest them being there and wasting ......."


im not talking about cut 'n run. im talking about and end game. the finish line must be in sight instead of running around in circles the next 100 years.

Thats alot of time to build a strawman argument!!!

experience or not, i have faith obama will be a great pr move for our nation. foreign leaders will feel more comfortable with him as our leader. i think through no real fault of his own (other than coming off as cranky and on edge) other world leaders would feel nervous about mccain, both because this economic crisis is hitting all peoples, and concerns of his military hardline stance and resistance to negotiations.

OH GAWD...where to start on this.....To an extent...I could give a RATS-ASS about what other countries think about us....(psssst) they dont want us to be a super-power...if given the choice...THEY want to be the superpower. They want THE power.....So what makes you think they have the United States best interest in mind!!!!!!??????? ITs incredible naive to base your vote on what the rest of the world thinks about who you voted for.

a comfortable world creates better national security as opposed to putting a stick in the hornets nest all across the planet.

....So said Chamberlain

HometownGal
10-10-2008, 02:34 PM
The thing here is that you believe what McCain says and I don't.

Though I do respect your opinion, Leftover, I'm the opposite in this election. I don't believe anything Obama has to say and I most certainly don't trust him as far as I could throw him. For him to withdraw the troops in Iraq would be a horrendous mistake and quite possibly, a very costly one to America and its security.

I also find it very strange that Obama has yet to take the time to sit down, actually meet with General Petraeus and make a fair assessment on what progress is really being made in Iraq. Those who are serving over there, as well as General Petraeus, would tell you a totally different story than the liberal media has been reporting in an election year. Obama preaches what his media puppetmasters want him to say and he thinks the majority of Americans want to hear. When it all blows up (literally) in his face, I hope you Lib-O-RATs are ready to shoulder your share of the blame.

Atlanta Dan
10-10-2008, 02:37 PM
Though I do respect your opinion, Leftover, I'm the opposite in this election. I don't believe anything Obama has to say and I most certainly don't trust him as far as I could throw him. For him to withdraw the troops in Iraq would be a horrendous mistake and quite possibly, a very costly one to America and its security.

I also find it very strange that Obama has yet to take the time to sit down, actually meet with General Petraeus and make a fair assessment on what progress is really being made in Iraq. Those who are serving over there, as well as General Petraeus, would tell you a totally different story than the liberal media has been reporting in an election year. Obama preaches what his media puppetmasters want him to say and he thinks the majority of Americans want to hear. When it all blows up (literally) in his face, I hope you Lib-O-RATs are ready to shoulder your share of the blame.

We can have a race - let's see if Obama supporters accept accountability for what blows up on his watch before W supporters accept accountability for the consequences of the excellent adventures of the last 8 years:chuckle:

HometownGal
10-10-2008, 02:44 PM
We can have a race - let's see if Obama supporters accept accountability for what blows up on his watch before W supporters accept accountability for the consequences of the excellent adventures of the last 8 years:chuckle:

All I can say to that is this, Dan, and I feel like a broken record as I've said it countless times on this board.

Say what you will about W. I am not pleased with a couple of things that have happened on his "watch", but the one constant during his administration (and after 911) is that there has not been ONE terrorist attack on U.S. soil and this country and its people (yes - including you!) have remained SAFE. As you well know, that is a biggie as far as electing a leader who I feel will maintain that level of homeland security.

Atlanta Dan
10-10-2008, 03:00 PM
All I can say to that is this, Dan, and I feel like a broken record as I've said it countless times on this board.

Say what you will about W. I am not pleased with a couple of things that have happened on his "watch", but the one constant during his administration (and after 911) is that there has not been ONE terrorist attack on U.S. soil and this country and its people (yes - including you!) have remained SAFE. As you well know, that is a biggie as far as electing a leader who I feel will maintain that level of homeland security.

So if no attack occurs during the Obama years he will be held to that same standard by which you apparently define mission accomplished?

HometownGal
10-10-2008, 03:02 PM
So if no attack occurs during the Obama years he will be held to that same metric by which you apparently define mission accomplished?

Yes - absolutely, but I don't believe that will be the case, sadly.

Atlanta Dan
10-10-2008, 03:06 PM
Yes - absolutely, but I don't believe that will be the case, sadly.

So a President is accountable for what happens on his watch even if there is no indication it is due to actions taken by that President?

HometownGal
10-10-2008, 03:10 PM
So a President is accountable for what happens on his watch even if there is no indication it is due to actions taken by that President?

Quit twisting my words, Dan. That is NOT what I said.

As I said above, I believe pulling our troops out of Iraq is a very dangerous move and IF we are attacked again as a result of that action, then YES - Obama would most definitely be accountable and so would everyone who voted to put that letch in power.

W did nothing to provoke the terrorists on 911 or put our country at risk. By pulling the troops out of Iraq prematurely, our country is at great risk, imho.

Well, well, well - lookie what I'm seeing here. All 4 Lib-O-Rats waiting to move in for the kill. :laughing::thumbsup:

Leftoverhard
10-10-2008, 03:20 PM
We can have a race - let's see if Obama supporters accept accountability for what blows up on his watch before W supporters accept accountability for the consequences of the excellent adventures of the last 8 years:chuckle:

You said it.

HTG - The argument that we're safer now just isn't true. We haven't had a terrorist attack in 7 years on American soil thanks to GWB? I think after 9/11, we definately did things(and had to, any pres would have done most of these things) to tighten security in America but to say GWB's responsible for no attacks and us being safer now - those just don't stand up without crutches. Our occupation of Iraq has created many more enemies and made us weaker in so many ways. I don't call that safer, I just can't. I really wish I could say we were.

LLT - It's not about what other countries think about us, it's about playing nice in this big sandbox - the world. We're the biggest kid in there. it's our responsibility to keep it cool in there and we most certainly can't be bullying everyone around. We're the most powerful county in the world and with that comes major responsibility.
I wish that instead of being so retroactive and reactive to what's going on in this world and to the USA, we were more proactive and forward thinking.

HometownGal
10-10-2008, 03:31 PM
HTG - The argument that we're safer now just isn't true. We haven't had a terrorist attack in 7 years on American soil thanks to GWB? I think after 9/11, we definately did things(and had to, any pres would have done most of these things) to tighten security in America but to say GWB's responsible for no attacks and us being safer now - those just don't stand up without crutches. Our occupation of Iraq has created many more enemies and made us weaker in so many ways. I don't call that safer, I just can't. I really wish I could say we were.


We're going to just have to agree to disagree on this one, Leftover. W made a firm commitment to keeping America safe and she has been just that since 911 - safe. Obviously, the terrorists heard W's message loud and clear.

The Shkabibbles are keeping a close watch on this election and are frothing at the mouth hoping Obama is elected. They don't want McCain in there because they know he will be just as hard-assed as Bush with regard to homeland security - - if not more.

Atlanta Dan
10-10-2008, 03:33 PM
Quit twisting my words, Dan. That is NOT what I said.

As I said above, I believe pulling our troops out of Iraq is a very dangerous move and IF we are attacked again as a result of that action, then YES - Obama would most definitely be accountable and so would everyone who voted to put that letch in power.

W did nothing to provoke the terrorists on 911 or put our country at risk. By pulling the troops out of Iraq prematurely, our country is at great risk, imho.

Well, well, well - lookie what I'm seeing here. All 4 Lib-O-Rats waiting to move in for the kill. :laughing::thumbsup:

You were the one who talked about shoulderig the blame when it blows up in his face while acknowledging there is no irebuttable presumption of withdrawing from Iraq and any future attack here. Sounded like strict liability to me.

When do we leave Iraq without creating the great risk you contend will occur?

revefsreleets
10-10-2008, 03:35 PM
[quote=revefsreleets;452652]

Frankly I'm disapointed in these kinds of answers because they weren't really answers, just more of what Vis and Leftover are fobbing off, basically saying that my questions are flawed. They may be...but a significant proprtion of this country is going to be asking these very same questions November 5th.


My point is, McCain is telling us the truth, not what we want to hear. He'll increase the military, and it will cost money to do so. Obama is not telling us the truth. He's saying that he will expnad the military, but also CUT spending there. That's not possible, certainly not through simply changing the procurement process.

This illustrates why I want better answers...I want someone to explain to me why I'm wrong in the last paragraph. Why should I believe a guy who has NO record for increasing the military or changing the way the military procures things over a guy who already has a strong pro-military record? Why should I believe a guy when he tells me we are going to increase the military but without spending more on it?

QUOTE]

If you are refering to my response, if I disappointed you that is your call - i note you did not respond to any of my questions embedded in my lengthy post.

We obviously are motivated by different concerns and have a different approach to how those concerns should be addressed. Such is life and reasonable people can disagree.

I am disappointed if your respose to replies to your initial inquiry is that you want Obama supporters to attempt to convince you to vote for him or, faiing to do so, concede you have the better arguments

I see no productive purpose in continuing to post in this thread. You are voting for McCain, I am voting for Obama, and absent some unforeeseeable event in the next 25 days nothing is going to change that situation for either of us. Such differences do not make eiither of us unreasonable or intellectually dishonest.

As the cliche goes when a case cannot settle, we will agree to disagree.

:drink:.

I didn't even get to your post...I was addressing Vis and Leftover, and to a lesser extent Mosca, and this is sad, because in my estimation, yours was the ONLY post that was really attempting to give me what I asked for.

I'm coming back to this later, but I, you know, have a job and stuff I need to tend to first.

I fully intend on addressing your post whether you are still interested in this thread or not...because I'm still seeking answers...but every time I come back there's even more stuff to address! I feel like tha mailman, and the mail just never ends, it just keeps flowing.............:chuckle:

X-Terminator
10-10-2008, 03:36 PM
You were the one who talked about shoulderig the blame when it blows up in his face while acknowledging there is no irebuttable presumption of withdrawing from Iraq and any future attack here. Sounded like strict liability to me.

When do we leave Iraq without creating the great risk you contend will occur?

Did W not get blamed by the left for 9/11, even though the bulk of the planning was done on Clinton's watch?

Leftoverhard
10-10-2008, 03:42 PM
Well, well, well - lookie what I'm seeing here. All 4 Lib-O-Rats waiting to move in for the kill. :laughing::thumbsup:


Lol @ all 4 of us.

Atlanta Dan
10-10-2008, 03:43 PM
Did W not get blamed by the left for 9/11, even though the bulk of the planning was done on Clinton's watch?

There was an orgy of finger pointing between right & left/W officials and Clinton officials as to who was to blame.

I remember most of my neighborhood planting small flags in their front yards throughout that fall without any of us blaming any U.S. officials. Those were the days but there is alot more anger in domestic politics now.

Leftoverhard
10-10-2008, 03:49 PM
Did W not get blamed by the left for 9/11, even though the bulk of the planning was done on Clinton's watch?

I think it's inappropriate to blame anyone for 9/11 other than those who planned and performed it. Absolutely, the left has not blamed W for 9/11 - maybe some very fringe conspiracy theorists but that's a real shot in the dark.
I blame W for what happened afterward, a big, nasty mess. He and his administration and congress really effed it up.

Leftoverhard
10-10-2008, 03:52 PM
I agree with the first statement. Involved in that I think we need to eliminate all of this, "Let's help out the world every time there is a crisis" only to have those nations stab us in the back in return. Especially when there are plenty of issues that need to be fixed in the United States - like homelessness, education, off-shoring American jobs to third world countries.

The last statement, I don't think has a simple and secure answer. We withdraw too soon and it's see you later Iraq. Stay too long and their government never gets off the ground either. It's going to be tricky but I don't think Obama or McCain for that matter have the real answer on this one. I think this one has to be taken over by the generals on the ground in order for it to be functional for both countries.

Hey, we *pretty much* agree! Cool.

lamberts-lost-tooth
10-10-2008, 03:52 PM
You said it.

HTG - The argument that we're safer now just isn't true. We haven't had a terrorist attack in 7 years on American soil thanks to GWB? I think after 9/11, we definately did things(and had to, any pres would have done most of these things) to tighten security in America but to say GWB's responsible for no attacks and us being safer now - those just don't stand up without crutches. .

How is GWB NOT responsible for us not having attacks on our soil..(even when you said yourself..."we definately did things(and had to, any pres would have done most of these things) to tighten security in America ....

I find it remarkable that the left refuses to acknowlege anything postitive as being a result of the current administration such as our national security...though they are very quick to (wrongly) blame the right for the economic mess.

LLT - It's not about what other countries think about us, it's about playing nice in this big sandbox - the world. We're the biggest kid in there. it's our responsibility to keep it cool in there and we most certainly can't be bullying everyone around.

..and there lies the difference in our opinions....I look at our military, and our responsiblity to help people come out from under the thumb of ruthless dictators as a moral obligation.
Military involvment surely isnt looked at as "bullying" by those who celebrated our arrival in Iraq....You might have missed that, since the media wants to act like it never happened...but it was all over the news at the time.

We're the most powerful county in the world and with that comes major responsibility.
I wish that instead of being so retroactive and reactive to what's going on in this world and to the USA, we were more proactive and forward thinking.

One of those responsibilities is to stop those who have VOWED to destroy western culture and who cowardly fly planes into buildings....we have been pretty proactive in destroying Al-Quida's leadership to prevent this from happneing again.
If by "forward thinking" you means sitting down over tea with these A-holes and thinking that you are going to change a basic element of their twisted beliefs.....we had that under Clinton...worked out well, didnt it.

tony hipchest
10-10-2008, 04:03 PM
Let me help you with that Tony....You calling Palins son "retarted" is the moral equivelant of someone using the "N" word when talking about Obama...both are disgusting and ignorant...the difference is...no one did the second...you most certainly did the first.


:chuckle: im almost embarrassed for you... almost. i work for the AbilityOne program (formerly the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act of Congress 1938 and amended in 1971.) Through this act which is an independent federal agency and the smallest ( yet still powerful) cabinet in the White House thousands of disabled employees provide $2.3 billion in products and services to the government.

I have employed dozens of employees who are MR (mentally retarded) or who have BIF (boarderline intellectual functioning) limitations along with many more who are physically handicapped. i write hundereds of reports, evaluations, and analyses for auditors on an annual basis along with filtering through medical reports and psychological evaluations continually.

im pretty familiar with the terminology and dont give a damn what you feel is politically correct in your little circles. your "moral" standards have no bearing on me. if you dont like what i wrote about palins son, you can simply ignore it or get over it.

as far as the rest of the trash you wrote, i wont even bother with it. it is obvious you are being close minded and way too extreme in your conservatism. :thumbsup: kinda counters the purpose of revs starting this particular thread, and i'd like to respect the intent for which it was created.

youre dismissed. :wave:

HometownGal
10-10-2008, 04:09 PM
You were the one who talked about shoulderig the blame when it blows up in his face while acknowledging there is no irebuttable presumption of withdrawing from Iraq and any future attack here. Sounded like strict liability to me.

When do we leave Iraq without creating the great risk you contend will occur?

You put words in my mouth, Dan, and I don't appreciate it. Period.

it is virtually impossible to have a civil discussion with you anymore. You resort to a highly condescending retort and immediately put people on the defensive.

When do we leave Iraq? When the military experts who were appointed by the President and Congress feel it is safe for withdrawal and to my knowledge, those experts are not in agreement with Obama's timetable for troop withdrawal. I trust their judgment far more than an unknown, do-nothing Senator from Illinois who never served his country.

Preacher
10-10-2008, 04:10 PM
it is obvious you are being close minded and way too extreme in your conservatism.

Kinda like you and Palin right... just a little closed minded? Just a little?

http://go-dl3.eve-files.com/media/0608/pot_kettle_black.jpg

Leftoverhard
10-10-2008, 04:22 PM
.
..and there lies the difference in our opinions....I look at our military, and our responsiblity to help people come out from under the thumb of ruthless dictators as a moral obligation.

Why? What moral obligation? We had sanctions on that country for a long time before we attacked it. We were essentially starving them out. Not Saddam but kids, regular people. Moral obligation my #$$. Sorry LLT. The "obligation" in Iraq was Oil. Power. Paying Debts. Lining pockets. They did that, now they don't know how to get out. It was supposed to be easy.

Military involvment surely isnt looked at as "bullying" by those who celebrated our arrival in Iraq....You might have missed that, since the media wants to act like it never happened...but it was all over the news at the time.

Propoganda. It happens. Where are they now?

If by "forward thinking" you means sitting down over tea with these A-holes and thinking that you are going to change a basic element of their twisted beliefs.....we had that under Clinton...worked out well, didnt it.

What's this sitting down over tea thing? By forward thinking, I mean just what that means. Instead of reacting to things as they come - energy crisis, global warming, terrorism, financial crisis etc. we have people in charge who are going to do something about our future instead of concentrating on right now - that's no way to run a global superpower in an age of uncertainty.
Yeah, I expect our leaders to be able to sit down with other leaders (really, who said sitting down with terrorists?) and figuring it out. What do you want them to do? Walk in with guns blazing?

HometownGal
10-10-2008, 04:41 PM
Lol @ all 4 of us.

We don't agree on anything political, Leftoverhard, and that's A-OK. Poopy happens. I just want to commend you on how respectful your posts are, even when disagreeing. :thumbsup::drink:

Leftoverhard
10-10-2008, 04:47 PM
We don't agree on anything political, Leftoverhard, and that's A-OK. Poopy happens. I just want to commend you on how respectful your posts are, even when disagreeing. :thumbsup::drink:


:drink: thanks - respect to you.

Mosca
10-10-2008, 05:01 PM
This is exactly why Rev can not get the answers he wants. I could not disagree more with this post. Now that does'nt mean I will not show respcet to mosca, cause I will because he has shown respect to me. Mosca and myself could probably be friends if we knew each other. Hell my best buddy is a huge dem/lib. I am not cynical. I believe that McCain is best for this country and it would not matter who is on the other side. Why? Because he shares my values and the way government should be ran.

I also wanted to point out one more thing about "intellectualism" Dems always want the smartest guy in the room. Question, ceo of AIG, Lehman bros and Wamu, you think they were the smartest in the room most of the time? That's what I thought. I don't base any of my votes on who is smarter, I base it on who is the BEST.


It might not fit for you... but I refer you to Preacher's "THROW ALL THE BUMS OUT" topic for an example of the attitude.

I have lots of friends who are very conservative, and in my private life I would consider myself a conservative person.

Preacher
10-10-2008, 05:03 PM
Why? What moral obligation? We had sanctions on that country for a long time before we attacked it. We were essentially starving them out. Not Saddam but kids, regular people. Moral obligation my #$$. Sorry LLT. The "obligation" in Iraq was Oil. Power. Paying Debts. Lining pockets. They did that, now they don't know how to get out. It was supposed to be easy.



This is the biggest crock I have heard... and it doesn't stand up to ANY reasonable look.

1. If we went to war for oil, were is our benefit?

2. If we went to war for oil, why is Iraq getting the oil funds, and not the US govt?

3. The left's precious "Haliburton no-bid contract" cry is a farse...

The Center for Public Integrity another public interest group also investigated the purported scandal of the Halliburton "no-bid" contracts. They wrote:

In Iraq, Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root (KBR) has been awarded five contracts worth at least $10.8 billion, including more than $5.6 billion under the U.S. Army's Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP) contract, an omnibus contract that allows the Army to call on KBR for support in all of its field operations. When the Army needs a service performed, it issues a "task order," which lays out specific work requirements under the contract…From 1992 to 1997, KBR held the first LOGCAP contract awarded by the Army, but when it was time to renew the contract, the company lost in the competitive bidding process to DynCorp after the General Accounting Office reported in February 1997 that KBR had overrun its estimated costs in the Balkans by 32 percent (some of which was attributed to an increase in the Army's demands). KBR (obtained) the third LOGCAP contract in December 2001…[I]n November 2002 the Army Corps of Engineers tasked KBR to develop a contingency plan for extinguishing oil well fires in Iraq…[O]n March 24, 2003, the Army Corps announced publicly that KBR had been awarded a contract to restore oil-infrastructure in Iraq, potentially worth $7 billion. The contract KBR received…would eventually include 10 distinct task orders. KBR did not come close to reaching the contract ceiling, billing just over $2.5 billion…The contract was awarded without submission for public bids or congressional notification. In their response to congressional inquiries, Army officials said they determined that extinguishing oil fires fell under the range of services provided under LOGCAP, meaning that KBR could deploy quickly and without additional security clearances. Neither the Center for Public Integrity nor Factcheck.org determined anything sinister about Halliburton’s no-bid" contracts for the Iraq war. Two nonpartisan, nonaligned, public interest organizations have investigated the Halliburton allegations and found them to be specious allegations made for purely political purposes.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.aspx?GUID=9E3BD267-1080-42E8-A6D4-DF446BEA7847

The article is an OP ED... but the references are to unbiased sources...

4. It was a NON-war for oil, opposed by Germany, France, and Russian and also the UN because THEY and the UN Sec. Gens. SON were getting OIL KICK-BACKS.

What Bush did was basically undercut a massive CORRUPTION SCANDAL on the international scale... one where 3 nations and the united nations were taking money from a dictator and allowing the little kids to starve to death... since the kickbacks they were getting were SUPPOSED to go to the oil for food program.

Atlanta Dan
10-10-2008, 05:32 PM
You put words in my mouth, Dan, and I don't appreciate it. Period.

it is virtually impossible to have a civil discussion with you anymore. You resort to a highly condescending retort and immediately put people on the defensive.

When do we leave Iraq? When the military experts who were appointed by the President and Congress feel it is safe for withdrawal and to my knowledge, those experts are not in agreement with Obama's timetable for troop withdrawal. I trust their judgment far more than an unknown, do-nothing Senator from Illinois who never served his country.

I give up :wave:

I laid off from here for a month and find what we are seeing at McCain-Palin rallies this week to have permeated this board.

I know you regard it as pretty close to the end of the world if Obama wins and tell anyone who supports him to be prepared to "shoulder the blame" that will be coming if anything unfortunate happens on his watch. And I am the one who is not being civil?

Getting civility lessons from you as to how to post on this board is like attending a marital fidelity class at which Bill Clinton is the instructor:wink02: (that wink is your standard sign off so we can know you are just kidding - draw your own conclusions if i am).

Goodbye and good luck

Dino 6 Rings
10-10-2008, 05:48 PM
I don't think it'll be the end of the world if Obama is elected.

Unless he bans the NFL. Then it'll be a freaking problem.

revefsreleets
10-10-2008, 06:02 PM
You guys ruined my thread:banging:

This was SUPPOSED to be...well, NOT this again.

Anyway, I'm gonna try to reel it back in. What IF I say some nice things about Obama? Just to show the guys left of me (not ALL of you, just a FEW of you) that it's possible to see positives and negatives from both camps.

As Tony touched on earlier (and I think I was the first person to state this on the board, albeit a little while back), Obama will give the US cred with some countries where we haven't had it in awhile. Even though he isn't a Muslim, Muslim countries will look on him more favorably than Bush or McCain (or any other WASPy white guy, GOP or Dem, so don't think I'm trying to equate the two or make some other kind of statement). Europe will like him. Unilateral talks with no preconditions will be something we haven't done in awhile.

Preacher
10-10-2008, 06:13 PM
Another serious set of question for the guys on the left.

I know there is a line about war for oil... but can it be logically supported?

1. If we went to war for oil, were is our benefit?

2. If we went to war for oil, why is Iraq getting the oil funds, and not the US govt?

3. The "Haliburton no-bid contract" cry seems to ring a bit hollow in light of the larger context...

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.aspx?GUID=9E3BD267-1080-42E8-A6D4-DF446BEA7847

The article is an OP ED... but the references are to unbiased sources...

4. It was a NON-war for oil, opposed by Germany, France, and Russian and also the UN because THEY and the UN Sec. Gens. SON were getting OIL KICK-BACKS.

What Bush did was basically undercut a massive CORRUPTION SCANDAL on the international scale... one where 3 nations and the united nations were taking money from a dictator and allowing the little kids to starve to death... since the kickbacks they were getting were SUPPOSED to go to the oil for food program.


Sorry about this post....

Rev is right... this thread was supposed to go above that....

so please re-read the post now... as the opening lines changed...

X-Terminator
10-10-2008, 06:29 PM
I give up :wave:

I laid off from here for a month and find what we are seeing at McCain-Palin rallies this week to have permeated this board.

I know you regard it as pretty close to the end of the world if Obama wins and tell anyone who supports him to be prepared to "shoulder the blame" that will be coming if anything unfortunate happens on his watch. And I am the one who is not being civil?

Getting civility lessons from you as to how to post on this board is like attending a marital fidelity class at which Bill Clinton is the instructor:wink02: (that wink is your standard sign off so we can know you are just kidding - draw your own conclusions if i am).

Goodbye and good luck

Really? Where? I don't recall anyone on this board calling Obama a "terrorist" or using racial slurs or calling for him to be murdered. I think if anyone did any of the latter, they would be immediately infracted and likely banned by the very person you are getting your shorts in a wad over, because those are clear COC violations.

HTG doesn't like Obama - in fact, she strongly dislikes him as she has admitted on multiple occasions. So what? I'm not voting for him because I don't trust him and don't agree with him on several key policies, including - you guessed it - terrorism and Iraq. I strongly disagree with a LOT of things that the left stands for. Am I not allowed to feel that way? Is HTG not? She's a very strong-willed person with strong opinions, speaks her mind and pulls no punches. I do the same thing every single day - all you have to do is read the Steelers threads to see that. I say what's on my mind and I'm blunt - just as HTG is. I understand people don't like that, and hey, that's fine. Most people don't like it when someone doesn't pull punches and would rather lay it all on the line so there's absolutely no confusion. You want to tell me what's wrong with that?

BTW, if something happens on Obama's watch, you can bet your last dollar that no one will blame him, not even the conspiracy nuts, and will place the blame firmly at the feet of W, even though this country has not been attacked since 9/11. And hell, why not? Everything else in the world gets blamed on him.

EDIT: Sorry revs, I just couldn't resist. I'll not discuss this subject again and will let the thread get back on track.

revefsreleets
10-10-2008, 06:36 PM
I finally have the answer Dan...I have to break it up into two posts...

Rev - Sorry for the delay in responding

I will preface my response to your specific points by attempting to summarize why I support Obama, which is not based upon unequivocally supporting his position on each issue, and which may place in perspective why I do not rest that support exclusively on the issues you raise. I initially started to support Obama by looking for a credible alternative to Hillary, the defeat of which I regarded as the primary necessity of the 2008 campaign (as Peggy Noonan has written, Obama might lie in office if elected, McCain might lie in office if elected, but Clinton would lie in office if elected). As Charles Krauthammer grudgingly conceded last week, leaving specific issues aside, Obama has a first class intellect and a first class temperament.

As a former Republican who regarded Ronald Reagan as the greatest President in my memory (since Eisenhower gave no speeches on Romper Room I have no memories of Ike), my inclination to vote for the Dems again this cycle (I voted for W in 2000 and Kerry in 2004) was initially based on my admitted rage at the malfeasance of the Bush Administration. Regular posters here know of my views on such subjects as: 1) Cheney and Addington (I now am not sure W really knew) using the NSA to conduct telecommunications monitoring in a manner that at one point was going to result in the en masse resignation of senior officials at DOJ from Ashcroft on down; 2) the botched Iraq war; 3) conducting the war on terror in a manner that has repeatedly been smacked down by the Supreme Court and used “enhanced interrogation techniques” (torture is the non-Orwellian term for the practice) that has degraded the image of America at a time where our declining economic pre-eminence requires cooperating with other nations; and 4) a feckless domestic policy that lacked any coherent effort to bring revenues and expenditure in to some sort of balance while using the mantra of deregulation to help drive us to the current economic precipice

But aren't you more acting out against W by this stance then actually crediting Obama with anything?

Moreover, as the Gipper said about leaving the Dems, I have come to the conclusion I did not leave the Republican party - the Republican party left me. A party of limited government and fiscal responsibility has devolved into the party of the unitary executive and profligate deficits

The ONLY reason I'm a Republican is superior fiscal policy (my social policies run almost right in line with the Democratic platform) and their attitude towards military power. It's what I cling to. I think the last 8 was an anomaly, not a sea change. What McCain said that struck me the most was "Spending Freeze". Those words are NOT spoken in Washington, but he said them. That's what I want to hear. I want to hear spending freeze, then I want to hear spending cuts. I want to hear smaller government. I want to hear those things and I want to see them. Do you think Barrack Obama will shrink the government? Do you think he'll reverse the deficits? How? Even if he ends the War, his own spending plans outstrips his tax increases by (conservatively) 281 billion, and that's if everything goes according to plan (Ask Dwight Eisenhower about plans). So we automatically INCREASE the deficit by 281 bil even after we stop "wasting money" on the war. How is that fiscal responsibility? It's (and I hate to say it, but it fits) tax and spend.

It is simplistic, but political dynasties (McKinley to Hoover/FDR to Johnson/Gipper to W) run out of intellectual energy just as football dynasties run out of talent. Just as big liberal government ran out of gas in the late 1960s, the idea that every problem can be solved by deregulation and lower taxes seems played out to me. Instead, we get whatever McCain is about (it certainly is not about less government in the marketplace if Tuesday’s mortgage bailout scheme is any indication) and Palin is a joke (David Brooks calls her a “fatal cancer to the Republican Party” who appears to scorn ideas entirely, not me) http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_10/015089.php

So as this country faces a need to rebuild both its economy and standing internationally, which will require greater governmental involvement, I think Obama is more likely and better suited to address those challenges, just as Reagan in 1980 was more suited to address the challenges of that time while leaving a dying political movement behind. With that preface, which I do not regard as speculative nonsense, I will attempt to address your specific points.

I was mistaken...you are stating that the government NEEDS to get bigger. Disregard my last statement, but I'm leaving it nonetheless.

1. The military and Iraq - I went to the Obama web site and could not find the section on plans to shrink the military. But as Eisenhower said, military power rests on economic power. When economic power declines, a decline in military power follows, or, as a Paul Kennedy wrote in The Rise and Fall Of the Great Powers, great nations eventually succumb to “imperial overstretch.” It is both good and necessary for a nation to live within its economic means, which includes being able to maintain a military you can afford. At this time, the military is uncertain whether its primary mission for the next several decades is to prepare to eventually face a military peer in China or engage in “nation building” tasks. That mission needs to be resolved, during which time the U.S. cannot buy everything it wants. My assumption is you will see a continuation of what Gates (whom I would like to stay as DoD Secretary if Obama wins) is doing in terms of doing battle with the Air Force over expensive weapons systems of dubious immediate utility such as the F-22 (an admittedly sweet piece of technology).

As for Iraq, the war was based on false pretenses (that does not require any proof W lied - it means the justifications for going in were not true) and the actual plan abysmal in terms of design and execution. When we went over the berm in 2003, nobody plausibly can contend we anticipated still having a major presence in 2009. Since we cannot afford financially to maintain an open-ended major presence, there is no definition as to when “victory” will be achieved, and the Iraqi government wants us out, we are leaving regardless of whether McCain or Obama wins. We have established a government that is more favorable to Iran and enhanced the power of Iran in southwest Asia through the policies of this Administration. But whoever wins will have to deal with those consequences through some policy that will not include remaining in Iraq.

Counter-questions - if you are contending it is in our national interest not to reduce the rate of increase of defense spending, how do we pay for it? If you are contending we should maintain a significant presence in Iraq, how would that work?

I'm saying that military is the ONLY thing we need to maintain spending on, and I don't CARE how we pay for it. We are as vulnerable as we've ever been, and that China/Russian bloc scares the shit out of me. Iraq is already starting to wind down on it's own, and I DO think we can scale back 50% in the next 18 months, and 90% in the next 4 years. But we CANNOT always be fighting the last war. I believe it was Roy Rodgers who said (and I'm doing this off the cuff) that America seems to be the only Country in the World that waits until it's actually IN a War to start really PREPARING for it. That still rings true almost 80 years later, but why?

revefsreleets
10-10-2008, 06:37 PM
2. Tax increases - Tax rates increase and decrease. Ronald Reagan increased taxes numerous times after the 1981 tax cuts in order to take into account unpleasant fiscal realities. The 2001 Bush cuts were predicated upon the assumption the budget was facing a long term surplus and would not be adversely impacted by major tax cuts:

Feb. 24, 2001
President Bush said Saturday that the most important number in the budget he sends to Congress next week is the $5.6 trillion surplus it projects over the next 10 years.
That huge projected surplus provides the underpinning of all the administration's tax-cut and spending plans, Mr. Bush said in his recorded weekly radio address.
"A surplus in tax revenue, after all, means that taxpayers have been overcharged," the president said. "And usually when you've been overcharged, you expect to get something back." The surplus figure "counts more than any other" in the budget,.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/02/24/national/main274334.shtml

The underpinnings for the tax cuts disappeared, the tax cuts did not. As we head into a significant recession, Obama has stated he may delay repeal of the Bush cuts on income above a certain level, but will not extend those cuts beyond their scheduled sunset date.
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/07/obama-recession-could-delay-end-to-bush-tax-cuts/

Restoring tax rates on higher income earners and the capital gains rate (who the hell is going to have capital gains? ) to the rates imposed under Clinton is hardly confiscatory and returns to the rates for a period of the sustained economic growth. As for your contention marginal rates on business taxes will increase, “for the small remaining group of businesses that file corporate taxes, Obama proposes leaving the corporate tax rate at 35 percent. McCain would drop it to 25 percent.” McCain’s crack about Obama taxing small businesses at a higher rate actually seems to be the return to the Clinton level tax rates on individual income discussed above. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/07/eveningnews/main4508167.shtml
It is my understanding Obama would seek to repeal more favorable treatment of offshore profits by U.S. headquartered companies, which arguably encourages U.S. companies to enhance production offshore. http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2008-03-20-corporate-tax-offshoring_N.htm For those that actually pay it, the U.S. corporate tax rate is higher than most other nations. As is the case with defense spending, policies need to be steered toward increasing revenues and reducing expenditures, not the converse.

With regard to the “death tax” I oppose any effort to repeal it. Warren Buffett, everyone’s favorite capitalist these days, states:
"Without the estate tax, you in effect will have an aristocracy of wealth, which means you pass down the ability to command the resources of the nation based on heredity rather than merit," Buffett told the New York Times in 2001. "[Repeal would be like] choosing the 2020 Olympic team by picking the eldest sons of the gold-medal winners in the 2000 Olympics."
http://money.cnn.com/2007/11/13/pf/taxes/buffett_estate_tax/index.htm

The bottom line is that the U.S. needs to not only figure out where to cut the rate of increase in spending but to increases revenues; the assumptions and economic conditions under which the 2001 tax cuts were passed are gone with the wind. Obama proposes certain tax hikes to increase revenue; I support them. McCain apparently will not propose any tax increases and further tax cuts, which IMO represents someone in serious denial about the situation we face

Several things at once there, and remember I'm just doing this off the top of my head...as for tax increases, that's fine. But why lie? Why obfuscate? Obama will either raise taxes on just about everyone who pays them or he won't. His spending plans will go on either way. But Don't TELL me you'll cut my taxes when I know you won't. So he's selling tax increases masquerading as tax cuts. What could be worse? My taxes are high now...they will stay about the same under McCain, and they will go up under Obama. Either that, or the deficit will triple in the next 4 years.

As for lowering the corporate tax to 25%, it at least puts us on a MORE level playing field with countries corporations would be willing to move to. It's a step in the right direction. I want to clarify this: Is it better to collect 25% tax on a thriving company making tons of taxable income, or 35% on a struggling company making very little taxable income or ZERO taxes on a company that pulled up stakes and headed to India?



Counter-questions for you - do you agree with McCain’s position no tax rates should be increased? And if corporate rates should match those of other nations, what is your defense of McCain only proposing cutting the rate for 25% - will that save any jobs or is that just a revenue loser with no economic benefit?

Long day at work and now past midnight - I am attempting to provide serious responses to your serious questions and will follow up with responses to the remaining questions tomorrow.



I do not. Personally, I'm for flat tax, but that's a pipe dream. I would increase tax rates, but I'd use a scalpel, not a chainsaw. Since it's contemporary, if a CEO gets a huge golden parachute, tax it at 60%. There are thousands of common sense examples like that where the government could be smarter about taxing where it should and not taxing where it shouldn't.

fansince'76
10-10-2008, 06:37 PM
I give up :wave:

I laid off from here for a month and find what we are seeing at McCain-Palin rallies this week to have permeated this board.

I know you regard it as pretty close to the end of the world if Obama wins and tell anyone who supports him to be prepared to "shoulder the blame" that will be coming if anything unfortunate happens on his watch. And I am the one who is not being civil?

Getting civility lessons from you as to how to post on this board is like attending a marital fidelity class at which Bill Clinton is the instructor:wink02: (that wink is your standard sign off so we can know you are just kidding - draw your own conclusions if i am).

Goodbye and good luck

Really? Is logging in here almost daily and lurking your definition of "laying off here for a month?" Yeah, we can see everybody who is here at a given time, even folks who have made themselves invisible, but nice try anyway.

And I'm sorry, HTG is absolutely right - you've consistently been very quick with the subtle venom towards ANYBODY who dare questions the "almighty Obama's" position and stance on anything. Not everybody is voting for the guy. Get over it. While you're at it, dismount from the high horse too.

Sorry revs.

HometownGal
10-10-2008, 06:42 PM
Getting civility lessons from you as to how to post on this board is like attending a marital fidelity class at which Bill Clinton is the instructor:wink02: (that wink is your standard sign off so we can know you are just kidding - draw your own conclusions if i am).



As much as it pains me to post this )and it truly does as only a few short weeks ago, I respected you more than just about any other member here), with your last post you have officially earned the logo of the party you are supporting in this election - hands down.

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y250/PhotozOnline/Album%20Two/Democrat_Party_Donkey_Symbol.jpg

C-ya. :wave:

I apologize, revs.

Carry on!

Preacher
10-10-2008, 07:04 PM
Sadly,

it seems Atl Dan's approval numbers are lower than George Bush's right about now, Something tell me that it will be Bush's fault.

Leftoverhard
10-10-2008, 07:05 PM
Really? Is logging in here almost daily and lurking your definition of "laying off here for a month?" Yeah, we can see everybody who is here at a given time, even folks who have made themselves invisible, but nice try anyway.


Whoa, that is low. And as far as your postition goes, that seems almost like misuse of SSI. Why would you have the invisible feature if not to give people an option for privacy?
And not that it matters but he didn't say anything about not coming here. To me, it sounded like he wasn't posting and including himslef in the discussions.

fansince'76
10-10-2008, 07:11 PM
Whoa, that is low. And as far as your postition goes, that seems almost like misuse of SSI. Why would you have the invisible feature if not to give people an option for privacy?

Dude, it's a message board. Get a grip.

Leftoverhard
10-10-2008, 07:19 PM
Dude, it's a message board. Get a grip.

*Trying to find grip* *looking everywhere* *suspiciously missing from this thread* *not my doing*

Texasteel
10-10-2008, 07:21 PM
I give up :wave:

I laid off from here for a month and find what we are seeing at McCain-Palin rallies this week to have permeated this board.

I know you regard it as pretty close to the end of the world if Obama wins and tell anyone who supports him to be prepared to "shoulder the blame" that will be coming if anything unfortunate happens on his watch. And I am the one who is not being civil?

Getting civility lessons from you as to how to post on this board is like attending a marital fidelity class at which Bill Clinton is the instructor:wink02: (that wink is your standard sign off so we can know you are just kidding - draw your own conclusions if i am).

Goodbye and good luck

I have seen you and a couple of other here constantly attact other posters here simply because they do not agree with you opinion, but this post tops them all. You have left all reason and have directly attacted another member of this board. At this point your opinion and thoughts have no value what so ever. In My Opinion, the fact that you were not censored alread shows a great deal of restraint by the moderators.
I would also suggest to the moderators that the political threads on this a Steelers forum has not only out lived its usefulness, but has become very disruptive and divisive.

HometownGal
10-10-2008, 07:25 PM
Whoa, that is low. And as far as your postition goes, that seems almost like misuse of SSI. Why would you have the invisible feature if not to give people an option for privacy?
And not that it matters but he didn't say anything about not coming here. To me, it sounded like he wasn't posting and including himslef in the discussions.

Leftover - here's the deal. Mods have the "invisible feature" so that we can track potential spammers, which, in the past week, has proven to be an invaluable asset considering we've nailed almost 500 of those pesky critters. Everyone's privacy is respected here and you can trust me on that.

I think really, we all need a break from posting in the political threads. Friendships that meant a lot to me (and I'm sure others feel the same way) have been severely compromised over simple differences of opinion which in the long run, isn't going to sway anyone over to the other side. It's time to let it all go and get out there and vote for the candidate you support. :drink:

Preacher
10-10-2008, 07:26 PM
*Trying to find grip* *looking everywhere* *suspiciously missing from this thread* *not my doing*

Let me help you with that!!!

http://www.cyclegear.com/images/offroadacc/moto%20grip%20death%20drip_310x310.jpg


:rofl:

fansince'76
10-10-2008, 07:26 PM
I have seen you and a couple of other here constantly attact other posters here simply because they do not agree with you opinion, but this post tops them all. You have left all reason and have directly attacted another member of this board. At this point your opinion and thoughts have no value what so ever. In My Opinion, the fact that you were not censored alread shows a great deal of restraint by the moderators.
I would also suggest to the moderators that the political threads on this a Steelers forum has not only out lived its usefulness, but has become very disruptive and divisive.

That's generally why I personally stay out of them for the most part. I haven't seen one yet that hasn't devolved into a partisan pissing contest. However, since there hasn't been any spillover into the football forums, and no outright and overt namecalling, we're trying to let them build momentum, peter out and die of their own volition. I just hope things return to normal around here after the election. :hope:

Preacher
10-10-2008, 07:35 PM
That's generally why I personally stay out of them for the most part. I haven't seen one yet that hasn't devolved into a partisan pissing contest. However, since there hasn't been any spillover into the football forums, and no outright and overt namecalling, we're trying to let them build momentum, peter out and die of their own volition. I just hope things return to normal around here after the election. :hope:

You mean the loving, caring, positive attitudes we all have and express to each other in the Steelers threads? :hunch:

:chuckle:

fansince'76
10-10-2008, 07:36 PM
You mean the loving, caring, positive attitudes we all have and express to each other in the Steelers threads? :hunch:

:chuckle:

:buttkick:

:chuckle:

Preacher
10-10-2008, 07:39 PM
:buttkick:

:chuckle:

I thought you'd love that...


by the way, I ever tell you your sig freaks me out? :toofunny:

tony hipchest
10-10-2008, 08:14 PM
i still dont know where this "invisible feature" is.

hell, i just dicovered the "currently active users" feature. about 6 mos ago.

lol it took me half a year to figure out how to read rep, and 2 years to get an avy and my awesome sig. :doh:

Really? Is logging in here almost daily and lurking your definition of "laying off here for a month?" dan was posting in the nfl forum and his name was always in the "active users in the last 24 hours" list.

i wouldnt call it lurking but taking a break from the political bs.

revs, appreciate the intended tone of the thread. :cheers:

unfortunately i cant give the perfect answers, as i share some of the same concerns but hopefully shed some light why one such as myself can cast their ballot guilt free.

i saw the good intentions of the thread and tried to be as honest as possible, and i mean it when i said im trying to look at this as the "greater of 2 goods". perhaps i just need the optimizm due to current world affairs and the economic crisis.

i felt good about regan in 84.
bad about mondale and bush in 88
good about clinton in 92
good about dole and better about clinton in 96.
good about gore in 00.
bad about bush and kerry in 04.
as they stand alone, i feel good about obama and mccain this year. in a toss up, i feel better about the potential cabinet of the left and the message (and pr) it sends to the rest of the world. :noidea:

i cant deny that it may be a leap of faith that defys common logic.

i hope ultimately we will be alright, either way. im kinda waiting a bit to see when this market hits bottom on wall street and buying in big time. i still have confidence.

sometimes you gotta take a risk.

lamberts-lost-tooth
10-11-2008, 09:22 AM
Why? What moral obligation? We had sanctions on that country for a long time before we attacked it. We were essentially starving them out. Not Saddam but kids, regular people. Moral obligation my #$$. Sorry LLT. The "obligation" in Iraq was Oil. Power. Paying Debts. Lining pockets. They did that, now they don't know how to get out. It was supposed to be easy.



Oil....really....and please follow up that wisdom with your idea as to where that glutton of oil that we are taking from Iraq is now at....Seriously, you need to do some homework instead of basing your opinions on soundbytes.

Propoganda. It happens. Where are they now?

That is by far the MOST STUPID thing I have ever seen ANYONE write in here.
So you are proposing that our propaganda machine...rounded up a bunch of citizens...and told them to tear down the Sadaam stature to fool the American people?...you are telling me that the Iraqis who were crying tears of joy over the opportunity to vote for the first time....were all actors for American consumption....Your telling me that all the schools and universities that are now open, the improved medical care that Iraqis now recieve...and the freedoms that they now are able to express are....PROPAGANDA????...Figments of the Military propaganda machine????

...I love seeing you lose more credibility.


Yeah, I expect our leaders to be able to sit down with other leaders (really, who said sitting down with terrorists?) and figuring it out. What do you want them to do? Walk in with guns blazing

Listen Junior...dont put words into my mouth...Debate your lame argument in a different way.
If you are going to use a strawman argument...you may want to first, look it up so you know what it means.... and second not make it so obvious...

Your belief that those who welcomed our soldiers,,,and celebrated the downfall of Sadaam...were part of a "conspiracy".....shows you to be SO FAR LEFT...to be...well...seriously...pretty scary.

sooooo.....since I might be wasting my time on a crazy person....:wave:

Mosca
10-11-2008, 09:30 AM
Just as an aside, John McCain said yesterday that he would feel good about an Obama presidency; that Obama is a good family man and would make a fine president. He just believes that he will make a better one.

Heard it on Larry King, the wife was watching while I was editing pictures on the computer. Not someone quoting him, but McCain himself saying it.

Now, if McCain himself believes that the country will be just fine under Obama, what could any idiot like me on a message board add to that? :hunch:

lamberts-lost-tooth
10-11-2008, 11:45 AM
Just as an aside, John McCain said yesterday that he would feel good about an Obama presidency; that Obama is a good family man and would make a fine president. He just believes that he will make a better one.

Heard it on Larry King, the wife was watching while I was editing pictures on the computer. Not someone quoting him, but McCain himself saying it.

Now, if McCain himself believes that the country will be just fine under Obama, what could any idiot like me on a message board add to that? :hunch:

Obama has tried to divide this country by:

1) Race...remember the Obama rally where he said that he "didnt look like like those other guys on the dollar bills"...and that supposedly the republicans were thinking "oh by the way...he's black".

and by

2) Class....by trying to convince the masses that McCain will take money from the poor to give to the rich.

I think that the "gentleman" in McCain is starting to see the division that is being caused by this election and is putting "country" ahead of the outcome.

I think he will fight until the end....but he wants to put the "right" at ease....wouldnt it be nice if the other side did the same?

Mosca
10-11-2008, 12:32 PM
I think that's just your insecurity showing. If you step back, you'll probably feel just as good as I did in January of 2001. And we can see how well that worked out!

Wouldn't a 180* turn around be great?

lamberts-lost-tooth
10-11-2008, 12:48 PM
I think that's just your insecurity showing. If you step back, you'll probably feel just as good as I did in January of 2001. And we can see how well that worked out!

Wouldn't a 180* turn around be great?

Have you been drinking?....I have no idea what you are talking about.

Please feel free to talk outside of vague responses.

Leftoverhard
10-11-2008, 01:19 PM
Have you been drinking?....I have no idea what you are talking about.

Please feel free to talk outside of vague responses.

I got it. Yes it would be excellent.

Leftoverhard
10-11-2008, 01:22 PM
Oil....really....and please follow up that wisdom with your idea as to where that glutton of oil that we are taking from Iraq is now at....Seriously, you need to do some homework instead of basing your opinions on soundbytes.
That was then, this is now. You may have noticed the war was declared over by Pres. Bush about 5 years ago. Things were supposed to go differently - not a conspiracy - oil was def part of the big picture. I'm arguing someone with a selective memory and didn't realize I had to go back and detail every little thing. And I won't.


That is by far the MOST STUPID thing I have ever seen ANYONE write in here.
So you are proposing that our propaganda machine...rounded up a bunch of citizens...and told them to tear down the Sadaam stature to fool the American people?...you are telling me that the Iraqis who were crying tears of joy over the opportunity to vote for the first time....were all actors for American consumption....Your telling me that all the schools and universities that are now open, the improved medical care that Iraqis now recieve...and the freedoms that they now are able to express are....PROPAGANDA????...Figments of the Military propaganda machine????

Hmm. Do you know anything about propaganda? Do you think it's just other countries that use it? Probably just communists. No, it's used all the time, sometimes blatantly like the "toppling of the statue." That was definately staged - not neccesarily made-up but it was helped along. Again - no conspiracy there. But important to realize that wasn't the spontaneous event it appeared to be. Were there actual Iraqis there? Yes. Were there as many as they made it look like? No. Remember Jessica Lynch? Do I have to go over that with ou or do you know about how she doesn't even back up that clearly bogus rescue operation anymore?
Were some Iraqis happy that we came? Of course they were. Are you saying that they're all pleased as punch about it now? I mean really, what are you saying? Where are your facts - or am I just supposed to take your word for everything you say?

...I love seeing you lose more credibility.
You're kinda angry, eh?

Listen Junior...dont put words into my mouth...Debate your lame argument in a different way.
If you are going to use a strawman argument...you may want to first, look it up so you know what it means.... and second not make it so obvious...

Your belief that those who welcomed our soldiers,,,and celebrated the downfall of Sadaam...were part of a "conspiracy".....shows you to be SO FAR LEFT...to be...well...seriously...pretty scary.

sooooo.....since I might be wasting my time on a crazy person....:wave:

You are wasting your time. I answer revs question about war. You responded (surprise, surprise this thread went off the handle and I ended up defending myself against you)by calling me crazy and junior. Questioning our government/military is our duty as citizens. I will never blindly accept everything I'm told. If that's scary to you, then so be it.

lamberts-lost-tooth
10-11-2008, 02:21 PM
Do you Know anything about propaganda.... it's used all the time, sometimes blatantly like the "toppling of the statue." That was definately staged
... important to realize that wasn't the spontaneous event it appeared to be. Were there actual Iraqis there? Yes. Were there as many as they made it look like? No.


Please show us where you get this incredibly insightful information....

DONT back down now and ignore the request...you made a statement so please show a link or tell us all where to go so that we can all be as equally educated as you are.

Let me make a prediction....YOU WILL NOT be able to show a link or a credible source...this is a conspiracy in your head only and a pathetic attempt to sway people to the left in lieu of any facts.

But by all means...prove me wrong instead of giving the usual..."it wont do any good" post that most flamers use.

pathetic.:doh:

MACH1
10-11-2008, 02:32 PM
Originally Posted by Leftoverhard

Do you Know anything about propaganda.... it's used all the time, sometimes blatantly like the "toppling of the statue." That was definately staged
... important to realize that wasn't the spontaneous event it appeared to be. Were there actual Iraqis there? Yes. Were there as many as they made it look like? No.

They must of been using those nifty Hollywood effects then, right. :doh:

lamberts-lost-tooth
10-11-2008, 02:43 PM
They must of been using those nifty Hollywood effects then, right. :doh:

I thought I saw Brad Pitt in the crowd dressed up like an Iraqi woman....now I get it.

Mosca
10-11-2008, 02:52 PM
They must of been using those nifty Hollywood effects then, right. :doh:

Oh come on. The toppling of the statue being staged is common knowledge.

lamberts-lost-tooth
10-11-2008, 02:54 PM
Whoa, that is low. And as far as your postition goes, that seems almost like misuse of SSI. Why would you have the invisible feature if not to give people an option for privacy?
And not that it matters but he didn't say anything about not coming here. To me, it sounded like he wasn't posting and including himslef in the discussions.

Must be some staged forum conspiracy....dont worry there arent as many moderators as there appears to be...(its all propaganda)

:screwy::checkit:

lamberts-lost-tooth
10-11-2008, 02:55 PM
Oh come on. The toppling of the statue being staged is common knowledge.

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

There was a colonel that thought it was a good idea....and was talking to a tribal leader about it....but it was the iraqi citizens who did it and rejoiced....A LA times article tried to make it look as if we step by step orchastrated the topple....and that post has been picked up by extremists....

No one has ever produced the "army report" that keeps getting brought up.

Too funny

MACH1
10-11-2008, 02:58 PM
Oh come on. The toppling of the statue being staged is common knowledge.

I didn't say it wasn't. :noidea:

tony hipchest
10-11-2008, 03:04 PM
LLT- STFU already.

its obvious you are in complete meltdown mode and hell bent on taking everyone down with you. you have disrespected everyone who tried to give a civil response in this thread and most importantly you have totally disrespected the intentions and requests of the OP.

your rage is becomming irrational and uncontrolable. it seems it goes beyond politics. does obama look exactly like the HS jock who used to beat you up and give you wedgies or something?

you sit atop some moral high ground you are convinced nobody else can reach and its BS. im no saint, but i can atleast apologize, admit if i am wrong and still remain civil with those whom i disagree with. i hope the mods suggest you do the same.

Leftoverhard
10-11-2008, 03:06 PM
Please show us where you get this incredibly insightful information....

There's nothing insightful about this information. It's old news. But here you go.

This is a nice article about propaganda and staged events.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/5277862.stm

Here are a few comments from a few news sources on that particular event.

["The US flag that was put on the face of Saddam yesterday - it was replaced by an Iraqi flag when the people shouted for that - was the flag that was flying over the Pentagon on September 11."--Paul Wood, "9/11 Pentagon Flag Used To Cover Saddam's Face In Baghdad," BBC (Baghdad), April 10, 2003]

["Rather than a spontaneous mass demonstration, the photo clearly shows that only a couple hundred Iraqis participated in the largely empty and heavily guarded Fardus Square. American tanks and troops surrounded the square and one armored vehicle "helped" the Iraqis pull down the statue."--Ivan Eland, "Just Another Staged Baghdad Rally?," Independent Institute, April 12, 2003]

["The scene was marred by the presence of American tanks and soldiers who, before reaching that square to help a few Iraqis topple down the statue, had slaughtered many civilians and left a trace of blood and destruction.

"Alas, tyranny is now replaced with colonialism. Let us not be intoxicated by that image and let it erase the fact that this "liberating" power itself was complicit in propping and supporting Saddam throughout the 1980's when he waged his war against Iran and killed one million Iraqis. All those Iraqis were not worthy of liberation back then, because they were serving another function: fodder for weapons and for containing Khomeini's Iran. I remember seeing Rumsfeld shake hands with our oppressor on Iraqi TV back in the early 1980's and both Bush I and Reagan supplied him with weapons and military intelligence while he was gassing Iraqi Kurds. No wonder it was difficult to topple him without his original sponsors who came uninvited and with ulterior motives that have become painfully obvious by now.

"Yes there were Iraqis cheering and dancing, but that should not be (mis)interpreted as rolling out the red carpet for American tanks. The crowd at Al-Firdaws square was a few hundred and no more. Baghdad is a city of 4.5 million."--Sinan Antoon, "(De)liberation: The paradise promised in Iraq has been lost," Al-Ahram Weekly (Egypt), April 13, 2003]
In a city of 4.5 million, where is everyone? Not saying that no one would want to topple saddam's statue but that this is clearly being staged as a photo op.
http://www.ianmasters.org/images/saddam_statue.jpg


["There was the CIA's man, an Iraqi fixer of the American stooge Ahmad Chalabi, orchestrating that joyous media moment of 'liberation', attended by 'hundreds' - or was it 'dozens'? - of cheering people, with three American tanks neatly guarding the entrances to the media stage. 'Thanks, guys,' said a marine to the BBC's Middle East correspondent in appreciation of the BBC's 'coverage."--John Pilger, "Something deeply corrupt is consuming journalism," April 25, 2003]

[A Reuters long-shot photo of Firdos Square showed that it was nearly empty, ringed by U.S. tanks and marines who had moved in to seal off the square before admitting the Iraqis. A BBC photo sequence of the statue's toppling also showed a sparse crowd of approximately 200 people--much smaller than the demonstrations only nine days later, when thousands of Iraqis took to the streets of Baghdad calling for U.S.-led forces to leave the city.--Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber, "How To Sell a War: The Rendon Group deploys 'perception management' in the war on Iraq," InTheseTimes, August 4, 2003]

I am pointing out the Propaganda here. I understand that sometimes it's neccesary and even honarable(Rosenthal's Iwo Jima)
I also think that in the case of Iraq right now (and 5 years ago) we need the truth, not the other version.

lamberts-lost-tooth
10-11-2008, 03:08 PM
LLT- STFU already.

its obvious you are in complete meltdown mode and hell bent on taking everyone down with you. you have disrespected everyone who tried to give a civil response in this thread and most importantly you have totally disrespected the intentions and requests of the OP.

your rage is becomming irrational and uncontrolable. it seems it goes beyond politics. does obama look exactly like the HS jock who used to beat you up and give you wedgies or something?

you sit atop some moral high ground you are convinced nobody else can reach and its BS. im no saint, but i can atleast apologize, admit if i am wrong and still remain civil with those whom i disagree with. i hope the mods suggest you do the same.

Mad a little about being called out for calling a baby "retarted" Tony???...please show me somewhere were I was as disrespectful as that...

..and If I dont STFU??? ..then what...you get your ass handed to you AGAIN...too bad...know your place. Seriously...what can you do..its a forum...get a life MR. 20,000 posts.

....time to quit lurking and posting comments in my reputation link...or posting after I'm gone....just be a man and listen to your own advise.

Mosca
10-11-2008, 03:28 PM
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

There was a colonel that thought it was a good idea....and was talking to a tribal leader about it....but it was the iraqi citizens who did it and rejoiced....A LA times article tried to make it look as if we step by step orchastrated the topple....and that post has been picked up by extremists....

No one has ever produced the "army report" that keeps getting brought up.

Too funny


Here is the report.

http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/641



July 3, 2004 – An internal Army study of the war in Iraq has confirmed that the infamous toppling of the statue of Saddam Hussein in Firdos Square in central Baghdad on April 9, 2003 was stage-managed by American troops and not a spontaneous reaction by Iraqis. According to the study, a Marine colonel first decided to topple the statue, and an Army psychological operations unit turned the event into a propaganda moment.

At one point during the stunt Marines draped the statue of Saddam Hussein with an American flag. When the crowd reacted negatively to that gesture, the US flag was replaced with a pre-1990 Iraqi flag, missing the words "God is Great," by a sergeant from the psychological operations unit. The Marines brought in cheering Iraqi children in order to make the scene appear authentic, the study said.

Allegations that the event was staged were made in April of last year, mostly by opponents of the war, but were ignored or ridiculed by the US government and most visible media outlets.

lamberts-lost-tooth
10-11-2008, 03:29 PM
Leftoverhard

I have seen that link...I have read those reports...and IF you read the whole article there are some pretty obvious problems with the assumptions made....

#1) because we blocked off the area doesnt mean that we "let a certain amount in"..it could just as easily ahve meant that we kept others away so as to not let a large groups of Iragis congregate in one area....I was in the service and THAT is what I would have done directly after an engagement...i can control 150...not 4.5 million. By limiting the amount of people celebrating in the square...you limit the amount of possible "bad guys" that might sneak into a mob and insite violence.

2) the "staged" event is based on a mysterious "army report" that the LA Times got ahold of. WOW...our military intelligence is so lame that they let propaganda fall into the arms of the world media...hmmmm...wouldnt that take away from its value?

3) Supposedly an army report was generated and found by the LA Times that told how the "propaganda" took place....although it was the 4th Marines...specifically 3rd battallion regiment.... that held the position. (your link actually shows one of the marines putting a flag over the head of the statue)

lamberts-lost-tooth
10-11-2008, 03:29 PM
Here is the report.

http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/641



July 3, 2004 – An internal Army study of the war in Iraq has confirmed that the infamous toppling of the statue of Saddam Hussein in Firdos Square in central Baghdad on April 9, 2003 was stage-managed by American troops and not a spontaneous reaction by Iraqis. According to the study, a Marine colonel first decided to topple the statue, and an Army psychological operations unit turned the event into a propaganda moment.

At one point during the stunt Marines draped the statue of Saddam Hussein with an American flag. When the crowd reacted negatively to that gesture, the US flag was replaced with a pre-1990 Iraqi flag, missing the words "God is Great," by a sergeant from the psychological operations unit. The Marines brought in cheering Iraqi children in order to make the scene appear authentic, the study said.

Allegations that the event was staged were made in April of last year, mostly by opponents of the war, but were ignored or ridiculed by the US government and most visible media outlets.

see last post

Mosca
10-11-2008, 03:54 PM
see last post

So, someone will actually have to have the internal army report in order to convince you? This news story is one year AFTER the sentence that you so helpfully boldfaced. I would imagine that if I produced the actual army report, you would tell me it was fake.

You don't discuss anything. Having a "discussion" with you is like the old Monty Python argument skit. "NO IT ISN'T!"


http://dc.indymedia.org/usermedia/image/6/63998.jpg

Preacher
10-11-2008, 07:26 PM
I am confused....

are you saying that the Iraqi's joy at pulling down the statue of Saddam was faked?

Because personally... I always knew that it took a tank to pull down a statue like that... just like in the USSR.


I guess "propaganda" is where you find it.

revefsreleets
10-11-2008, 10:19 PM
WTF have you guys done to my thread? WTF does any of this inane nonsense have to do with anything?

Jesus, talk about a hijacking...

Mosca
10-11-2008, 11:06 PM
I am confused....

are you saying that the Iraqi's joy at pulling down the statue of Saddam was faked?

Because personally... I always knew that it took a tank to pull down a statue like that... just like in the USSR.


I guess "propaganda" is where you find it.

I guess you can rationalize anything, if you have to see things a certain way for the world to keep making sense.

Mosca
10-11-2008, 11:07 PM
WTF have you guys done to my thread? WTF does any of this inane nonsense have to do with anything?

Jesus, talk about a hijacking...

:laughing: Hey, you gave up on it a while ago, we're just using it as a spare room to spar now...

revefsreleets
10-11-2008, 11:13 PM
:laughing: Hey, you gave up on it a while ago, we're just using it as a spare room to spar now...

I answered Dan's post in earnest...was hoping for more....

tony hipchest
10-11-2008, 11:18 PM
*in the voice of forrest gump*

"sorry i had a fight in your black panther party"

:laughing:

Mosca
10-11-2008, 11:30 PM
I answered Dan's post in earnest...was hoping for more....

I know you asked seriously, and I'm genuinely frustrated that I haven't been able to answer you to your satisfaction; that's why I wrote that perhaps this is the wrong place to ask. I'm not sure if it's because we can't answer it for you, or if it's because we don't understand the question. My only answer has to be that I believe in the message of change. I don't believe it blindly; I like the guy, I like his answers, and I think that he can pull it off.

That being said, I think that the crazies are going to gun him down before his first four years are up. That's why I am so distressed by the campaign rhetoric, but in the end I don't think that it will make any difference; with or without it, I would think the same thing. The crazies reaction to the campaign rhetoric only cements my belief that he will be killed in service to his country.

Preacher
10-11-2008, 11:44 PM
I know you asked seriously, and I'm genuinely frustrated that I haven't been able to answer you to your satisfaction; that's why I wrote that perhaps this is the wrong place to ask. I'm not sure if it's because we can't answer it for you, or if it's because we don't understand the question. My only answer has to be that I believe in the message of change. I don't believe it blindly; I like the guy, I like his answers, and I think that he can pull it off.

That being said, I think that the crazies are going to gun him down before his first four years are up. That's why I am so distressed by the campaign rhetoric, but in the end I don't think that it will make any difference; with or without it, I would think the same thing. The crazies reaction to the campaign rhetoric only cements my belief that he will be killed in service to his country.

Sadly, its going that way.

If it doesn't happen with Obama, it will happen with the next president, no matter the race or party. I was worried about Clinton to small degree, and Bush to a much larger degree. I will be even more worried about Obama.

THAT is my point in the other thread... both parties think they are in the right, and the other is in the wrong... completely. Both parties engage many of the same tactics and in the end, tit for tat is driven to this level of rhetoric.

This whole thing is one reason why I so desperately wanted a Lincoln-Douglas style debate... written out, posted in teh newspapers, rhetoric put aside.

revefsreleets
10-11-2008, 11:48 PM
I know you asked seriously, and I'm genuinely frustrated that I haven't been able to answer you to your satisfaction; that's why I wrote that perhaps this is the wrong place to ask. I'm not sure if it's because we can't answer it for you, or if it's because we don't understand the question. My only answer has to be that I believe in the message of change. I don't believe it blindly; I like the guy, I like his answers, and I think that he can pull it off.

That being said, I think that the crazies are going to gun him down before his first four years are up. That's why I am so distressed by the campaign rhetoric, but in the end I don't think that it will make any difference; with or without it, I would think the same thing. The crazies reaction to the campaign rhetoric only cements my belief that he will be killed in service to his country.

Nobody will be shooting Obama. If the crazies were going to assassinate anyone, OJ would have been dead ten years now.

It's this kind of EXTREMIST view that truly disturbs me. The press is to blame, is my best guess.

But it does put a giant damper on real open dialogue.

tony hipchest
10-11-2008, 11:49 PM
This whole thing is one reason why I so desperately wanted a Lincoln-Douglas style debate... written out, posted in teh newspapers, rhetoric put aside.posted in the fishwraps?

R U RLY SRIUS?

:toofunny:

come join us in the 21st century preach.

:bump:

Preacher
10-11-2008, 11:54 PM
posted in the fishwraps?

R U RLY SRIUS?

:toofunny:

come join us in the 21st century preach.

:bump:


OK....

Posted online!!!

My point is... it isn't about who can have the best sound bite. It is about who, truly, hs the most thoroughly thought out strategy for governing.

I think it would be much healthier for our nation.... and would go a LONG way in breaking down the rhetoric you see today... heck, the rhetoric we are spewing at each other.

tony hipchest
10-12-2008, 12:00 AM
Nobody will be shooting Obama. If the crazies were going to assassinate anyone, OJ would have been dead ten years now.

It's this kind of EXTREMIST view that truly disturbs me. The press is to blame, is my best guess.

But it does put a giant damper on real open dialogue.how can you be so sure? and what about moscas statement is extreme? kennedy, martin luther king jr., john lennon, reagan.....

obama just seems to fit the mold better than OJ (although putting a cap in his ass wouldnt be considered an assassination).

tony hipchest
10-12-2008, 12:02 AM
heck, the rhetoric we are spewing at each other.sorry but i dont "spew".

thank you for finally admitting you do though! :wink02:

:drink:

Preacher
10-12-2008, 12:05 AM
how can you be so sure? and what about moscas statement is extreme? kennedy, martin luther king jr., john lennon, reagan.....

obama just seems to fit the mold better than OJ (although putting a cap in his ass wouldnt be considered an assassination).

I think what bothers me more, is that within the context of Mosca's post... it seems he expect any assasination to be a right-wing crazy.

There are plenty of racists on the left.

There are also plenty of idiots that just want attention.

Mosca... if that ISN"T what you meant... then nevermind. But for some reason, I read that within the penumbra of your post.

revefsreleets
10-12-2008, 12:05 AM
America is made up of lazy dolts now. It's HARD to assassinate a President, and takes some real planning and intellect. ESPECIALLY post 9/11.

The kind of backwards redneck hillbilly POS who would try and knock off Obama would most likely shoot himself in the head while trying to load his gun in the middle of a meth binge. This is not the kind of guy who would be able to penetrate SS security to get off a shot.

Things have changed a lot since 63 and 81.

Preacher
10-12-2008, 12:15 AM
America is made up of lazy dolts now. It's HARD to assassinate a President, and takes some real planning and intellect. ESPECIALLY post 9/11.

The kind of backwards redneck hillbilly POS who would try and knock off Obama would most likely shoot himself in the head while trying to load his gun in the middle of a meth binge. This is not the kind of guy who would be able to penetrate SS security to get off a shot.

Things have changed a lot since 63 and 81.

:doh:

I am not sure if I should be happy for that truth, or sad that we have sunk to that level...

:hunch:

augustashark
10-12-2008, 12:19 AM
America is made up of lazy dolts now. It's HARD to assassinate a President, and takes some real planning and intellect. ESPECIALLY post 9/11.

The kind of backwards redneck hillbilly POS who would try and knock off Obama would most likely shoot himself in the head while trying to load his gun in the middle of a meth binge. This is not the kind of guy who would be able to penetrate SS security to get off a shot.

Things have changed a lot since 63 and 81.

i agree. My thought is that the SS thought when Reagan was elected no one would really try. I mean who would want to kill Reagan. With O, the SS will be on the highest alert from day one. It would almost take some sort of miracle for someone to get that close.

lamberts-lost-tooth
10-12-2008, 09:19 AM
Lets see..LA Times or the Military?....which one are you going to believe?...thats the REAL point here isnt it

Discussing with the libs on this board is like eves-dropping on a bunch of junior high school girls at a slumber party....wait...no....my 13 year old daughter has more common sense and compassion than those who wish to call infants "retarted"....(but yea, Mosca, its US who are unreasonable...right? You want to sleep with the dogs?...youre gonna get fleas.)

but..HEY!! You MUST be right...you found something on the internet to back up your argument.......and if you can find it on the internet it must be true!!!!!!!!!

Well...Here is a link to a story that says Obama is a Muslim:
http://www.usvetdsp.com/dec06/obama_muslim.htm

Here is a linkto a story that says vampires are real:
http://www.earthspirit.org/fireheart/fhvampire.html

Here is a link that tells how the illuminati is taking over the world:
http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/

...and Here is a link that tells how a Waiter/Busboy is losing credibility on a football forum:
http:/www.CheeselostHisMindOverAnElection.com

Leftoverhard
10-12-2008, 01:27 PM
Discussing with the libs on this board is like eves-dropping on a bunch of junior high school girls at a slumber party....

Some of the conservatives on this board actually attempt to discuss things.
This is more you.
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/4ynNApX3mVM&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/4ynNApX3mVM&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

lamberts-lost-tooth
10-12-2008, 01:29 PM
originally posted by Leftoverhard
Some of the conservatives on this board actually attempt to discuss things.


You did see the link to the illuminati taking over the world...didnt you?

That was for you....enjoy the reading.:laughing::laughing:

Leftoverhard
10-12-2008, 01:40 PM
i agree. My thought is that the SS thought when Reagan was elected no one would really try. I mean who would want to kill Reagan. With O, the SS will be on the highest alert from day one. It would almost take some sort of miracle for someone to get that close.

I think there's a pretty good reason the Secret Service doesn't ever refer to itself as the SS for any purpose...Not trying to be a jerk but the two should not be confused.

As far as what you're saying here, Reagan was not a saint (although I think Nancy is) It's a myth that he wasn't a polarizing figure. Every President is always at risk.

Mosca
10-12-2008, 01:47 PM
Lets see..LA Times or the Military?....which one are you going to believe?...thats the REAL point here isnt it

LOL... YOU are going to believe that your government doesn't lie to you... and you call ME naive? You don't think the press can get hold of an Army report? You think they would FALSIFY it? Why would they? Better yet... why is there no Army or government rebuttal of the report dated AFTER April 2004? Why did they deny it a year earlier, but not after the LA Times got a copy of the army report? "Who you gonna believe--the government, or your lyin' eyes?"

News flash: your government has a vested interest in you not questioning them. If you question them, they can't control you as well.

Like I said, you don't discuss things; you are the quintessential Monty Python argument skit, but in real life. Remind me again, how god put the fossils here to mislead us.

tony hipchest
10-12-2008, 01:54 PM
wow. someones really flying off the deep end.

revs, augusta, i certainly hope youre right that america is too dumbed down and the SS is too on guard for another assasination attempt.

i just hope obama doesnt ever need extra outside security in the illinois area. LLT seems like a pretty bright guy. :scratchchin:

:wink: :laughing:

lamberts-lost-tooth
10-12-2008, 01:57 PM
LOL... YOU are going to believe that your government doesn't lie to you... and you call ME naive? You don't think the press can get hold of an Army report? You think they would FALSIFY it? Why would they? Better yet... why is there no Army or government rebuttal of the report dated AFTER April 2004? Why did they deny it a year earlier, but not after the LA Times got a copy of the army report? "Who you gonna believe--the government, or your lyin' eyes?"

Like I said, you don't discuss things; you are the quintessential Monty Python argument skit, but in real life. Remind me again, how god put the fossils here to mislead us.

Good Lord...you may want to read the Illuminati post also!!!!!

If given the opportunity to pick between the Liberal media and the Military...Yea..I will pick the Military.

You say I dont discuss the topic?...Mosca, where is your answer to the fact that YOUR OWN THREADS show that it is a U.S. MARINES company that blocked off that area and were in fact the ones that are shown in the photos...yet the LA Times kept saying that it was a US Army report...(You do know there is a difference...right?) And since the Times posted the article..it would be incumbant upon THEM to no produce this damning piece of evidence...WHICH THEY NEVER DID.

NO PROOF?...and you still stick with the media?


you ask... You don't think the press can get hold of an Army report? You think they would FALSIFY it?

I dont know Mosca...would you like an example?....how about Dan Rather?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35531-2004Sep20.html

lamberts-lost-tooth
10-12-2008, 02:02 PM
i just hope obama doesnt ever need extra outside security in the illinois area. LLT seems like a pretty bright guy. :scratchchin:



Your obsession is showing Tony....Following people around in posts is very...LITP of you...guess thats an easy way to get up to 20,000 in a post count...

and...I'm sorry this is a legitimate discussion...not for people whos political expertice stops at calling babys retarted..or 17 year old girls who*es....

...you may go now and let the big boys play.
:wave:

Mosca
10-12-2008, 02:04 PM
Good Lord...you may want to read the Illuminati post also!!!!!

If given the opportunity to pick between the Liberal media and the Military...Yea..I will pick the Military.

You say I dont discuss the topic?...Mosca, where is your answer to the fact that YOUR OWN THREADS show that it is a U.S. MARINES company that blocked off that area and were in fact the ones that are shown in the photos...yet the LA Times kept saying that it was a US Army report...(You do know there is a difference...right?) And since the Times posted the article..it would be incumbant upon THEM to no produce this damning piece of evidence...WHICH THEY NEVER DID.

NO PROOF?...and you still stick with the media?


you ask...

I dont know Mosca...would you like an example?....how about Dan Rather?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35531-2004Sep20.html



So, an army report can't mention the Marines? Do they have to say it this way... "The US M******s?"

tony hipchest
10-12-2008, 02:13 PM
Your obsession is showing Tony....Following people around in posts is very...LITP of you...guess thats an easy way to get up to 20,000 in a post count...

and...I'm sorry this is a legitimate discussion...not for people whos political expertice stops at calling babys retarted..or 17 year old girls who*es....

...you may go now and let the big boys play.
:wave:

http://forums.steelersfever.com/showthread.php?t=27015

lamberts-lost-tooth
10-12-2008, 02:17 PM
So, an army report can't mention the Marines? Do they have to say it this way... "The US M******s?"

Noticed you ignored the Dan Rather comment and the fact that the TImes never produced the document...

...and here I thought we were going to have a ligit discussion

But to be fair on my side of this debate...I will be happy to answer your question...when a military unit is involved in certain types of operations... it is the duty of the company commander to write a report...this report is based on the observations of team leaders...platoon leaders.... platoon NCO's...and personal observation. In the case of several companies of the SAME branch this forwarded up to battallion or brigade level, with each report containing information from all such personel.

WHEN there are multi-branch operations...each branch writes its report SEPERATE of each other so as to get the overall picture of what was going on. These reports are forwarded up and may sometimes be issued into the form of a multi-branch report....NOT an Army report.

There are SERIOUS reasons to think this document never existed.

lamberts-lost-tooth
10-12-2008, 02:18 PM
http://forums.steelersfever.com/showthread.php?t=27015

LMAO...pot meet kettle.

xfl2001fan
10-12-2008, 02:26 PM
LLT,

How many times are you going to bring up something Tony said once? I don't know about everyone else, but it seems like a majority of your posts directed at him refer to that one particular incident...and it's getting old. It has no bearing on the current discussion and even less to do with the OP. I am enjoying a lot of the stuff that is OP related...but don't really want to filter through the rest of the hijacked stuff.

I agree with revs here in a lot of this...I think McCain is done, though it won't change my vote. I'd like for someone from the other side to give me some better insight than what I've been given to this point. It's hard to get that insight, when the thread is hijacked.

lamberts-lost-tooth
10-12-2008, 02:37 PM
LLT,

How many times are you going to bring up something Tony said once? I don't know about everyone else, but it seems like a majority of your posts directed at him refer to that one particular incident...and it's getting old. It has no bearing on the current discussion and even less to do with the OP. I am enjoying a lot of the stuff that is OP related...but don't really want to filter through the rest of the hijacked stuff.

I agree with revs here in a lot of this...I think McCain is done, though it won't change my vote. I'd like for someone from the other side to give me some better insight than what I've been given to this point. It's hard to get that insight, when the thread is hijacked.

Sorry...but that has been the extent of his political discussion...I have yet to find one well thought of post of his that I can discuss with him...so when HE wishes to bring up some slanted point of view I am happy to remind him of the pinnacle of his knowledge.

Besides he bugs the crap out of him.

I am sorry if it bothers you because I would be MORE than happy to call a truce and have all the members in here go back to legitimate discussion instead of the constant "Palins daughter is a W*ore" ...Palins Husband belongs to extremist group"...

But since he has picked his weapon of choice and continues with the low-minded attacks...I am happy to hand his ass until he learns to play with the adults.

xfl2001fan
10-12-2008, 02:40 PM
But since he has picked his weapon of choice and continues with the low-minded attacks...I am happy to hand his ass until he learns to play with the adults.

Sooo...to get him to act/post like an adult...you use...childish tactics? I'm just trying to see the logic here.

fansince'76
10-12-2008, 02:41 PM
LLT, Tony - I think you BOTH need to back up and step away. I don't want to have to start handing out infractions and locking threads, so please don't push me to that point. Thanks.

lamberts-lost-tooth
10-12-2008, 02:45 PM
Sooo...to get him to act/post like an adult...you use...childish tactics? I'm just trying to see the logic here.

As I said ...He wishes to pick the weapons..I simply use what he gives me....You ahve my permission to ask him why he choices that tactic and why he thinks others wont return in like manner.

But let me make myself clear....I personally HATE all the Flaming that goes on right now....and I tinnk other than a select few...most think it is taking away from this forum...

You do raise a good point and I will post a thread with this in mind.

Leftoverhard
10-12-2008, 03:09 PM
LLT- I know you're frustrated because no one has answered you on the whole why would the Army write a report on something the Marines did. I just want to clear it up for you. Army Psy-Ops took over the operation. Marines were still used. Psy Ops from both Marines Or Army can be involved and write reports on anything. This isn't a conspiracy theory. It's not even that big of a deal usually, except when it's done to pull the wool over us American citizen's eyes.

This post is still tied to my original post answering revs first question on war. *See my first post in this thread predicting things getting out of control and playing defense*.

lamberts-lost-tooth
10-12-2008, 03:28 PM
LLT- I know you're frustrated because no one has answered you on the whole why would the Army write a report on something the Marines did. I just want to clear it up for you. Army Psy-Ops took over the operation. Marines were still used. Psy Ops from both Marines Or Army can be involved and write reports on anything. This isn't a conspiracy theory. It's not even that big of a deal usually, except when it's done to pull the wool over us American citizen's eyes.

This post is still tied to my original post answering revs first question on war. *See my first post in this thread predicting things getting out of control and playing defense*.

I respectfully disagree...Psy-ops never comes in after the fact and takes over an oepration..By there very nature Psy ops is generally "pre-planned"...not always..but generally...

...and If Army Psyops "took over" after the fact....how was wat they did before they arrived..."propaganda"?

Do you see where I am coming from at all?

This "report" surfaced in 2004 and was dismissed by the military..other news agencies asked for copies of the report which the Times couldnt (wouldnt?) produce and it was pretty much dismissed except when someone wants to pull the old times article off the shelf to make a point that our soldiers were NOT cheered or welcomed upon arriving in Iraq.

Bottom line is that some of us want to believe that our Military pulled the wool over our eyes...and some of us want to believe that the news agencies are not beyond "creating" news...such as the forged documents in the Dan Rather scandal.

Either way...noone is going to change anyones mind.

If I came down hard on you earlier..i do apologize.

Leftoverhard
10-12-2008, 03:41 PM
If I came down hard on you earlier..i do apologize.

:hatsoff: