Toe, you're turning into incoherent babble.  Try and focus, you are all over the place.


out.

I  "took the time" , Mr UC- The point should be obvious to you both
If not- you are more obtuse than you think.

one word: hypocricsy.

now, get over all the nonsense and speak to the issues.

Yeah Toe, can I post a few sermons from OBAMA'S PERSONAL Pastor?

Thought not.

Think it through be4 u post pal.


out.

your point Toe? Use that same analysis with Obama, puhlease.  You are worse than me honey.

of current preachers and terrorists:

 Oct. 13, 2008

DAVENPORT, IA (KSLA) - The pastor who delivered a prayer for a John McCain rally in Iowa appeared to call on God to keep Barack Obama from becoming president.
Rev. Arnold Conrad spoke before Senator McCain appeared at the morning rally in Davenport's Convention Center.
Conrad began his invocation by saying that the Lord's reputation is involved in everything that happens between now and November.
He went on to say that people all over the world are praying to their God for an Obama victory, and that if Obama wins the Lord's reputation would be harmed.
 
"...and Lord I pray that you would guard your own reputation because they're going to think that their God is bigger than you, if that happens."
McCain did not comment about the prayer either during the rally or afterward.
During the same period that Bill Ayers was a member of the Weather Underground, Gordon Liddy was making plans to firebomb a Washington think tank, assassinate a prominent journalist, undertake the Watergate burglary, break into the office of Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist, and kidnap anti-war protesters at the 1972 Republican convention.
Re: Liddy's "continued success and adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great:" Did McCain mean to include Liddy's instructions to listeners of his radio show in 1994 (around the time Ayres and Obama were on a board together discussing education programs and other plots) on how to shoot Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms agents (aim for the head)?
If ATF agents attempt to curtail a citizen's gun ownership, Liddy counseled, "Well, if the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms comes to disarm you and they are bearing arms, resist them with arms. Go for a head shot; they're going to be wearing bulletproof vests."
More recently, Liddy explained making the Clintons objects of shooting practice: "I did relate that on the 4th of July of last year, when I and my family and some friends were out firing away at a properly-constructed rifle range and we ran out of targets, and so we - I drew some stick figure targets and I thought we ought to give them names. So I named them Bill and Hillary, thought it might improve my aim. It didn't. My aim is good anyway. Now, having said that, I accept no responsibility for somebody shooting up the White House."

.... hmmmm....








....
In 1998, Liddy gave a fundraiser in his Scottsdale, Arizona home for McCain's senatorial re-election campaign -- the two posed for photographs together; and as recently as May, 2007, as a presidential candidate, McCain was a guest on Liddy's syndicated radio show. Inexplicably, McCain heaped praise on his host's values. During the segment, McCain said he was "proud" of Liddy, and praised Liddy's "adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great."

It's not surprising of the company that wishes OBAMA well (PUTIN, CHAVEZ,CASTRO, KIM JONG,  IRAN etc.).  They sense his weakness as a shark senses a wounded fish.

As for Europe and Canada, well, let's just say that LIBERALS are under the FALSE assumption that there is some kind of world wide LOVE FEST going on in the world, and we're not invited!  Let me dispel that myth right now.  Without a strong US presence in global affairs with the MILITARY to back it up, there wouldn't even be a Europe today. 

Europe wishes OBAMA well because it will be good for THEM, not US!!  DOH!!  Of course they think the military umbrella which allows them to think they are independent, will remain.  OBAMA plans to GUT the MILITARY, scrap the NUCLEAR DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM!!  FFS!!  What a NOOB!! 

Yah, i feel much safer, thanks.

It's a competition folks, and your false wishes and belief systems should be checked at the door, it  will only hurt you.  And us.

Putin says he will conquer another country in OBAMA'S honor if he is elected.  That's nice.  Pass the crumpets please?


out.

some real wing nuts here

How our adversaries perceive us matters because it influences their behavior. With respect to their view of Sen. Obama, they are more likely to take provocative actions that run orthogonal to U.S. interests. That is a problem for Sen. Obama.

I do not believe that people do not question Obama’s ties with terrorist organization. Apparently, Hamas, Castro and Other Crackpots want Obama to become president so the U.S. will stop spending money to fight terrorist worldwide. Obama loyalties are not in favor of the U.S. or its citizens.

Of course it's unamerican, hh, if you don't support the troops you're a terrorist just like hussein osama.

jon, honestly? your complaint with our complaints is that if we weren't at war, all that money (the millions each day) would all go to farmers? are you an idiot? wow, a couple farmers make a million a year. so clearly, we're gonna send them billions a year, just for fun! nice! i hate barack hussein osama! woohoo! his name sounds like two different terrorists, which makes him DOUBLE the terrorist!

†

You know whats crushing the morale of the troops? When someone like John McCain says "its not too important" when the troops come home. Thats crushing morale of the troops. Not when the war is being debated. According to that logic. Anytime we are in military conflict, it is unamerican to oppose or be against the position of the government. WHAT? that makes no sense men, and you all know it.

"At least person B is honest. That I can appreciate. Person A is a manipulative politician, and should be excoriated from their position at the earliest juncture available. If you voted for it, then stick with it. It's called CONVICTION. It's called DUTY. I know these phrases are unfamiliar to liberals so feel free to look them up."

There's nothing wrong with being a pacifist because you are one and it's your belief. But the point is there. Don't send troops out then crush their morale and embolden the enemy. Things in Iraq are going quite well right now: in fact, the rate of US soldier deaths is far lower than Los Angeles or Detroit. It IS costing us a lot of money; but do you think that money WOULDN'T be spent anyway? I'd rather it NOT go to some rich farmers (thank you Obama Hussein for supporting that bloated bill) that already make $1 million per year. A few soldiers are risking their lives? They signed up for that. It's better than when I end up in Oakland, CA and am risking my life despite the police officers getting paid $150k to not patrol the streets (sfgate.com).

First of all, sorry for my absence, I know you guys missed me.

Second, Heathehater you plagiaristic jerk, you used my hypothetical situation (the Canada one)! Bah, I've been using that one for months and you know it!

Third, the very notion of "supporting our troops" is a gray area in itself, since the definition varies depending on the person you ask. If you ask me, I'd say you can support the troops and simultaneously denounce the war. If you ask our fearless yet fearful president, he'll tell you if you don't support both the troops and the war, you're a terrorist and he'll buy you a plane ticket to go check out Gitmo.

However, I will say this. If you vote to extend rights and supplies to our troops--which is, as HH said, supporting the troops--you are, in essence, fueling the war. Granted, if you don't, you could be signing our troops' death certificates, but technically speaking, you would be supporting the war, since you are supporting the perpetuation of it. That's not to say you can't disagree with why we are fighting, and it's not to say you're perpetuating it long-term, but by the definition of support, that is supporting the war effort. Technically.

But I talk to argue. You can support the troops and not the war, Hoboboh. It's not black and white, as you claim.

†

@ Heathen Hater,

You said: He gives the troops everything they need, just does not support the cause they are fighting for. This person SUPPORTS THE TROOPS but DOES NOT SUPPORT THE WAR.

If you do not support the cause, then you are NOT giving the troops everything they need. if you voted FOR the war and then you slink backward because the going gets tough, you should not be representing the United States of America at all.

Here's a scenario for you that might open your closed little mind as well. It's 1942, the US troops are not getting the best equipment they need to win the war (they weren't). Soldiers are dying in antiquated airplanes, tanks are proving ineffective against the mighty Panzer German tank (all true). According to you the proper procedure would be to quit the war to save the troops. Uh huh, can you speak German? You probably don't because we didn't quit, no matter the odds.
Oh enemy, can we have a time out? We have some better equipment coming shortly and we'd like to wait a bit. Uh huh..... sure you can.

The very reason we have troops is so they will bear the brunt of war so our civil population doesn't have to. When our civilian population is attacked, the tiger had better come out of the cage pal. And not to just get its nails trimmed by Congress years later when they think it will be to their own advantage politically to hand the United States a defeat. I'd like to say this has never happened but it has. Vietnam was botched by the Dem's and they have never gotten over it. Millions died at their hands. MILLIONS!! Of course the media won't talk about it (since they helped a great deal), and the Dem's sure won't either. This is leadership? I think not.

When you enter into a war, you enter to WIN that war. End of story. Anything else is cowardice. Once you are in it, you FINISH it. That;s one of the greatest diplomatic tools we have. Do not attack or induce the US war machine to line up outside your border. Once engaged, we do not stop until VICTORY. Unless the Dem's are in charge, then you can just wait us out and you will claim victory and the level of animosity gets to grow into a greater level of danger.

At least person B is honest. That I can appreciate. Person A is a manipulative politician, and should be excoriated from their position at the earliest juncture available. If you voted for it, then stick with it. It's called CONVICTION. It's called DUTY. I know these phrases are unfamiliar to liberals so feel free to look them up.


out.

wow HOBOBOH,

NICE!

How about this situation. It may blow your tiny little closed mind.

Person A does not agree with the Iraq war. Said person does not think it is right to be over there. Person A is in the legislature. If they could, they would vote to bring the troops home. If it is a matter of giving the troops the best supplies and the best gear, that person would always support that. He gives the troops everything they need, just does not support the cause they are fighting for. This person SUPPORTS THE TROOPS but DOES NOT SUPPORT THE WAR.

Person B also does not agree with the war in Iraq. But instead of voting to give the troops everything they deserve and need to fight, said person does not vote for funding resolutions because he thinks his cause of ending the war is more important than the troops. This person DOES NOT SUPPORT THE TROOPS or the THE WAR.

Person A did what you said is impossible.

Next Time Big Guy

"On the contrary, it is a shining example of what happens when you decide to take on the United States of America."

Who decided to take us on? We invaded and occupied their countries.

What would you do, as an average citizen, if your country were invaded?

First of all, you are NOT qualified to believe in anything legal or just, unless you are in the inner workings of top level security committees. Let's just say, you can have any opinion you wish, but when it comes to demoralizing our troops and telling them they are in a hollow war whilst hollow points are heading in their direction is a despicable way to exhibit your beliefs. You want to get a placard and stand on the corner, that's your right. Just don't bullsh*t me that you support the troops. Spare us the hystrionics of it all please. No one belives you anyway. It's about beliefs, right?

out.

HOBOBOH,

Why is it impossible to support the troops if you dont support the war? I do not believe the war is just and legal. I dont support it. Now seeing that we are there and that our troops are in harms way, I support their safety and safe return home. It isnt that hard of a concept to be against the war but for the troops safety.

§

I can say it because it is a lie, that's why. It is just a turn of words carefully crafted to give mamby pamby's a way to complain without looking COMPLETELY GUTLESS. How does NOT supporting the war, SUPPORT our troops? You sound like a loon to me when you say that. Gosh, maybe if enough of our troops get killed, we can SAVE the rest? Your illogic is palpable and cowardly, yes i said it, cowardly.

Iraqi welfare? Get off of it. NONSENSE is what you spew. We ARE winning in Iraq. We ARE winning in Afghanistan. True they hold POCKETS. That's because they aren't a Nation state and don't have a capital, or else we would have taken it. Got it? Do you understand the nature of guerilla war? They are still alive because they are holed up in the worst sorts of places. I'm sure they are celebrating their conditions, right? If they raise their heads, it comes off. That's how you deal with terrorism. You don't negotiate with them. You kill them. Iraq is NOT stopping us in any ways in Afghanistan, Korea or anywhere else. On the contrary, it is a shining example of what happens when you decide to take on the United States of America.

As for the oil, this is one of the worst sorts of preposterous nonsense that floats around the media, and hence the water cooler. The oil is theirs, no one is stealing it. Of course Saddam was stealing it from his own ppl, but I guess that's ok by liberals. So was the U.N. as well. Hmmm.

6% of the worlds oil reserves are controlled by private investment corporations (think Exxon, BP, Hess). You know, BIG OIL. The rest is controlled by Governments and cartels of Governments (think OPEC). If you want to complain about oil, look no further than your own Government. The fact that the 6% can so efficiently create wealth for themselves AND the Governments is something to be lauded, not scorned. Thank G*D for BIG OIL!! Of course the "evil" oil companies throw a disproportionately high amount of their profits back into R&D is hardly ever reported on.

I laugh out loud when I hear a liberal crow that the high price of oil will bring about new technology to replace fossil fuels. Liberals ARE misinformed. When the price goes UP, so do profits. Consequently R&D goes up as well, leading to more oil and better technology to get at it. There is so much oil out there to still process. The earth just keeps making more too. It's quite a natural process. Alternative fuels still don't make economic sense, even at todays prices.

The newly discovered "BAKKEN" reserve in North Dakota is larger than the Saudi Arabia reserve. It's better quality as well.

If you are a liberal I will assume you are for the environment right? I am anyways. The leading statistic to OIL SPILLS is at the transportation links (think Tankers, think Valdez). With the democratic Congress in charge our imports ( i.e. tankers needed to supply the oil) has gone from 12% in the 70's to 40% today. yes, that is something to be proud of. More tankers floating around waiting to spill. When is the last time the alaskan pipeline has erupted? It's the tankers that are the problem. The more you import, the more tankers there will be. I am for domestic production BECAUSE I AM FOR THE ENVIRONMENT!!

out.

I want everyone to read the posts served up by HOBOBOH. He is laying out the McCain defeat blueprint in exquisite fashion.

There are countless countries around the world who love to get that 700 million dollar check a week from the US. Oh, you're going remove a brutal dictator for us too? And we can keep 100% of our own oil profits? Thank you we will take that. Just one thing though. Don't ask us to make any tangible progress on our own please and if we want to cozy up to Iran, please don't say anything, ok? In Afghanistan, the Taliban CONTROLS pockets of the country. They had the highest poppy yield in history last year. Considering we were giving money to the Taliban as recently as April 2001, this is actually an upgrade for them as well.

Why do "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps" repugs insist that massive Iraqi welfare is somehow "victory." A place like Afghanistan deserves our complete attention. I would say Pakistan too but I realize it is more touchy with them because they are our so-called ally and they have nukes. Our efforts in Iraq make us less able to deal with Iran, N. Korea and Afghanistan.

"YOU CANNOT SUPPORT THE TROOPS WITHOUT SUPPORTING THE WAR."

Who the hell put you in charge of what people can and can not support and how. It's typical, "think what I think or your a communist" BS that repugs throw out there to quiet the argument they can't win. The ultimate support is taking them out of harms way. This was not a preemptive war. This was not a necessary war. This is not even a war at this point. It's our troops babysitting a time bomb. No thank you.

@ Heathenhater

That is a specious argument and you should know it. Look how convoluted you need to make it? So let's see, if we invade a country, we are empowering the enemy. Hmmm? Yah, that's working for Al-Quaeda quite nicely. They are being hunted down and killed in Afghanistan and Iraq as I write this (thanks to the finest fighting machine ever seen).

When a despot (Saddam fits nicely) acts so irresponsibly to the point of the US fleet showing up, you are right. The people get agitated. They might even HANG the despot at the earliest chance.

Al-Quaeda is NOT recruiting anywhere near the numbers from years past. You need to check your facts. America is winning in Iraq and Afghanistan and quite handidly now. Only the democrats will be able to snatch defeat from victory at this point.

When John McCain gets elected and stays the course to VICTORY, the message will be clear. YOU (despots) DO NOT WANT TO BE INVADED BY THE USA MILITARY MACHINE! I mean that's the whole point fellas! Don't you get that simple fact?

Afghanistan is not lost upon the Russians I can tell you that. We went in and did what they could not. Once again the fighting machine of the United States is without equal. This should always be so. Salutations and congratulations to the fine men and women of our armed services, who keep us safe despite our politicians!

By the way let me right a wrong:

YOU CANNOT SUPPORT THE TROOPS WITHOUT SUPPORTING THE WAR.

The two are connected and it is a lie to parse them apart. That one really bugs me. It's cowardly to the maximium.

out.

Actually HOBOBOH, it may be what they want. Full out military conflict and invasion of particular countries upsets the citizens. For instance, lets say we, the United States were not the most powerful country in the world. Lets say Canada was, hahahaha, but just for arguments sake, try to stay with me. Canada gets a couple attacks from capitalist "extremists" that threaten their "socialist democracy." Instead of throwing their intelligence agencies after the terrorists, they invade and occupy the entire USA. Would you not be upset? These countries are sovereign nations, and their citizens dont like to be invaded. All out occupations give Al Quada More recruits. Look at Iraq, Al Quada is getting more recruits. Albeit they cant attack us here, but look at the stir they are causing about the Iraq war, how they are manipulating US support for the war.

So yes, military confrontation may be what they want.

H

@ Norski

YOU SAID: "The latter is not all that crazy. There's a chance that McCain would confront terrorists militarily - and that may be what some of these groups want."

Huh? It's exactly the opposite. There is an old arabic saying, "when a calf falls, a thousand knives come out.". When you have the worlds despots and dictators endorsing your campaign for the Presidency, it's not that they like you. They believe they can control you to their advantage. They see Barack Obama as someone they can deal with. Yes, and that may be true unfortunately, but the dealings will not be to the advantage of the United States I can assure you.
I'll always remember Jimmy Carter saying after his talks with Breshnev, with Breshnev and Carter promising to be buddies and not increase nuclear arsenals. Breshnev saw the weakness firsthand and promptly invaded Afghanistan.
Jimmy was in disbelief and uttered those famous words: "I can't believe he lied to me." Barack is cut from the same cloth. the outcomes will however be far worse than a regional conflict halfway around the globe. America won't have three years to catch up (like we did when Neville Chamberlain gave away the store to the Nazis) as in WW2. You don't get to catch up in a nuclear war. You just don't. The islamic fundamentalists have been telegraphing their intents for a long time now and Barack Obama is deaf to the messages as is the democratic Congress.

On the bright side there has never been a more clear cut choice for the Presidency. While it's an easy choice for America, there has never been an election with more serious and dire outcomes at stake. Even the cold war elections don't measure up to this one

America is either going to elect a military man politician with tons of security experience or America is going to go the other way and elect a calf and the knives will come out.


@Xavier,

Nice try, stick a fork in her, she's done. the party elders can't stand her and as long as Barack Obama is 1 superdelegate ahead, he will win. He carries 90% of the black vote and the dem's have NO hope of winning without it in a general election. Now that's what I call the "Oprah effect". No my misguided poster, she's done. (sizzle) and good riddance too. A nasty couple who have stained our national tapestry long enough. Don't let the door hit you on the way out plz. And don't steal the towels either (remember what they did to the White House when they left in 2000? Pathetic trash people really).


out.

Oh let there be more butter for the Popcorn!

As I have been saying since 2003 folks, Hillary Rhodam Clinton will be our next President. Don't be fooled by what you read in the press or see on TV! Shakespeare wrote, "The world is a stage, and we its players" for a reason!

Lets take some notes! First, Hillary has "SUSPENDED" her campaign. This means, she still holds the delegates. Why would she hold her delegates people? For what reason? If she truly was quitting, there is no logical reason to hold them! And in her speech yesterday, she said "I endorse him and throw my FULL support behind him."

Full Support? Yes, "except for my delegates."

"Children ... will grow up ... OR A WOMAN CAN, YES, BECOME PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES" is what she is saying in this passage.

She is preparing you for, and sending you a subliminal message that she isn't quite finished, and, that we HAVE NOT SEEN THE LAST OF HER JUST YET!

And, as I predicted (Please read my previous posts) the first week of June, they will take the stage and throw their full support and blessings at one another. Exactly as I predicted!

Those of you who know me, and have heard my words "Don't be fooled", know that I have been dead on correct about this to date.


And here, "for which we stand" is a subliminal message where Hillary is basically saying to you she is Standing Firm and is preparing you to be strong while the events unfold before you.

GET ME SOME BUTTER! THE SHOW IS HEATING UP!

And Harry Reid even perks up, basically telling you the complete opposite of what the Democrats have been saying for the past 4 months. Hillary and Obama have totally destroyed the Democratic party. They have ripped it to shreds. And he wants you now to believe that this is how it was planned all along? That this is what was best?

I seem to recall Democratic leaders BEGGING the two to be civil at many times this spring.




HO HUM...and finally, someone had to slip in there that "she has kept her options open" JUST IN CASE "circumstances change" before the convention.

What is going to change? Is Barak all of a sudden going to get tired of politics and quit? Will there be a scandal of "Presidential" proportion? Will there be a terrorist Attack on our soil that changes everything? Perhaps an a-s-s-a-s-s-i-n-a-t-i-o-n?

Pick your favorite event du jour. The Clintons have been planning it for a decade. Do you really think they are going to let Obama into "their" White House? Their Palace? Their "THRONE?"

And finally, Hillary's candor. Wasn't just three months ago when she cried and cried and cried about how important that it was for "her" to be the President? Yet yesterday, not a single, freaking tear. Not a drop. Its as if she wants you to believe that Obama is better than her, and that "he" deserves the White House more than she!

Sit back and watch, my friends. The final episode is about to begin!

For more information about saving your AMERICA, please visit What's Wrong America? by Xavier Holden at http://wwamerica.blogspot.com

I see more of the same predictable blog content from Billy. Isn't this a dated story? Didn't Hamas unendorse Barack already? Does anyone here see or acknowledge that Barack has changed the game? Win or lose in November, his campaign and fund raising tactics will be studied and copied from now on. Yes, win or lose. It has been so innovative that everyone going forward will copy his model. He has changed presidential politics forever. So when I hear these petty arguments against Barack, I laugh. He is not married to past as so many of you are. He's open and willing to try new ways. He is unafraid. Exhibit A, the primary race against Mrs. Inevitable. I've used the comparison before but it is so appropriate, Dick Fosbury. Barack Obama has found a new and better way to get over that bar....no matter how high. Now that you've seen the innovation, if you still want to broad jump, be my guest.

As far as I'm concerned, the Hamas, bin Laden, and whatever endorsements are interesting background noise. Not much more.

I don't think there's any way of telling whether these people and organizations are clueless about American culture, and don't understand what their endorsement can mean to a political candidate; or whether we're looking at moderately sophisticated psychological warfare - and they want McCain to win.

The latter is not all that crazy. There's a chance that McCain would confront terrorists militarily - and that may be what some of these groups want.

Remember, they think Allah is on their side, so they can't lose. Besides, they may believe, with some reason, that more military action will be presented as an indictment on the west and America - at least by American news media.

About Iran and Obama's apparent willingness to have *unconditional* talks with that country's present leader(s), the Iranian president's remarks to the Japanese prime minister show what President Obama would be dealing with (shameless self-promotion: I posted about this yesterday on http://anotherwaronterrorblog.blogspot.com/ ).

I await Billy's response to Toe. Billy, could you also take a minute to summarize your reasons for stating that the Iraq occupation is "necessary". I have been waiting a long time for your explanation. Please help me understand. Thank you.

also to the withe trash short fat uuuuuuugly (walkinghart-stroketank) pursuer at gob library and gob jobagency at weschester

@ likeangel onheaven ,

If you are talking about understanding HeyZues in "comprehension", yes I can. I understand him phonetically. I don't understand his points however.

Then again, I think your post is responding to a different thread altogether, so .... :)


out.

Comment by HeyZues June 6th, 2008 12:05 pm
I am well aware that English is not your native languauge and I have no problem with that at all and I could easily read through and understand simple spelling and grammar errors, etc. But when you say that conservatives can understand you.... I would like to know which ones on this blog can understand you. UC, HOBOBOH, even petunia, any conservatives out there, can you understand what he is saying?......

And how am I pro- terrorist and anti- American? I am against terrorists and I am for America, it doesn't get any simpler than that. (Unless one considers America to be terrorists but then that might make a hole in the universe or something.)

But to be perfectly honest, you are getting more intelligeable as you go, at first I couldnt understand a damn thing you were saying, but now I am starting to understand a few things because you are writing with some coherence.

By the way, what the hell is granma's toiletpaper?

Comment by Rick June 6th, 2008 5:33 pm
For what it's worth, I DO have a problem with Americans that cannot formulate coherent sentences using proper grammar and articulation. While we are one of the few countries in the world that do not support a "national language," I think that our communication, that between the left and right, would be properly served by a commonly understood, English language. If this communication takes the form of written prose, the words must be equally understandable to all parties.
Language diversity is yet another example of how liberals are capitalizing on our differences to perpetuate divisiveness...everyone is created equal, and SHOULD BE TREATED EQUALLY!

Comment by Rick June 6th, 2008 5:38 pm
I do apologize to you UC...we have gone away from the topic. Bringing it back: Shoot or deport all of the celebrities that do not espouse libertarian ideals, and let our economy supply their replacements if they are indeed in demand. It's time to stand strong against the liberal, left-focused media that only wants to divide and conquer our great nation...I grow increasingly nauseous every time I watch television news.

Comment by likeangel onheaven June 7th, 2008 7:32 am
reaganonheaven@stardestroyercolumbus.com.today.... 'name' reports:
I really simply can not believe, a site like this exists...
"I feel secret fire", 'light comes from higher"....
Is like back "those old good days, the battles for heaven under night",
in God we said we depend, thru our "traces of fire" and our friend's...
those tours of duties, for people despear...
facing terror ideal we commited, to defend mother land, father heaven tought her the song...
to sleep baby moon then kill the monster by the lagoon, protection and fun never missed, with the grace and victory never stoped...
neather good news, even from treason, even from some of our own backyard's "pritty" lies, even from beyond enemy lines...
...

First of all, let's blow a MYHTH right out of the water. Kennedy was a weak president and got the "smack down" put on him by the Rooskies, and he knew it. It was this appearance of weakness at the Bilateral talks which gave us NUKES in Cuba.
History looks kindly at JFK for two reasons. First and foremost, he was assassinated. No country should or would smear a fallen president. Second, since the assassination was fairly recent, there are people still around to guard his legacy. This will fall away with time and his presidential image will fall as it should.
So let's hope OBAMA is no Jack Kennedy.

I've got plenty of light to shed upon Barack and AIPAC, but I'll defer to UC and see if I need to write ten paragraphs about it or not. GG.

Thank you for dumbing down the qualifying question. I actually have had some issues with it as well. May I suggest some macro that allows you a second chance to post should the first one not go through. I'm interested to know if anyone else has had similar issues. Overall, however, I like the re-design and new look and feel. The actual content...that's another story.

"I hope Mr. Obama and the Democrats will change the political discourse. I do believe [Obama] is like John Kennedy, a great man with a great principle."

Wow, UC, these guys sound like they're about to blow the shit out of us if Obama gets in! Actually, if that's THE quote you're basing all this on, then you got it backwards. That sounds pretty hopeful to me. Maybe these guys are committing so many crimes because of our foreign policy and our diplomacy with Bush and his predecessors. So if Obama gets in, and these guys start liking us more, wouldn't that make them more likely to negotiate, or calm down, or anything? If I were Hamas, and America got some guy like McCain in the office, who essentially promises to keep waging war on anyone in the Middle East that gives em the stink eye, I'd be much more likely to commit horrible acts against the U.S. and their troops and even the civilians in my area, whereas with Obama, I'd feel like America's finally getting back on track.

In my opinion, you picked the wrong quote to demonstrate how "awful" this is. Furthermore, McCain himself admit that the whole Hamas thing was a misquote that got out of hand and misinterpreted. Oh, but FOX said it.

†

@toe

i dumm'd it down a tad for you since your math skills aren't up to par. : )

I'll address your ranting later this evening.

wouldnt you be happy?

"I hope Mr. Obama and the Democrats will change the political discourse. I do believe [Obama] is like John Kennedy, a great man with a great principle."

If an anonymous person said that about Obama

i beg your pardon for posting twice... your math item for posting seems unable to compute...and would not allow the first post...so it said... but then it flip-flopped... and allowed it...something akin to mc cain i guess...
at any rate... your information in your "late" blog here is outdated and incorrect.
hamas has withdrawn their endorsement of obama... please try to keep up.

an endorsement that obama neither went after nor accepted....just another fact
which you went out of your way to exclude in your rant.

once again, mindless noise from the uninformed indicated by this post title and content...naturally, i fully expect you to disregard these words disproving your statements ...just as i expect you, mr. uc, to claim that these are not your words.. you placed them, you endorse them and therefore... own them.

now for the facts:

Obama’s speech to AIPAC on Wednesday was a disappointment, if not a shock, to Hamas, a group considered a terrorist organization by the United States. Hamas, in the past, has expressed support for Obama – support that Obama has rejected.

"We must isolate Hamas unless they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel's right to exist and abide by past agreements," Obama said yesterday, basically echoing the demands of the Mideast Quartet – the United States, Russia, the European Union, and the United Nations – which are involved in mediating the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. "There is no room for terrorist organizations," Obama added.
http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/06/...

mr. uc , like mc cain, you live in a cold war mentality... the world is swiftly moving along without you. frankly, i don't really care if you wish to live in a backwards state of mind... but the fact that you wish to drag others down to your level of ignorance through misrepresentation of the facts, inuendo, and stupidity....the fact that you have the audacity to call some people uninformed because they don't hold your same view while placing crap like this on your blog as if it was true...when it clearly is NOT... is shameful. why you continue to wave rubbish in the air trying to convince others that it is factual is curious to me. it is fortunate that this country is fed up with people like this.
there will always be someone who will be willing to believe anything... fortunately you are in the minute ...teeny, tiny minority.
i have no doubt that you will continue to play on undereducated, non-informed, bible-thumping, and closed-minded individuals here... as you strut about in some affected bravado and call those that disagree with you as "uninformed" or "elitists" - people that couldn't possibly be correct...ever. what a shame.

please point out the "outright lies"?

@ Toe

in my defense, i was supposed to add this article last week; but because the site redesign, I just posted it.

How is this article wrong Toe? It's simply giving the truth as to who is endorsing Obama. It has NOTHING to do about his stand on the issues or even the speech yesterday.

I realize he has NO CONTROL about his endorsements, but these are the facts. And I (Billy) are simply sharing these facts.

Do we have an agenda? Of course we do. this is, after all, a conservative blog. Btw, I'm not a bog McCain fan either.

this is from Toe to me. His comment didn't go through.

mr. uc...as ususa, you are flapping your lips without your brain in gear.
and before you make any attempt to say once again, that these statements leading this posts are not yours but those of another... you placed it...therefore you endorse it... you own these words as much as the author.

and, once again... you are wrong. really, mr. uc...try to keep up with the current news.

http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/06/...

Obama’s speech to AIPAC on Wednesday was a disappointment, if not a shock, to Hamas, a group considered a terrorist organization by the United States. Hamas, in the past, has expressed support for Obama – support that Obama has rejected.

"We must isolate Hamas unless they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel's right to exist and abide by past agreements," Obama said yesterday, basically echoing the demands of the Mideast Quartet – the United States, Russia, the European Union, and the United Nations – which are involved in mediating the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. "There is no room for terrorist organizations," Obama added.
.....

naturally, i fully expect you to disregard this, since it is not from the lips of rush, or savage, or any number of individuals that are still living in the cold war like mc cain.... mr. uc, your credibility is zero once again, as you continue to endorse statements and opinions that are filled with not just errors...but outright lies.
why do you do this? could it be because you cannot sell the truth?

@HeyZues

I agree; but sometimes laying the "smack down" is the only approach. We ignored Hitler far too long; and millions of lives were taken because of it.

Bring it back to modern day with Iran ... no, he hasn't killed many quite yet but I would argue that he has the potential to pull a Hitler move. Do want to risk another 6 million lives?

Diplomacy first, yes .. but for how long?

It is funny how almost all ofthe people surrounding Obama are either crooks,terrorists or anti-American. I do not believe he has all oftheir views, but it does make me wonder about his judgement. Going to a Church for 20 years with anti-White, Anti-American preacher and never hearing his surmons is quite a stretch. Having a friend who is unrepentant at blowing things up in the USA. He is from Chicago where things get done by kickbacks and other nefarious crinimal activity. And this is the guy to bring "Hope" and "Change" to America. He is a business as usuall Chicago Machine politician.

The Jews also didnt have the biggest nuclear arsenal and strongest military in the world, so carrying a rather large stick does indeed help, I just dont think we need to swing it so much or be overly stubborn because of it.

"try to talk first and use common sense causing them to perhaps want to talk back"

For our sake, I really do hope you are right; but it goes back to my fundamental belief that evil is real and you can't ignore or negotiate with it. The Jews tried to ignore evil in the 30s and 40s and look what evil did to them.

I know it might be odd hearing that these people might endorse him and Democrats but maybe that is because they think Obama is more likely to try to talk first and use common sense causing them to perhaps want to talk back. (I too am skeptical about their endoresment of him and the light it portrays on him, but just offering why they might think this.)

"people who hold questionable and often dangerous world views"
And are you trying to tell me that there are individuals who have power either political or corporate power in the United States that don't have dangerous world views that support politicians of other countries?