Guess who's running for President?

[MonsterMark]

Obviously not Obama.

He thinks that would be a foolish question...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-MYq2TZ73Q

Just another liberal lying lefty.

 

[TheDude]

LOL... I guess there's no possible way that at the time he said that he didn't have plans to run?

 

[formerknown]

That guy's a moron. What are his qualifications, again?

 

[TheDude]

That guy's a moron. What are his qualifications, again?

If you mean "moron" because he's running with only two "political years" under his belt, then yes, I can't really disagree.

 

[MonsterMark]

I think Barack, er, I mean Barry, er, Hussein Osama Obama or whatever his name is today is a secret radical Muslim who is intent on destroying America from the inside and all you lefties are going to put his finger on the trigger.

I can't wait for judgment day to get here. Not soon enough for me.

 

[MonsterMark]

February 10, 2007
Obama Declares in Springfield, But Simpsons Not Invited
by Scott Ott

(2007-02-10) — In what many consider a backhanded slap at the conservative Fox News Channel, Democrat Sen. Barack Obama plans to officially declare his presidential candidacy today in Springfield, but his campaign has not invited the town’s most famous residents — Homer, Marge, Bart, Lisa and Maggie Simpson — to the speech.

The controversy over the Simpson snubbing threatens to overshadow what should have been the high-point of Mr. Obama’s career, and his greatest accomplishment to date.
The Simpsons, whose fame grew from simple comedy sketches and led to a popular Fox TV show and a feature-length Hollywood movie, have almost single-handedly put Springfield on the map and made it virtually the best-loved town in America.

“Obama is using Springfield to ride Homer’s coattails,” said Mr. Simpson’s agent, “He says he’s running a new kind of political campaign, but by ignoring the Simpsons right in Homer’s backyard, he sends a clear message that it’s politics as usual.”

 

[TheDude]

I think Barack, er, I mean Barry, er, Hussein Osama Obama or whatever his name is today is a secret radical Muslim who is intent on destroying America from the inside and all you lefties are going to put his finger on the trigger.

I can't wait for judgment day to get here. Not soon enough for me.

I see you've finally drinketh the radical Evangelical brew... too bad.

 

[MonsterMark]

I see you've finally drinketh the radical Evangelical brew... too bad.

I'm just anxious to get the attacks underway so I will know if I have to work anymore or if I can just spend time with my family until the end.

I can't wait for Hillary or Obama or Gore, somebody on the Left to take over so the islamic radicals can put plan 'b' into action. they'll attack us with impunity. You'll see. They have to wait out Bush because they know darn well they'll get 'Bush-wacked' if they do a thing now.

Just sittin back and waiting for this all to unfold.

Lefties will be crying for help and I hope the US military sits on their hands with a Dem in office.

 

[Calabrio]

...that sounds very defeatist and not very productive. It also makes you sound a bit like a lunatic.

How dire did things look in 1940, when the Japanese were taking over Asia, Nazi's were taking over Europe and Africa, and Stalin controlled the Soviet Union. All the while, the American public wanted to retreat within our borders, depending upon the oceans to keep us safe?

I have faith. Faith that Americans will do the right thing, even if it's done in the hindsight of making incorrect decisions. In fact, a challenge, or struggle, can only serve to reaffirm our faith and strength. Prolonged prosperity leads to apathy and laziness.

Even in the worse case scenario, I still see America, England, and our colonial cousins like Australia, pulling together to save the world- as we did in World War 1, World War 2, and the cold war.

Talk about retreating to some Northern compound, waiting until things pass over is counter productive. Waiting for end times is irresponsible. It's a little way to avoid any responsibility for the future. The American spirit is strong, it's just a bit fat and lazy right now. In some segments it's been corrupted, but it's not dead. When push comes to shove, when a threat or challenge is real, we can still pull it together. And that challenge will renew and reinvigorate the spirit of the nation.

Now is the time to educate, discuss, and debate. And if one technique of explanation or teaching doesn't work, you try another. There's no victory in standing on principle and failing. There's no victory in knowing you're right and letting everyone around you wallow in ignorance. It's also not a time to give up, comforted because "I told them so."

The world isn't about to end, it could get really crappy though. We can work to prevent it, or hide from it. Hiding in the foothills of North Dakota knowing you're right is no better than hiding from the reality in a coffee house in Greenwich Village "knowing" you're enlightened.

 

[RRocket]

I'm just anxious to get the attacks underway so I will know if I have to work anymore or if I can just spend time with my family until the end.

I can't wait for Hillary or Obama or Gore, somebody on the Left to take over so the islamic radicals can put plan 'b' into action. they'll attack us with impunity. You'll see. They have to wait out Bush because they know darn well they'll get 'Bush-wacked' if they do a thing now.

Just sittin back and waiting for this all to unfold.

Lefties will be crying for help and I hope the US military sits on their hands with a Dem in office.

Bryan,

I'm confused. When 9/11 happened, it wasn't Bush's fault (even though he ignored critical intelligence) because according to you guys, Bush inherited a big huge mess from the previous administration...so it wasn't his fault.

How come if a new President (particularly a Democrat) inherits Bush's crap and an attack happens, it's their fault???? Can you really have it both ways?

 

[Calabrio]

Bryan,

I'm confused. When 9/11 happened, it wasn't Bush's fault (even though he ignored critical intelligence) because according to you guys, Bush inherited a big huge mess from the previous administration...so it wasn't his fault.

How come if a new President (particularly a Democrat) inherits Bush's crap and an attack happens, it's their fault???? Can you really have it both ways?

First of all, specify this "critical intelligence" that Bush decided to ignore? That's a gross misrepresentation of reality, more accurately described as a lie.

Second, you say "Bush's crap." Meaning what? The military operations in Iraq that were nearly unanimously supported by the Congress? Or do you mean the broader war on terror? Either way, the Bush Doctrine itself hasn't weakened us, it has helped make us more safe. Now, if the leftist establishment in this country continue to erode and undermine our security, you can't blame Bush for that.

And I think it's reasonable to assume that Bryan is referring to a Democrat who comes into office and does an about face on the war on terror. One who engages in appeasement tactics with an enemy that has no interest in negotiating a peace with the world. So, if a Democrat Congress and a Democrat President project a weak image, withdrawing troops and showing reluctance to use force, they absolutely would deserve fault.

 

[MrScalia]

Bryan,

I'm confused. When 9/11 happened, it wasn't Bush's fault (even though he ignored critical intelligence) because according to you guys, Bush inherited a big huge mess from the previous administration...so it wasn't his fault.

How come if a new President (particularly a Democrat) inherits Bush's crap and an attack happens, it's their fault???? Can you really have it both ways?

bush was in office like 100 days when 9-11 happened .
, Bush inherited a big huge mess from the previous administration ..... how short
everyone memory is remember all the W keys missing form the white house
that is the childish crap we can look forward to.

 

[MonsterMark]

...that sounds very defeatist and not very productive. It also makes you sound a bit like a lunatic.

But it is fun. Talking like a wack-job is good for the soul. I needed to feel how the other side feels.

Just spew crap out. Very relieving.

 

[MonsterMark]

And I think it's reasonable to assume that Bryan is referring to a Democrat who comes into office and does an about face on the war on terror. One who engages in appeasement tactics with an enemy that has no interest in negotiating a peace with the world. So, if a Democrat Congress and a Democrat President project a weak image, withdrawing troops and showing reluctance to use force, they absolutely would deserve fault.

I must compliment you. I think you are an excellent debater and a great contributor to this site. Thank You!

Yes, you hit the nail on the head. With all my blustering, that is exactly the point.

America is headed in a 'NEW' direction with the Dems in power and a new Dem headed for the Oval Office. This is horrible news for the world at large. Everything, and I mean everything changed after 9/11. We cannot survive as a free society with a laizze-faire attitude anymore.

With the Russians entering the picture and unhappy with our world projection, I am afraid we will be backed down everywhere in the world. Our enemies will see our newfound weakness and willingness to talk as a free pass to move against our interests. We will back down to rougue nations like Korea and Iran. We will try to appease countries like Russia and China. None out these scenarios are either in our best interests or those of the free world.

I see NO similarity between our forefathers that fought and defeated Natzism and the makeup of our current population. We will lose. We don't have the internal fortitude to win anymore.

I'm sorry to say it, but with Dems in charge, we are going to be pluck for the pickings.

 

[taylor414ce2003]

Maybe he would be better qualified for the Presidents office if he made a movie co starring a monkey ,only this time the chimp wouldnt be smarter than the leading man

 

[TheDude]

First off all, I'd like to applaud Calabrio for his initial post to MonsterMark... very well put!

Second, all this fear mongering about "Democrats will let in the boogiemen!" is utter nonsense, if anything, a Democrat in office will have to be ever so strict on preventing an attack and if one were to happen he (or she) would have to strike back harder and fiercer than a Republican to show that the preconceptions that "Democrats are weak" is wrong.

Seriously now, does anybody actually believe a Democratic President would willfully allow an attack to happen and if one did he (or she) wouldn't respond/retaliate hard in these times?

 

[Calabrio]

Second, all this fear mongering about "Democrats will let in the boogiemen!" is utter nonsense, if anything, a Democrat in office will have to be ever so strict on preventing an attack and if one were to happen he (or she) would have to strike back harder and fiercer than a Republican to show that the preconceptions that "Democrats are weak" is wrong.

And what do you base this claim on?

True, if a Democrat were to gain power, they would be compelled to make gestures that presented themself as "strong" following a crisis. The key word here is "present." Bill Clinton would talk tough, launch a cruise missile strike, then call it a day.

So what you have is a contrast, gesturing resulting from political opportunism from the Democrats and then genuine strong policy based on principle from the Republicans.

It's not sufficient to play to the cameras.

Seriously now, does anybody actually believe a Democratic President would willfully allow an attack to happen and if one did he (or she) wouldn't respond/retaliate hard in these times?

Do I think they would "willfully" allow an attack. No.

Do I think they would ignorantly pursue policy that would ultimately weaken our security and strength in the world, increasing our vulnerability. Absolutely, and it's been proven by almost EVERY Democrat President we've had this century.

Wilson, Roosevelt, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, and Clinton. All threatened the security of the world due to their well-intentioned, though totally misguided view of international policy and government.

 

[TheDude]

And what do you base this claim on?

True, if a Democrat were to gain power, they would be compelled to make gestures that presented themself as "strong" following a crisis. The key word here is "present." Bill Clinton would talk tough, launch a cruise missile strike, then call it a day.

So what you have is a contrast, gesturing resulting from political opportunism from the Democrats and then genuine strong policy based on principle from the Republicans.

It's not sufficient to play to the cameras.


Do I think they would "willfully" allow an attack. No.

Do I think they would ignorantly pursue policy that would ultimately weaken our security and strength in the world, increasing our vulnerability. Absolutely, and it's been proven by almost EVERY Democrat President we've had this century.

Wilson, Roosevelt, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, and Clinton. All threatened the security of the world due to their well-intentioned, though totally misguided view of international policy and government.

I base it on common sense; in this day and age, Democrats cannot afford to be weak or seem weak. If something were to happen, talk and a missle or two would not cut it in these times and they know it. If a Democrat wins the presidency in 08, they know they'll have to be in a manor the "cowboy" like GWB is or they'll be out in four years (unless the world changes and we aren't facing the same threats, but that is unlikely). Is it hypocritical since they condemn GWB for being a "cowboy"? Sure it is, but that's politics.

 

[fossten]

I base it on common sense; in this day and age, Democrats cannot afford to be weak or seem weak. If something were to happen, talk and a missle or two would not cut it in these times and they know it. If a Democrat wins the presidency in 08, they know they'll have to be in a manor the "cowboy" like GWB is or they'll be out in four years (unless the world changes and we aren't facing the same threats, but that is unlikely). Is it hypocritical since they condemn GWB for being a "cowboy"? Sure it is, but that's politics.

You cannot reconcile your post with the current behavior of the Dem Congress. They are pushing for retreat, advocating cutting and running. They are posturing, without even the guts to take a real stand for the beliefs their leftist fringe is screaming in their ears. The last President was unwilling to take on terrorism, and we got 9/11 as a result. Oh, and also the Cole, the Khobar towers, the FIRST WTC bombing, and finally the cowardly reluctance to take bin Laden on a silver platter. And he admitted this on audio.

The last Democrat President, Bill Clinton, was unwilling to actually take casualties in Kosovo, instead preferring to drop bombs from 15,000 feet and proclaim the war won, which it wasn't.

Don't preach to me about how brave and hawkish today's Dems are when you have zero evidence to back it up. Just go take a look at Jack Murtha and you have your answer.

 

[TheDude]

You cannot reconcile your post with the current behavior of the Dem Congress. They are pushing for retreat, advocating cutting and running. They are posturing, without even the guts to take a real stand for the beliefs their leftist fringe is screaming in their ears. The last President was unwilling to take on terrorism, and we got 9/11 as a result. Oh, and also the Cole, the Khobar towers, the FIRST WTC bombing, and finally the cowardly reluctance to take bin Laden on a silver platter. And he admitted this on audio.

The last Democrat President, Bill Clinton, was unwilling to actually take casualties in Kosovo, instead preferring to drop bombs from 15,000 feet and proclaim the war won, which it wasn't.

Don't preach to me about how brave and hawkish today's Dems are when you have zero evidence to back it up. Just go take a look at Jack Murtha and you have your answer.

For one, I am not preaching, I am stating what would most likely have to happen. You have valid points about past behavior being a precursor to what may happen, but the world has changed a lot since 2000; the Democrats know this and if they do gain the Presidency, they'll want to keep it and they'll take the necessary steps to keep it. Could I be wrong, certainly; we'll just have to wait and see.

 

[bufordtpisser]

Bravo, Bravo........

You cannot reconcile your post with the current behavior of the Dem Congress. They are pushing for retreat, advocating cutting and running. They are posturing, without even the guts to take a real stand for the beliefs their leftist fringe is screaming in their ears. The last President was unwilling to take on terrorism, and we got 9/11 as a result. Oh, and also the Cole, the Khobar towers, the FIRST WTC bombing, and finally the cowardly reluctance to take bin Laden on a silver platter. And he admitted this on audio.

The last Democrat President, Bill Clinton, was unwilling to actually take casualties in Kosovo, instead preferring to drop bombs from 15,000 feet and proclaim the war won, which it wasn't.

Don't preach to me about how brave and hawkish today's Dems are when you have zero evidence to back it up. Just go take a look at Jack Murtha and you have your answer.

I actually had to stand up and applaud you on this post. I have never seen a political post on this site that has captured the essence of politics in America. Again, BRAVO.

 

[MonsterMark]

I actually had to stand up and applaud you on this post.

I agree!

 

[RRocket]

First of all, specify this "critical intelligence" that Bush decided to ignore? That's a gross misrepresentation of reality, more accurately described as a lie.

One of the items de-classified by the Bush administration during the 9/11 panel investigation was called "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US," This memo was dated August 2001. This document was de-classified in April 2004. Everybody involved stated that little was done after having received this memo. I would say anything that says "determined to strike in US" is a critical memo, wouldn't you?

 

[fossten]

One of the items de-classified by the Bush administration during the 9/11 panel investigation was called "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US," This memo was dated August 2001. This document was de-classified in April 2004. Everybody involved stated that little was done after having received this memo. I would say anything that says "determined to strike in US" is a critical memo, wouldn't you?

And your point is? This was less than 30 days before the attack on 9/11. Just exactly what could Bush have done at that point? Gorelick's wall had prevented the proper agencies from knowing that Atta had been in the US for over a year, ostensibly planning this attack. Ever heard of Able Danger?

You totally ignore the utter incompetence, apathy, and virtual complicity of the Clinton administration while hanging Bush out to dry, despite the fact that Clinton had eight years to do something and did nothing, while Bush had barely 30 days? That is an absolute 180 degrees out of phase, blatant copout.

And let's not forget the GAO scandal where Clinton forced Bush's admin to start several months behind due to his partisan rejection of United States tradition regarding transition from one administration to the next, just to favor Al Gore. That played a part also, because Bush started his Presidency without a full staff for about three months.

 

[RRocket]

Well he had more than 30 days. Heck...at the start of 2001 (I think it was the start of 2001) Bush was donating money to the Taliban!!!!!