That is a hilarious picture!
O-Ba-Ma...O-Ba-Ma...O-Ba-Ma...O-Ba-Ma...O-Ba-Ma
- Thread starter MonsterMark
- Start date
That is a hilarious picture!
By 1945 the Russians had pushed the Germans all the way back to Berlin and Eisenhour was rushing American troops across Germany to keep the Russians from overrunning more German territory.
So yes we helped win the war on the european front but it wasn't a singlehanded effort like the war in the Pacific.
More like a combined British, Russian, American effort.
More to the point of this thread though:
That Whole Obama/Rezko Thing…
Alex Knapp | Tuesday, March 4, 2008
For those of you (like me) who haven’t honestly been paying too much attention to Obama’s business relationship with inidicted real estate developer Tony Rezko, Talking Points Memo has a nice summary of the whole situation. The key paragraph that caught my eye is here:
Certainly, out of all of the three leading contenders, Obama has the least amount of issues with anything approaching a conflict of interest. Clinton has issues with her husband’s subversion of U.S. foreign policy in Kazakhstan. And John McCain, the straight-talking ethical reformer, has a senior campaign staff that is heavily dominated by professional lobbyists.
This is not to say that Obama’s relationship to Rezko wasn’t “bone-headed” (to use Obama’s own description of the situation), but it’s relatively minor compared to some major issues that the other candidates have in their closets.
So yes we helped win the war on the european front but it wasn't a singlehanded effort like the war in the Pacific.
More like a combined British, Russian, American effort.
More to the point of this thread though:
That Whole Obama/Rezko Thing…
Alex Knapp | Tuesday, March 4, 2008For those of you (like me) who haven’t honestly been paying too much attention to Obama’s business relationship with inidicted real estate developer Tony Rezko, Talking Points Memo has a nice summary of the whole situation. The key paragraph that caught my eye is here:
And then there’s the other big question, whether Obama ever did anything for Rezko in return for his purchase of the side yard or all those contributions. Obama has said that Rezko “never asked me for anything” and “I’ve never done any favors for him.” No substantial evidence has surfaced to contradict that claim.
As far as I can tell, this appears to be correct. Having now read the whole story in several different places, I can say that this is barely even in the “appearance of impropriety” category, much less demonstrative of any actual impropriety on the part of Barack Obama. Certainly, out of all of the three leading contenders, Obama has the least amount of issues with anything approaching a conflict of interest. Clinton has issues with her husband’s subversion of U.S. foreign policy in Kazakhstan. And John McCain, the straight-talking ethical reformer, has a senior campaign staff that is heavily dominated by professional lobbyists.
This is not to say that Obama’s relationship to Rezko wasn’t “bone-headed” (to use Obama’s own description of the situation), but it’s relatively minor compared to some major issues that the other candidates have in their closets.
I think that is pretty consistent with what I said. The big difference is, Germany was never a threat to us, and had no designs on attacking us. The same cannot be said for Russia and Britian, both of whom tried to appease Germany and had it thrown back in their face. They let him grow until he was a threat, if fact you can make the argument that through appeasment, they, in a way, helped him out by not enforcing their agreements and treaties since WWI, thus enabling him. Remember, the US wasn't part of the League of Nations, while both these nations were founding members.
As to the Tony Rezko thing, I don't know enough yet to comment on it, though I wouldn't be suprised if there was some legitimacy to the claims. I well let others more informed on this issue comment on it, until I know more.
Ties to lobbyists is part of the game if you are a Senator. Nothing terribly bad there, in and of itself, just par for the course. Obama having less ties to lobbyists in Washington is mostly due to (and an example of) his inexperience there.
while american companies were supplying the germans through the war.
http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/53/rockefeller.html
america at first didn't want to get into the war and decrease profits of large corporations. then when the "communists" were finally turning the war around, u.s. steps in and takes all the glory. how quickly it's forgotten how many other countries outside of europe also stepped in before the americans showed up. notice gw's grandpas name in there as a nazi supplier.
MrScalia
Dedicated LVC Member
Do you ever cite legitimate sources? Stop drinkin the kool-aid, my friend. That piece is euro-trash america bashing propaganda with no substance.
Europeans also have a greater sense of history than Americans do – and, sadly, they’d be hard-pressed not to, of course – which gives them a larger wisdom about power and human nature.
The hugely dominate political philosophy in Europe, egalitarian liberalism (progressivism, socialist-lite, whatever you wanna call it) has a blatant misunderstanding of human nature; an exceedingly unrealistic view. You can't support the programs that they do without subscribing to that unrealistic (and disproven) view of human nature.
Just as shocking is the fact that everything about the present war in Iraq has been a lie, as well.
distortion
This was a war trumped up with zero necessity. This was a war of power and profit. This was a war of immense deceits. This is a disastrous war of epic proportions.
again, distortion. Overlooks many things, selectively chooses information and a self-serving interpretation of that info to reach those absurd conclusions.
My guess is that Americans simply can’t go there, just as many can’t possibly entertain the thought that 9/11 might have been done by their government, or at least perhaps allowed to happen.
Ok, this guy just marginalized himself. We are talking Micheal Moore credibility here.
The other thing is that Europeans have a more mature politics than Americans do – let’s just come right out and say it. You can see it in their attitudes toward sexuality, drugs and crime. You can see it in their wholesale rejection of nationalism and religion, humanity’s worst mythologies and twin curses, wherever they arise. You can see it in their rejection of the juvenile selfishness that characterizes the American style of raw capitalism and obsessive consumption. And you can see it, especially, in their foreign policies and attitudes toward war. In large part because they so heavily and repeatedly paid the consequences of their own prior immaturity about war, their understanding and approach to it today are far more advanced than that of Americans.
How can you read this paragraph and not conclude that this article is distortion and propaganda?! This argument of this paragraph is basically Europeans are more mature and enlightened then Americans because they are liberal and accept liberal points of view. By extention, the author is saying that American conservatives are simple-minded fools. To reject a major political point of view out of hand like that is exeedingly illogical, and a cheap arguing tactic to avoid even acknowledging (let alone debating) a substantive point of view that the author disagrees with. I have no doubt that this author couldn't coherently convey an accurate opposing conservative point of view. Instead he would just set up a trojan horse argument so he can shoot it down, if not just writing it off as foolish without even debating it at all (ad hominem logical fallacy).
The whole article is doin' nothing more then saying that Bush and america are bad and americans are unenlightened fools compared to europeans. It is basically elitist crap, nothing more.
You ask "do you really look at a world view?", and no. The whole "world view" thing is nothing more then to say an elitist view, and I am wiser and more humble then that. The "world view" demonstrated in this article is just cherry-picked information and spin to support an unrealistic conclusion. It is nothing more then self-serving distortion; the author trying to be clever and spin things to meet his end, not drawing a logical conclusion based on the relevant data. I take a realistic view of the world, and prioritize American interests over other nations. Something you should try sometime.
why would i want to priortize american interests over interests of other nations? i'm Canadian. i take a more world view of things rather than a self serving selfish centralist view. there is more to the world than just american. and you say a world view is "elitest?' you should stop drinking the kool-aid. you obviously missed the link at the top of my bush resume, or you would of been a little long winded in your reply.
Who brain washed you?
You're history is so critically flawed it's sad.
What kind of American-hating propaganda do you read?
Is "The Coalition to Oppose the Arms Trade" you're only source?
There are plenty of us who can argue and teach you the history if you'd like.
But if you think burning down your country as you retreat is an example of "turning the war around," good luck to you. Had Hitler only had the judgment, he could have had recruited those reluctant Soviets in the West to fight Stalin with him.
opps, forgot. Then you should prioritize Canadian interests. Its called the "national interest".
Yes, we can't all be "enlightened" like you.
Also....centralist? WTH is that?
Yeah, but we are the sole superpower. No one has the economic and military power we do. The world looks to us as a leader, and has accordingly, higher expectations of us. Yes there is more to the world then American, but no one has the role or responsibility that the world thrusts on America, and make no mistake, the world wants America to have that responsibility. It makes for a reasonably stable world system.
Plus, I live in america, it's priorities take precedent.
It isn't kool-aid drinking and you know it. the way you are using the term "world view" here further vindicates my claim. The term is dependent on how you define it. The way you use the term shows how you define it. You are trying to use it as a intellectual and social bludgeon to put down people who don't share your view, effectively raising yourself above them. It is nothing more then an elitist attempt at intellectual "peer-presure". No substance behind it. Just trying to label and mischaracterize the opposition to marginalize them. A good debate tactic, but based on a logical fallacy, and a sign of a weak argument. the sentiment behind that "world view" argument is nothing short of an ad homenum personal attack on anyone who doesn't hold that view.
Besides, I doubt you really have an informed (let alone realistic) view of the world. Your selective (and distorted) view of history says otherwise. I find it real interesting that I am the one with drinking the kool-aid here (and thus, just subscribing to dogma, and having and unrealistic and uniformed view), yet I doubt you have ever taken an International politics class, while I am currently taking my third.
Yes, that "Bush resume" was an absurd peice of propaganda that had no basis in reality. Since that was the majority of your post, the rest of the post is discredited, and I am not gonna waste time on it.
When ya gonna cite wikipedia, I'm waitin on that one.
MonsterMark
Dedicated LVC Member
Wow, is she full of hate. Talk about being a racist.
Michele Obama needs to keep talking
Obama begins with a broad assessment of life in America in 2008, and life is not good: we’re a divided country, we’re a country that is “just downright mean,” we are “guided by fear,” we’re a nation of cynics, sloths, and complacents. “We have become a nation of struggling folks who are barely making it every day,” she said, as heads bobbed in the pews. “Folks are just jammed up, and it’s gotten worse over my lifetime. And, doggone it, I’m young. Forty-four!”
From these bleak generalities, Obama moves into specific complaints. Used to be, she will say, that you could count on a decent education in the neighborhood. But now there are all these charter schools and magnet schools that you have to “finagle” to get into. (Obama herself attended a magnet school, but never mind.) Health care is out of reach (“Let me tell you, don’t get sick in America”), pensions are disappearing, college is too expensive, and even if you can figure out a way to go to college you won’t be able to recoup the cost of the degree in many of the professions for which you needed it in the first place. “You’re looking at a young couple that’s just a few years out of debt,” Obama said. “See, because, we went to those good schools, and we didn’t have trust funds. I’m still waiting for Barack’s trust fund. Especially after I heard that Dick Cheney was s’posed to be a relative or something. Give us something here!”
Michele Obama needs to keep talking
Obama begins with a broad assessment of life in America in 2008, and life is not good: we’re a divided country, we’re a country that is “just downright mean,” we are “guided by fear,” we’re a nation of cynics, sloths, and complacents. “We have become a nation of struggling folks who are barely making it every day,” she said, as heads bobbed in the pews. “Folks are just jammed up, and it’s gotten worse over my lifetime. And, doggone it, I’m young. Forty-four!”
From these bleak generalities, Obama moves into specific complaints. Used to be, she will say, that you could count on a decent education in the neighborhood. But now there are all these charter schools and magnet schools that you have to “finagle” to get into. (Obama herself attended a magnet school, but never mind.) Health care is out of reach (“Let me tell you, don’t get sick in America”), pensions are disappearing, college is too expensive, and even if you can figure out a way to go to college you won’t be able to recoup the cost of the degree in many of the professions for which you needed it in the first place. “You’re looking at a young couple that’s just a few years out of debt,” Obama said. “See, because, we went to those good schools, and we didn’t have trust funds. I’m still waiting for Barack’s trust fund. Especially after I heard that Dick Cheney was s’posed to be a relative or something. Give us something here!”
Found the perfect quote for this and other nonsense.
I know it's from Shakespeare, but I hope someone can tell me which play. Something like: "Tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, but signifying nothing."
I know it's from Shakespeare, but I hope someone can tell me which play. Something like: "Tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, but signifying nothing."
This is pretty good....
Presidential Candidate Thinks That's A Good Idea But We Should Go Farther
Check the link:
http://www.theonion.com/content/radio_news/presidential_candidate
Make sure your audio is on
Presidential Candidate Thinks That's A Good Idea But We Should Go Farther
Check the link:
http://www.theonion.com/content/radio_news/presidential_candidate
Make sure your audio is on
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=57967
How to knock off Obama's halo
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: March 04, 2008
1:00 am Eastern
© 2008
To me, the greatest irony of the Democratic primary contest is that while Hillary Clinton has tried desperately to make herself more human, Barack Obama has basked in the efforts of others to make him less so.
Eventually, Obama will be brought back down to earth from his pseudo-divine perch. When that happens, there will be plenty of areas of vulnerability for his opponent – presumably, John McCain – to exploit.
Unhappily for Hillary, she hasn't been able to seize on Obama's weaknesses. This is because many of them she shares, and the others she can't politically afford to draw attention to. Obama's extreme liberalism across the board makes him ripe for attack from the right, or even the center, but Hillary is hardly in a position to make a credible case against him there, except possibly on national security and Iraq.
With cool, premeditated calculation, Hillary methodically positioned herself as plausibly hawkish enough for the general election. How was she supposed to know she would face such a formidable challenger in the primaries?
Her response hasn't helped. Instead of defending her position on Iraq and presenting Obama as irresponsibly dovish on foreign policy, she has distorted her vote on the Iraq war resolution to con the base into believing she was with them all along.
In trying to put that square peg into a round hole, she has succeeded only in making herself look John Kerryish, which is to say wishy-washy, unintelligible, deceitful and downright ridiculous on the issue. The net effect is that she has earned further contempt from the base and made no inroads with anyone else. Meanwhile, Barack has watched this delicious turn of events unfold while polishing his halo.
Belatedly, Hillary is now running ads suggesting Obama is unprepared and ill-suited to receive that 3 a.m. national security crisis call in the White House. But not having previously demonstrated Obama's lack of national security bona fides nor her own possession of them, her attack ads are likely falling flat. It would be like LBJ running the TV ad of the little girl picking daisies only to be incinerated in a nuclear attack without first having established – albeit fraudulently – that Barry Goldwater was a trigger-happy, sadistic warmonger. (And liberals talk about the politics of fear!)
But looking ahead, Obama will not escape scrutiny from John McCain in the general election, despite McCain's own liberal proclivities on too many issues. If I'm wrong and McCain treats Obama with kid gloves, he'll go the way of Bob Dole and Jack Kemp, who seemed to have more compliments than criticisms for Clinton and Gore in 1996.
You'd think Obama would be getting nervous about the artificial pedestal he's been placed on. As an object of idolatry with an aura of inerrancy, there is not much margin for error. But Barack Obama, like the rest of us, is mortal.
Even for McCain, Obama's liberalism is a target-rich environment. It's not only woefully out of sync with the center-right electorate, but it also belies his claim that he's an exemplar of bipartisanship. Talk is dirt cheap, though Hillary didn't succeed in exposing Obama's sophistry on this claim, either.
McCain would be well-advised to make Obama own his socialistic affinities – on taxes, spending, health care and more. He should also show how radical Obama is on abortion, where he's out of step with the majority of Americans.
And no matter how uncomfortable it may be to broach the issue, McCain should make Obama answer for membership in a church whose long-time pastor's magazine lauded the overtly racist and anti-Semitic Louis Farrakhan as "truly epitomiz[ing] greatness." People are missing the boat in thinking Obama's vulnerability here can be sidestepped with a semantic dodge over whether to denounce or reject Farrakhan's support.
The real question is why Obama would choose to be in a church whose leading spiritual authority holds such repugnant views. This is his pastor we're talking about, holding forth on a very important matter, not some tangential acquaintance discussing some inconsequential topic. On a related matter, Obama has explaining to do as well on his tepid support for Israel.
But where Obama is most vulnerable is on national security and Iraq, the very areas where McCain has the most credibility. Though Obama has received a pass from Hillary and the press on these subjects, and though he boasts prescience and wisdom on them, his record and statements make him a sitting duck.
Concerning Iraq, many of his predictions were wrong, his factual assertions false, his assessment and analysis erroneous, and his prescriptions reckless. If McCain is smart, before November he'll have Obama in that infamous tank with Michael Dukakis, wearing that same silly-looking helmet.
How to knock off Obama's halo
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: March 04, 2008
1:00 am Eastern
© 2008
To me, the greatest irony of the Democratic primary contest is that while Hillary Clinton has tried desperately to make herself more human, Barack Obama has basked in the efforts of others to make him less so.
Eventually, Obama will be brought back down to earth from his pseudo-divine perch. When that happens, there will be plenty of areas of vulnerability for his opponent – presumably, John McCain – to exploit.
Unhappily for Hillary, she hasn't been able to seize on Obama's weaknesses. This is because many of them she shares, and the others she can't politically afford to draw attention to. Obama's extreme liberalism across the board makes him ripe for attack from the right, or even the center, but Hillary is hardly in a position to make a credible case against him there, except possibly on national security and Iraq.
With cool, premeditated calculation, Hillary methodically positioned herself as plausibly hawkish enough for the general election. How was she supposed to know she would face such a formidable challenger in the primaries?
Her response hasn't helped. Instead of defending her position on Iraq and presenting Obama as irresponsibly dovish on foreign policy, she has distorted her vote on the Iraq war resolution to con the base into believing she was with them all along.
In trying to put that square peg into a round hole, she has succeeded only in making herself look John Kerryish, which is to say wishy-washy, unintelligible, deceitful and downright ridiculous on the issue. The net effect is that she has earned further contempt from the base and made no inroads with anyone else. Meanwhile, Barack has watched this delicious turn of events unfold while polishing his halo.
Belatedly, Hillary is now running ads suggesting Obama is unprepared and ill-suited to receive that 3 a.m. national security crisis call in the White House. But not having previously demonstrated Obama's lack of national security bona fides nor her own possession of them, her attack ads are likely falling flat. It would be like LBJ running the TV ad of the little girl picking daisies only to be incinerated in a nuclear attack without first having established – albeit fraudulently – that Barry Goldwater was a trigger-happy, sadistic warmonger. (And liberals talk about the politics of fear!)
But looking ahead, Obama will not escape scrutiny from John McCain in the general election, despite McCain's own liberal proclivities on too many issues. If I'm wrong and McCain treats Obama with kid gloves, he'll go the way of Bob Dole and Jack Kemp, who seemed to have more compliments than criticisms for Clinton and Gore in 1996.
You'd think Obama would be getting nervous about the artificial pedestal he's been placed on. As an object of idolatry with an aura of inerrancy, there is not much margin for error. But Barack Obama, like the rest of us, is mortal.
Even for McCain, Obama's liberalism is a target-rich environment. It's not only woefully out of sync with the center-right electorate, but it also belies his claim that he's an exemplar of bipartisanship. Talk is dirt cheap, though Hillary didn't succeed in exposing Obama's sophistry on this claim, either.
McCain would be well-advised to make Obama own his socialistic affinities – on taxes, spending, health care and more. He should also show how radical Obama is on abortion, where he's out of step with the majority of Americans.
And no matter how uncomfortable it may be to broach the issue, McCain should make Obama answer for membership in a church whose long-time pastor's magazine lauded the overtly racist and anti-Semitic Louis Farrakhan as "truly epitomiz[ing] greatness." People are missing the boat in thinking Obama's vulnerability here can be sidestepped with a semantic dodge over whether to denounce or reject Farrakhan's support.
The real question is why Obama would choose to be in a church whose leading spiritual authority holds such repugnant views. This is his pastor we're talking about, holding forth on a very important matter, not some tangential acquaintance discussing some inconsequential topic. On a related matter, Obama has explaining to do as well on his tepid support for Israel.
But where Obama is most vulnerable is on national security and Iraq, the very areas where McCain has the most credibility. Though Obama has received a pass from Hillary and the press on these subjects, and though he boasts prescience and wisdom on them, his record and statements make him a sitting duck.
Concerning Iraq, many of his predictions were wrong, his factual assertions false, his assessment and analysis erroneous, and his prescriptions reckless. If McCain is smart, before November he'll have Obama in that infamous tank with Michael Dukakis, wearing that same silly-looking helmet.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Fixed it for you.She is perpetually on the rag.
Fixed it for you.
Thanks...though wouldn't that describe Hillary better them Michelle Obama?
I'm not a Shakespearean, but Google found this:
"Out, out, brief candle! Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more: it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." Macbeth Quote (Act V, Scene V).
Don't forget about lend-lease. Without U.S. supplies and trucks the Soviets most likely would have lost. At the very least their later advances would not have been as dramatic.
Good political cartoons, btw.
MonsterMark
Dedicated LVC Member
K-Bob,
I can't believe you are still lurking. Been a while stranger.
See me a PM and let me know how life is treating you and the kids.
I can't believe you are still lurking. Been a while stranger.
See me a PM and let me know how life is treating you and the kids.
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
If yo're going to play the Perot card, then fat-boy "Global Warming" Gore would have clearly won Florida if it wasn't for Ralph "I killed the Corvair, yeah for me" Nader.
Long way or not, he's doing extraordinarily well, for a guy with little experience on his resume.
My hopes aren't up per se, I'm unimpressed with the three we're being handed.
The whole "muslim conspiracy" thing is rediculous and the rhetoric of the paranoid.
won't debate ya there
again, no debate there...
That is called "electoral dysfunction" and anyone who has been paying attention to politics for more then 6 months seems to have it in this election.
To throw that out, out of hand is hardly reasonable, but it is irresponsible. And few are saying it is an out and out "conspiracy", but asking questions about his ties to radical islam is only prudent if he is running for the head office, since we are at war with radical islam. The burden of proof is on him to convince us that his loyalties lay with america, and instead of doin that, he is dodging the issue. To ignore all the red flags is foolish.
MonsterMark
Dedicated LVC Member
Is Barack a Muslim? I think it is still debatable. He never distanced himself from his church or his pastor. That is hugely troublesome to me.
Is he a Muslim sympathizer? Absolutely.
Will he treat Arab nations that support Islam and Sharia law with kid gloves? You betcha.
Will B. Hussein Obama let Islamic fundamentalists walk all over him? He sure will imho. All the while he is working with them on a 'political' solution, they will be plotting behind his back. He doesn't recognize evil. He thinks you can negotiate with it. You can't.
If we get attacked and he doesn't have the balls to stand up and defend America or any of our allies, he's toast. Bring on impeachment.
On the other hand Obama having lived abroad for a period and being exposed to other cultures will have a better understanding of the other 96% of the world's population than an ignorant simpleton like GW who didn't even know the difference between shiite and sunni muslums before launching his mission (un) accomplished.
You're wrong on all counts. Your characterization of President Bush is entirely wrong.
And second, are you honestly saying that Obama has developed a fine understand of the world because he lived in Indonesia for a couple years when he was 6 years old?
MonsterMark
Dedicated LVC Member
*owned*
Just when you were beginning to accumulate some points for intellectual posting, you let this gem out huh!
Lets see. Obama lived abroad from the ages of 6-10 in a muslim school and that now counts as overseas experience and foreign policy credentials for a Democrat to be President?:lol: :lol: :lol:
You guys crack me up. How you guys can be serious with yourselves when you look in the mirror is beyond me.
Admit you just postulated a completely inane argument and I might let you pass. Otherwise, back to the end of the line for you.
Edit...Dammit Calabrio, you beat me to it but I earned the *owned*
04SCTLS...I would toss that back at you and say those tender years of 6-10 were a prime time to indoctrinate a young boy into the fanatical islamic hate religion.
Just when you were beginning to accumulate some points for intellectual posting, you let this gem out huh!
Lets see. Obama lived abroad from the ages of 6-10 in a muslim school and that now counts as overseas experience and foreign policy credentials for a Democrat to be President?:lol: :lol: :lol:
You guys crack me up. How you guys can be serious with yourselves when you look in the mirror is beyond me.
Admit you just postulated a completely inane argument and I might let you pass. Otherwise, back to the end of the line for you.
Edit...Dammit Calabrio, you beat me to it but I earned the *owned*
04SCTLS...I would toss that back at you and say those tender years of 6-10 were a prime time to indoctrinate a young boy into the fanatical islamic hate religion.