Join the Discussion

Comments So Far: 275

• 0%

  bigurn1 month, 3 weeks ago

  First - I love the title of the article.

  This article artfully explains, piece by piece, the errors in Barack Obama's Op-Ed piece in the NYT. Obama was clearly trying to calm his base, and used to article to do so.

  Reply

  39 Replies

  • 0%

    Goppy1 month, 3 weeks ago

    HAHAHA!!!

    I LOVE this story!!!

    What I liek most about it is ... IT'S SUCH A CLASSIC example of our Christian Conservative - Neo-Con SPIN AFFLICTION!

    We Christian Conservatives are SO Good at spin that we have turned this (what is NORMALLY considered an affliction) into a standardized method of national debate!

    Here's how it works ...

    1st - we dissect a position by our Ideeological Opponent (anybody who cares about the Middle Class) ...

    2nd - we look at what our opponent DOESN'T say, then we find little crevices to fill in our 'Speculation' about what our opponent is SECRETLY talkin about.

    3nd - after our Speculation is invented, we talk about the Speculation ... we add a little innuendo ... and then ... the coup de gras ... a little Fear and Smear ... and there you have it ....

    ..... we are ACTUALLY DEBATING the speculation that we created and inserted into the speech!

    AS IF IT WERE REALLY REAL!!

    Reply

    19 Replies

    • 0%

      joeeddie1 month, 3 weeks ago

      I'm glad you mentioned inserting words into the debate. I like these words that started the article:

      "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse: I think it takes pressure off the Iraqis to arrive at the sort of political accommodation that every observer believes is the ultimate solution to the problems we face there. â;¦ And the problem is the Iraqis, I think, take that message to mean that, no matter how little they are compromising with each other, Americans are still going to be present. As long as we are not willing to provide any consequences to failure for them to arrive at a political compromise, we're going to continue to see the sort of sectarian bloodshed that's been evident over the last several months."

      â;; Barack Obama, January 2007, in response to President Bush's speech announcing the surge.

      Reply

      7 Replies

      • 0%

        joeeddie1 month, 3 weeks ago

        I'm glad you mentioned inserting words into the debate. I like these words that started the article:

        "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse: I think it takes pressure off the Iraqis to arrive at the sort of political accommodation that every observer believes is the ultimate solution to the problems we face there. â;¦ And the problem is the Iraqis, I think, take that message to mean that, no matter how little they are compromising with each other, Americans are still going to be present. As long as we are not willing to provide any consequences to failure for them to arrive at a political compromise, we're going to continue to see the sort of sectarian bloodshed that's been evident over the last several months."

        â;; Barack Obama, January 2007, in response to President Bush's speech announcing the surge.

        Reply
      • 0%

        mesodude1 month, 3 weeks ago

        "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. "

        --Has it been "solved"? Cause last I checked it's still far more violent than before we illegally invaded (let's not talk about the real war Bush cut and ran from to start that disaster--holy cow, what's up with Afghanistan, Bush?!). Sorry, no dessert for you. ;-(

        "I think it will do the reverse: I think it takes pressure off the Iraqis to arrive at the sort of political accommodation that every observer believes is the ultimate solution to the problems we face there"

        --Obama probably couldn't have predicted that, for instance, the fledgling Iraqi government would go on a two-month vacation just as the last of the troops were arriving to give them additional security but how prescient, huh?

        Reply

        5 Replies

        • 0%

          aniokly1 month, 3 weeks ago

          You will never know if it is solved or not, because the MSM feeds you BS. There were more killings on the streets of Chicago a couple weeks ago then on the streets of Baghdad.

          Reply

          4 Replies

          • 0%

            Dionys1 month, 3 weeks ago

            "You will never know if it is solved or not, because the MSM feeds you BS. There were more killings on the streets of Chicago a couple weeks ago then on the streets of Baghdad."

            Really? I don't remember hundreds of thousands if not millions of Chicagoans dying due to 'collateral damage' in recent history. I must have missed that report.

            Reply

            2 Replies

            • 0%

              tbkennedy531 month, 3 weeks ago

              Where do you come up with those numbers? Not even close to truth. Millions?

              Reply
            • 0%

              Georgia501 month, 3 weeks ago

              Dionys,

              Yet you managed to peal the lies right off the lips of the increasingly unemployed MSM loserbots.

              I wonder if seeking unemployment benefits has any effect on one's veracity ???

              Reply
          • 0%

            mesodude1 month, 3 weeks ago

            "You will never know if it is solved or not, because the MSM feeds you BS. "

            --Thanks for the tip.

            "There were more killings on the streets of Chicago a couple weeks ago then on the streets of Baghdad."

            --I did not know this. So, basically what you're saying is that we have NO business in Iraq whatsoever because our country is virtually a terrorism plagued hellhole all its own, right?

            Reply
    • 0%

      joeeddie1 month, 3 weeks ago

      I'm glad you mentioned inserting words into the debate. I like these words that started the article:

      "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse: I think it takes pressure off the Iraqis to arrive at the sort of political accommodation that every observer believes is the ultimate solution to the problems we face there. â;¦ And the problem is the Iraqis, I think, take that message to mean that, no matter how little they are compromising with each other, Americans are still going to be present. As long as we are not willing to provide any consequences to failure for them to arrive at a political compromise, we're going to continue to see the sort of sectarian bloodshed that's been evident over the last several months."

      â;; Barack Obama, January 2007, in response to President Bush's speech announcing the surge.

      Reply

      4 Replies

      • 0%

        joeeddie1 month, 3 weeks ago

        I'm glad you mentioned inserting words into the debate. I like these words that started the article:

        "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse: I think it takes pressure off the Iraqis to arrive at the sort of political accommodation that every observer believes is the ultimate solution to the problems we face there. â;¦ And the problem is the Iraqis, I think, take that message to mean that, no matter how little they are compromising with each other, Americans are still going to be present. As long as we are not willing to provide any consequences to failure for them to arrive at a political compromise, we're going to continue to see the sort of sectarian bloodshed that's been evident over the last several months."

        â;; Barack Obama, January 2007, in response to President Bush's speech announcing the surge.

        Reply

        3 Replies

        • 0%

          DeadXXXManXXXTalkin1 month, 3 weeks ago

          you know the sad part is I read that all 4 times, and still don't get it.

          time to smoke a different color tobacco

          I will say I'd rather someone was wrong about the surge, the number of troops needed, as a sort of sideline guy, instead of being in charge and wrong years ago before figuring it out [many deaths in that interm] and firing people who said more troops were needed in Iraq

          Its almost funny to see the 'gloating' about the positive effect of the surge from some of the very people that insisted going in 'light' in the first place was a good strategy

          Reply

          2 Replies

          • 0%

            ind061 month, 3 weeks ago

            LOL!

            Reply
          • 0%

            Klarissa1 month, 3 weeks ago

            dead - Obama's campaign was predicated on a big loss in Iraq so he could bring home the troops dragging their tails behind them.

            He doesn't want to win, he wants to lose.

            Reply
    • 0%

      bigurn1 month, 3 weeks ago

      Goppy, glad to see you posting again. Missed you!

      Reply

      1 Reply

      • 0%

        simonsez1 month, 3 weeks ago

        Like hemroids ...

        Reply
    • 0%

      NoSpinDave1 month, 3 weeks ago

      oh Poopy the bigot boy, does the bigoted hate spewing from your mouth EVER get old? You know its very "liberal" of you to make fun of an entire region of the country every time you post.

      Reply

      3 Replies

      • 0%

        antibrainwasher1 month, 3 weeks ago

        Making fun of an entire region every time you post....great comment from a great republican, who bashes the working and middle class progressives every time he posts. Your daddy O'reily and his daddy Murdock would be proud, nospin. Swiftboat someone for doing exactly what you are doing in the same sentence. Brilliant.

        You have my republican vote. vote NoSpinO'reily for president, cause we need a partisan loyalist to continue the tradition.

        Reply

        2 Replies

        • 0%

          NoSpinDave1 month, 3 weeks ago

          "great comment from a great republican, who bashes the working and middle class progressives every time he posts"

          Really? REALLY? Please re-post any of my comments where I have "bashed" the working and middle class? I'll wait.

          Reply

          1 Reply

          • 0%

            NoSpinDave1 month, 3 weeks ago

            What a shocker....IM still waiting. Typical lying liberal POS.

            Reply
  • 0%

    Goppy1 month, 3 weeks ago

    HAHAHA!!!

    I LOVE this story!!!

    What I liek most about it is ... IT'S SUCH A CLASSIC example of our Christian Conservative - Neo-Con SPIN AFFLICTION!

    We Christian Conservatives are SO Good at spin that we have turned this (what is NORMALLY considered an affliction) into a standardized method of national debate!

    Here's how it works ...

    1st - we dissect a position by our Ideeological Opponent (anybody who cares about the Middle Class) ...

    2nd - we look at what our opponent DOESN'T say, then we find little crevices to fill in our 'Speculation' about what our opponent is SECRETLY talkin about.

    3nd - after our Speculation is invented, we talk about the Speculation ... we add a little innuendo ... and then ... the coup de gras ... a little Fear and Smear ... and there you have it ....

    ..... we are ACTUALLY DEBATING the speculation that we created and inserted into the speech!

    AS IF IT WERE REALLY REAL!!

    Reply
  • 0%

    Goppy1 month, 3 weeks ago

    HAHAHA!!!

    I LOVE this story!!!

    What I liek most about it is ... IT'S SUCH A CLASSIC example of our Christian Conservative - Neo-Con SPIN AFFLICTION!

    We Christian Conservatives are SO Good at spin that we have turned this (what is NORMALLY considered an affliction) into a standardized method of national debate!

    Here's how it works ...

    1st - we dissect a position by our Ideeological Opponent (anybody who cares about the Middle Class) ...

    2nd - we look at what our opponent DOESN'T say, then we find little crevices to fill in our 'Speculation' about what our opponent is SECRETLY talkin about.

    3nd - after our Speculation is invented, we talk about the Speculation ... we add a little innuendo ... and then ... the coup de gras ... a little Fear and Smear ... and there you have it ....

    ..... we are ACTUALLY DEBATING the speculation that we created and inserted into the speech!

    AS IF IT WERE REALLY REAL!!

    Reply
  • 0%

    Goppy1 month, 3 weeks ago

    HAHAHA!!!

    I LOVE this story!!!

    What I liek most about it is ... IT'S SUCH A CLASSIC example of our Christian Conservative - Neo-Con SPIN AFFLICTION!

    We Christian Conservatives are SO Good at spin that we have turned this (what is NORMALLY considered an affliction) into a standardized method of national debate!

    Here's how it works ...

    1st - we dissect a position by our Ideeological Opponent (anybody who cares about the Middle Class) ...

    2nd - we look at what our opponent DOESN'T say, then we find little crevices to fill in our 'Speculation' about what our opponent is SECRETLY talkin about.

    3nd - after our Speculation is invented, we talk about the Speculation ... we add a little innuendo ... and then ... the coup de gras ... a little Fear and Smear ... and there you have it ....

    ..... we are ACTUALLY DEBATING the speculation that we created and inserted into the speech!

    AS IF IT WERE REALLY REAL!!

    Reply

    16 Replies

    • 0%

      Goppy1 month, 3 weeks ago

      OMG!!

      Popieller is actin as craaaaazie as us Christian Conservatives!!

      Reply

      15 Replies

      • 0%

        DeadXXXManXXXTalkin1 month, 3 weeks ago

        I'm scared to post, 4 x with joeeddie, and 3x for you.

        damn

        I intend to merely breathe on the submit button

        Reply
      • 0%

        newbie04201 month, 3 weeks ago

        A bad carpenter always blames his tools...

        Reply

        13 Replies

        • 0%

          Goppy1 month, 3 weeks ago

          I've heard that.

          I've also heard a tool always uses propaganda.

          Reply

          12 Replies

          • 0%

            Goppy1 month, 3 weeks ago

            If you don't know what I mean by 'tool', imagine OmegaGnosis, NoSpinDave, FSU, or libsRfunny.

            See?

            Reply

            8 Replies

            • 0%

              newbie04201 month, 3 weeks ago

              Ohhh, you mean like Goppy, Neo and jovial?

              I get it now....

              Reply

              2 Replies

              • 0%

                joeeddie1 month, 3 weeks ago

                To be fair, I would bet that jovial doesn't get paid nearly as much as the other two you mention, if at all.

                Reply

                1 Reply

                • 0%

                  Klarissa1 month, 3 weeks ago

                  Known as staffers of one of Soros' little non-profits.

                  Reply
            • 0%

              NoSpinDave1 month, 3 weeks ago

              "If you don't know what I mean by 'tool', imagine OmegaGnosis, NoSpinDave, FSU, or libsRfunny.

              See?"

              Well, I would rather be a "tool" in your eyes (which I wear as a badge of honor) than a bigoted POS in everyone elses like you.

              Reply

              4 Replies

              • 0%

                Sabretooth1 month, 3 weeks ago

                Spinner, just an FYI...goppy is only a bigot to 30 percent of you...you are a bigot to the other 70 percent and most of the rest of the world.

                Reply

                3 Replies

                • 0%

                  NoSpinDave1 month, 3 weeks ago

                  funny...ZERO percent of my posts are bigoted. If you dispute that, PLEASE re-post one bigoted comment I have made here....ever.

                  On the other hand, almost every post Poopy makes is bigoted, the fact that you think its not just speaks to your own (typical liberal) bigoted hypocrisy.

                  Reply

                  2 Replies

                  • 0%

                    Sabretooth1 month, 3 weeks ago

                    First you need to look up the word bigot as you just posted your own proof but here is another for you : "Is that kind of like the libtard code: "All opinions that dont fit the liberal agenda will not only be ignored, they must be SILENCED....for the good of the world (our libtard version of it) of course!!!!"

                    I really did not need to go back very far to find that one...let me know if you would like more examples of your bigotry.

                    Reply

                    1 Reply

                    • 0%

                      Sabretooth1 month, 3 weeks ago

                      Bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices...hence the reason you never post any sources when people ask, you cannot post facts about your opinions.

                      Reply

          • TLovesTeddyComment removed: User banned.2 Replies

            • 0%

              newbie04201 month, 3 weeks ago

              TLovesTeddy-spoken like a true sock puppet.

              How many times have you had to make new accounts because you've been banned?

              Reply

              1 Reply

              • TLovesTeddyComment removed: User banned.
• 0%

  libsRfunny1 month, 3 weeks ago

  Obama's campaign removed from its Web site all references to his past criticism of the surge.

  Reply

  83 Replies

  • 0%

    bigurn1 month, 3 weeks ago

    Yes, I saw that! Nice job of politicking! It would be nice to know what this guy really believes in.

    Reply

    75 Replies

    • catstevensComment removed: User banned.2 Replies

      • 0%

        Goppy1 month, 3 weeks ago

        WOW! Sounds liek your husband has a hair trigger response to perceptions of questionable ethics.

        Please, catty, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE don't show him this article ..... EVER! If he is REALLY as true and upright as I am gleaning from your comment ... it will push him ABSOLUTELY over the edge...

        Anyway ... heres the article.

        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-10249...

        Reply
      • 0%

        Sabretooth1 month, 3 weeks ago

        I am guessing that your husband must literally be going insane about all of Johnny's flip flops then?

        Reply
    • 0%

      memestryker1 month, 3 weeks ago

      "It would be nice to know what this guy really believes in."

      That's easy--and the one thing about which he's been consistent. Change.

      Reply

      50 Replies

      • ranchhandComment removed: User banned.46 Replies

        • 0%

          Goppy1 month, 3 weeks ago

          I believe that our Johnny 'Slick' McCain is now swinging around to Obama's position of increasing troop levels in Afghanistan.

          That's kinda been Obama's position all along.

          He's been saying that America should have focused on Afghanistan ---- since THAT'S the nation that launched the attacks on New York.

          He's been sayin that it was Strategically wrong to invade Iraq ---- since THAT nation was ALSO an enemy of Al Qaida.

          Sooooo ... his vision is to focus our military efforts in Afghanistan ... as well as go after Osama bin Laden.

          I dont know if yall remember Osama bin Laden ... he's that fella that GW said he was going to get ... course ... that was before Saddam Hussein started talkin with the Rooskies about turnin over all Oil Field Contracts to the Russians.

          That dint sit well with the 2 Oil Buddies ... GeeDub and Dick Cheney.

          WOW! Its almost liek GeeDub has ADHD.

          Reply

          19 Replies

          • 0%

            tbkennedy531 month, 3 weeks ago

            Hey Goppy,

            If Obama is so interested and concerned about Afganistan why hasn't he held a single committee meeting in the Senate? He is the chairman of the committee. No action in over two years. Or is that spin too?

            Reply

            2 Replies

            • 0%

              MRCOFFEECAKE1 month, 3 weeks ago

              So senators and senate committees can influence military operations now??

              Sine when. I must have missed that constitutional change.

              Reply

              1 Reply

              • 0%

                raza91 month, 3 weeks ago

                Just to play devil's advocate ...

                http://www.nowpublic.com/obama-cfr

                Obama & The CFR | The News is NowPublic.com

                The CFR has stacked the deck for the 2008 election with

                several members in the race from both sides of the isle:

                Democrat CFR

                Candidates:

                Barack Obama

                Hillary Clinton

                John Edwards

                Chris Dodd

                Bill Richardson

                Republican CFR

                Candidates:

                Mitt Romney

                Rudy Giuliani

                John McCain

                Fred Thompson

                Newt Gingrich

                Presidential Candidate & Congressman Ron Paul is

                the only "top tier" candidate who is not a member of the CFR.

                Reply
          • 0%

            bigurn1 month, 3 weeks ago

            Goppy, you know, don't you, that no "nation" attacked the WTC, the Pentagon and a field in PA? Right? Right?

            Al Qaida is a disparate group of Islamic zealouts with no central government backing them. They operate in semi-autonomous cells, with only loose coordination of activity. The WTC attacks were their finest level of coordination, unfortunately.

            Al Qaida is not a country; Afghanistan is. Since al Qaida operates globally, it would have been wrong to attack the Afghan nation. What we've done in Afghanistan is to attack terror bases specifically and the Taliban leadership in general. You get that, right? Right?

            Reply

            13 Replies

            • 0%

              MRCOFFEECAKE1 month, 3 weeks ago

              There is no "nation" to attack in Afghanistan. They have tribes, regions and nothing else. "Attacking' a nation is going after their president who controls their military and that does not apply to Afghanistan since we put him in anyhow. We're not trying to capture and control their capitol.

              We can't "attack" Afghanistan.. We are there in the same capacity as Iraq, but with a much more clear mission that we

              still can't seem to accomplish..To remove Taliban resistance

              and find BinLaden and his key cohorts.

              Reply
            • 0%

              Goppy1 month, 3 weeks ago

              bigurn ... you do realize that Saddam Hussein viewed Al Qaida as an enemy to his regime.

              YOu get that, right?

              DO you understand the concept of - "The enemy of my enemy is my friend?"

              Al Qaida was organized in Afghanistan ... that's why the world supported us when we went after them there.

              There was NO Al Qaida in Iraq ... that's why the world has NOT supported us in that regime change.

              Now ... to be clear ... you have to understand and agree to the FACT ... the TRUE FACT ... that there were NO Al Qaida in Iraq.

              See?

              Iraq was an ARBITRARY war. Well, not so arbitrary for the American Oil INdustry.

              Reply

              7 Replies

              • 0%

                bigurn1 month, 3 weeks ago

                Goppy, man I love your posts!

                Hussein viewed nearly everyone as an enemy, silly. He was a megalomaniac.

                Al Qaida is not "organized" at all. That's the power of terrorism, it's impermiability.

                There was indeed al Qaida in Iraq. Hussein rented land to various terror groups, as long as they didn't move against him, for training grounds. There was also Sein Fein, Italian Red, and others.

                Iraq was not arbitrary. It was the result of a failure to abide by two separate measures by the UN Security Council. And the American Oil Industry has yet to profit from it, and no plan exists for them to do so. Frankly, I hope they do, so I can get a return on my investment there. But we've committed to leaving it alone.

                Reply

                6 Replies

                • 0%

                  antibrainwasher1 month, 3 weeks ago

                  And so that was why we invaded, because Iraq was threatening to overthrow the american government.

                  The buget for alkida is 30 million. that's not enough to buy a chinook helicopter, but its enough for us to spend one TRILLION dollars invading a country which had absolutely nothing to do with 911.

                  And just because Cheney was CEO of Haliburton, and Rumesfeld was CEO of a major arms/ miliatry contractor before joining the Rove/bush machine, and ever since 911 the top 5 military industries have increased their profit by at least 10 % a year, that had nothing to do with the 3 trillion dollar payment to the war industry.....

                  Reply

                  1 Reply

                  • 0%

                    chuck-the-canuck1 month, 3 weeks ago

                    That's over 500 Trillion and increasing by several thousand dollars a second.

                    Reply
                • 0%

                  raza91 month, 3 weeks ago

                  bigurn - In June 2008, the US Senate Intelligence Committee released a report concluding that Bush and other top officials misrepresented and exaggerated available intelligence on Iraq's alleged terrorist connections and weapons capabilities. Also,in 2008, the nonpartisan Center for Public Integrity has enumerated a total of 935 false statements made by George Bush and six other top members of his administration in what it termed a "carefully launched campaign of misinformation" during the two year period following 9-11, in order to rally support for the invasion of Iraq.

                  And the oil industry has yet to profit? Are you kidding!?!

                  Reply

                  1 Reply

                  • 0%

                    raza91 month, 3 weeks ago

                    From Feb of this year:

                    "By any measure, Exxon Mobil's performance last year was a blowout.

                    The company reported Friday that it beat its own record for the highest profits ever recorded by any company, with net income rising 3 percent to $40.6 billion, thanks to surging oil prices. The company's sales, more than $404 billion, exceeded the gross domestic product of 120 countries.

                    Exxon Mobil earned more than $1,287 of profit for every second of 2007.

                    The company also had its most profitable quarter ever. It said net income rose 14 percent, to $11.7 billion.

                    Oil companies have all reported strong profits in recent days. Chevron, the second-largest American oil company, said Friday that its profits rose 9 percent to $18.7 billion last year; Royal Dutch Shell on Thursday reported net income for 2007 of $31 billion, up 23 percent and the largest figure ever for a British company."

                    Reply
                • 0%

                  amazed1 month, 3 weeks ago

                  It was more like 12 or 14 UN resolutions that were violated rather than two. In fact, had I been President, I would never have referred to this as a new action, but just the end of the cease fire declared in 1991 because of Iraq's continued disregard for the UN resolutions and it's intransigence.

                  All the other stuff -- WMD, etc -- was just PR (or should have been). Iraq should never have been allowed to ignore the UN for 13 years.

                  Reply
                • 0%

                  Klarissa1 month, 3 weeks ago

                  http://www.iht.com/articles/reuters/2008/02/18/...

                  BAGHDAD: More than 70 international firms have registered to compete for tenders to help develop Iraq's oil reserves, seen as vital to providing the funds to rebuild the shattered country, Iraq's oil ministry said on Monday.

                  Iraq currently produces only a fraction of its vast reserves, the third-largest in the world and among the cheapest to produce, and international oil firms have been positioning for years to gain access.

                  Big oil firms such as Royal Dutch Shell, Total, Repsol YPF, ConocoPhillips, BP, and Norway's StatoilHydro are among firms that have said they have registered or intended to do so.

                  Reply
            • 0%

              Sabretooth1 month, 3 weeks ago

              Bigurn, you do understand that Saudi Arabia funds the religious extremists that attack you RIGHT? RIGHT? So what the f#ck are you doing in Iraq?

              Reply

              3 Replies

              • 0%

                newbie04201 month, 3 weeks ago

                LOL

                PEOPLE in Saudi Arabia fund religous exremists not the government itself, that is the differnce between Saudi Arabia and countries like Iraq and Iran. So what the f#uck were you thinking?

                Unless, of course, you'd like to prove the Saudi government itself has funded terrorists.

                Reply

                2 Replies

                • 0%

                  djn3nunez31 month, 3 weeks ago

                  Don't they contribute to the Palestinain relief fund. You know the one that pays the families of those who have died in the struggle with Israel? The fund that doesn't distinguish between a suicide bomber and a person killed by a bullet? I think the Royal family pays into that fund. I know there was a telethon in Saudi Arabia for the fund as well.

                  Reply
                • 0%

                  Sabretooth1 month, 3 weeks ago

                  I would love to prove the Saudi government funds terrorism but i believe your great decider has classified that information from the 911 commission report.

                  Reply
          • 0%

            obiefrommuskogee1 month, 3 weeks ago

            I notice with are now negotiating with Iran, the "evil nation of terrorists," over nukes.

            Reply
          • 0%

            Georgia501 month, 3 weeks ago

            Hey Go-Pee...

            Where'd you say you live in Ocala? Approx. what exit off I-75? I wanna be sure and flip you a pair of American eagles next week on my way through.

            Reply
        • 0%

          mesodude1 month, 3 weeks ago

          "LOL What ever you want to believe in is whom Obama is that day. Let him get caught then he'll change his stance."

          --But right before McCain bagged the nomination you swore up and down you wouldn't vote for him, ranch. Did you change your mind or is it that you just like piling on Obama exclusively because you're bitter that, to put it conservatively (that's with a small c), McCain is certainly no improvement over Obama (a fact which many on the right have freely admitted)? What's your angle here, I guess is my question?

          Reply

          25 Replies

          • ranchhandComment removed: User banned.24 Replies

            • 0%

              aniokly1 month, 3 weeks ago

              I know Democrats that are having a hard time deciding whether to vote for Obama for the same reason every one else, he has no experience in foreign policy, National Security, and he will tax your socks off for Marxist Social programs. Obama has to re write his short list for veep, because no one but Hillary wants the job. I don't think Democrat leaders believe he can win

              Reply

              10 Replies

              • 0%

                MRCOFFEECAKE1 month, 3 weeks ago

                Anyone who votes against Obama, that isn't a Repuglican is only doing so because they are against a black man..(and there are plenty of them)..There are enough of them to assure me that McCain is going to be elected. Obama will take 12 states.

                NY, Mass., Ill., Vt., Ct., Calif., NJ, Delaware,

                Rhode Island, Minnesota and maybe Wisconsin, Oregon and or Maryland.

                Reply

                9 Replies

                • TLovesTeddyComment removed: User banned.4 Replies

                  • ranchhandComment removed: User banned.3 Replies

                    • TLovesTeddyComment removed: User banned.2 Replies

                      • ranchhandComment removed: User banned.1 Reply

                        • 0%

                          MRCOFFEECAKE1 month, 3 weeks ago

                          Never, eh??

                          Try to read for content..

                          The first point was not about God..but about you speaking on behalf of a group you detest by using the childish "putting words in their mouths to the worst degree" tactic..

                          it doesn't work and you are convincing no one of anything bty claiming to know what YOU call liberals believe..

                          Reply
                • 0%

                  bigurn1 month, 3 weeks ago

                  Mr Coffee, I am an Independent who is not voting for Obama just yet. That doesn't make me a racist; it makes me a thinking man. Shame on you.

                  Reply

                  1 Reply

                  • 0%

                    MRCOFFEECAKE1 month, 3 weeks ago

                    Well, you're not likely to find reasons to vote for McCain, and as an independent you won't feel like America will be harmed by Obama, so what are you worried about??

                    You know what I'm saying is true of most of the real America.

                    To deny that reality means that you don't get out much.

                    Reply
                • 0%

                  antibrainwasher1 month, 3 weeks ago

                  Obama also is ahead in georgia, ohio, pennsylvania and virginia.

                  The senate races are looking especially grim for Republicans. You want to vote to make a difference, or donate money to make a difference, vote out this fillibustering senate republican creationist big oil anti science veto proof cabal.

                  Reply

                  1 Reply

                  • 0%

                    MRCOFFEECAKE1 month, 3 weeks ago

                    Unfortunately the Republican hate and fear campaign hasn't even warmed up the engine..

                    Kerry was way ahead at this point in 2004 against the worst sitting President since Carter.

                    Reply
            • 0%

              MRCOFFEECAKE1 month, 3 weeks ago

              Yeah right..like Zell Miller or Joe Lieberman??

              Those are the only two that could actually make us believe you...

              As of January Hillary and Edwards were the only ones running,

              and you can't expect us to believe that you'd ever vote for either of those two, of whom you've never said a good word about either.

              Reply

              2 Replies

              • ranchhandComment removed: User banned.1 Reply

                • 0%

                  MRCOFFEECAKE1 month, 3 weeks ago

                  Quick..name the last Democrat for President or senate you voted for..

                  Reply
            • 0%

              Wolfie20071 month, 3 weeks ago

              Come on ranch there are a lot of differences between Obama and McCain actually the only time they agree are the things that Obama has flipped on. Also, who do you want appointing federal judges?

              Reply

              4 Replies

              • 0%

                antibrainwasher1 month, 3 weeks ago

                National Security Policy Jonny jutebox changing his toon every two minutes.

                1. McCain thought Bush's warrantless-wiretap program circumvented the law; now he believes the opposite.

                2. McCain insisted that everyone, even "terrible killers," "the worst kind of scum of humanity," and detainees at Guantanamo Bay, "deserve to have some adjudication of their cases," even if that means "releasing some of them." McCain now believes the opposite.

                3. He opposed indefinite detention of terrorist suspects. When the Supreme Court reached the same conclusion, he called it "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country."

                4. In February 2008, McCain reversed course on prohibiting waterboarding.

                5. McCain was for closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay before he was against it.

                Reply

                3 Replies

                • 0%

                  antibrainwasher1 month, 3 weeks ago

                  Foreign Policy

                  7. McCain was for kicking Russia out of the G8 before he was against it.

                  8. McCain supported moving "towards normalization of relations" with Cuba. Now he believes the opposite.

                  9. McCain believed the U.S. should engage in diplomacy with Hamas. Now he believes the opposite.

                  10. McCain believed the U.S. should engage in diplomacy with Syria. Now he believes the opposite.

                  11. McCain is both for and against a "rogue state rollback" as a focus of his foreign policy vision.

                  12. McCain used to champion the Law of the Sea convention, even volunteering to testify on the treaty's behalf before a Senate committee. Now he opposes it.

                  13. McCain was against divestment from South Africa before he was for it.

                  Reply

                  2 Replies

                  • 0%

                    antibrainwasher1 month, 3 weeks ago

                    Military Policy

                    14. McCain recently claimed that he was the "greatest critic" of Rumsfeld's failed Iraq policy. In December 2003, McCain praised the same strategy as "a mission accomplished." In March 2004, he said, "I'm confident we're on the right course." In December 2005, he said, "Overall, I think a year from now, we will have made a fair amount of progress if we stay the course."

                    15. McCain has changed his mind about a long-term U.S. military presence in Iraq on multiple occasions, concluding, on multiple occasions, that a Korea-like presence is both a good and a bad idea.

                    16. McCain said before the war in Iraq, "We will win this conflict. We will win it easily." Four years later, McCain said he knew all along that the war in Iraq war was "probably going to be long and hard and tough."

                    Reply

                    1 Reply

                    • 0%

                      antibrainwasher1 month, 3 weeks ago

                      17. McCain has repeatedly said it's a dangerous mistake to tell the "enemy" when U.S. troops would be out of Iraq. In May, McCain announced that most American troops would be home from Iraq by 2013.

                      18. McCain was against expanding the GI Bill before he was for it.

                      Domestic Policy

                      19. McCain defended "privatizing" Social Security. Now he says he's against privatization (though he actually still supports it.)

                      20. McCain wanted to change the Republican Party platform to protect abortion rights in cases of rape and incest. Now he doesn't.

                      21. McCain supported storing spent nuclear fuel at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Now he believes the opposite.

                      22. He argued the NRA should not have a role in the Republican Party's policy making. Now he believes the opposite.

                      Reply
            • 0%

              Sabretooth1 month, 3 weeks ago

              Ranch, it is only a flip flop if a democrat does it right?

              Reply

              2 Replies

              • 0%

                antibrainwasher1 month, 3 weeks ago

                23. In 1998, he championed raising cigarette taxes to fund programs to cut underage smoking, insisting that it would prevent illnesses and provide resources for public health programs. Now, McCain opposes a $0.61-per-pack tax increase, won't commit to supporting a regulation bill he's co-sponsoring, and has hired Philip Morris' former lobbyist as his senior campaign adviser.

                24. McCain is both for and against earmarks for Arizona.

                25. McCain's first mortgage plan was premised on the notion that homeowners facing foreclosure shouldn't be "rewarded" for acting "irresponsibly." His second mortgage plan took largely the opposite position.

                26. McCain went from saying gay marriage should be allowed, to saying gay marriage shouldn't be allowed.

                27. McCain opposed a holiday to honor Martin Luther King, Jr., before he supported it.

                28. McCain was anti-ethanol. Now he's pro-ethanol.

                Reply

                1 Reply

                • 0%

                  antibrainwasher1 month, 3 weeks ago

                  29. McCain was both for and against state promotion of the Confederate flag.

                  30. In 2005, McCain endorsed intelligent design creationism, a year later he said the opposite, and a few months after that, he was both for and against creationism at the same time.

                  Economic Policy

                  31. McCain was against Bush's tax cuts for the very wealthy before he was for them.

                  32. John McCain initially argued that economics is not an area of expertise for him, saying, "I'm going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues; I still need to be educated," and "The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should." He now falsely denies ever having made these remarks and insists that he has a "very strong" understanding of economics.

                  Reply
            • 0%

              amazed1 month, 3 weeks ago

              I seriously would have voted for Hilary over McCain, but McCain's got it all over Obama. Being from CT, though, Obama will absolutely carry the state, so I'll probably just make a statement and vote Libertarian.

              Reply
            • 0%

              mesodude1 month, 3 weeks ago

              "Nope Haven't changed my mind. But I look at Obamas comments and have to reconsider voting for McCain ."

              --In '04 I think Republicans called that flipflopping...

              "This will be a hard decision whom to vote for. Basically they are much alike."

              --Really? I've been reading your posts since Feb and nothing would suggest that you're seriously considering anyone other than McCain (even though back then you made it sound as if you'd vote for him over your own dead body).

              Reply
      • 0%

        mesodude1 month, 3 weeks ago

        I think it would be even more helpful to know all the ways cons believe those *they* support (Bush and McCain, for instance) are/have been/will be such a vast improvement over Obama. It's nice that you can use The Google to find something unflattering about Obama but this doesn't demonstrate why the GOP is in any way better. ;-P

        Reply
      • 0%

        aniokly1 month, 3 weeks ago

        Right. Change is all you will have left in your pocket after he taxes you, and lets the Bush tax cuts expire.

        Reply

        1 Reply

        • 0%

          Sabretooth1 month, 3 weeks ago

          Ani, change is all the US has after Bush's policies have bankrupted you.

          Reply
    • 0%