Mike said::lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3433485.ece
You might also note that it takes a foreign news media to address this in a big way. :roll:
Red Barn Angus said:I hope that more and more of this discussion comes to the surface. I am just amazed that so many people have jumped on the Obama bandwagon. He has offered nothing but rhetoric and talk of change. He denies any Muslim connection but who wouldn't. In my eyes it simply is not worth the risk. What if he really did have a Muslim connection and became President? He's already soft on defense. I am not fond of the others either but, at least, they are American. Obama is scary.
CHANGE is what the majority of Americans want.
Change IS the issue.Steve said:OldTimerCHANGE is what the majority of Americans want.
so your saying issues don't matter... ??? :roll:
Goodpasture said:Change IS the issue.Steve said:OldTimerCHANGE is what the majority of Americans want.
so your saying issues don't matter... ??? :roll:
At this point anything is better than what we have. but there is not "blind"selection going on. We know what McCain will do, we have had 8 years of Clinton, so we know what that is all about. Obama is the only change that represents significant change opportunity.aplusmnt said:Positive Change in Washington is something we would all like to see, but to trust someone blindly to make change
After seeing your blind support of dubya, I figured you would be comfortable with pure stupid.aplusmnt said:with out ever hearing any substance on what change is pure stupid!
jigs said:I want change too, but selling out America to p*** ant countries around the world is not what I want...and that is the Obama plan. while Hillery wants to gut our country and give it away to the highest bidder....
"I think you should think twice before you support a President who plans on being at war for 100 years at the cost of $275,000,000 a day."
Mike said:Do you have any idea how much of your purported $275 Mil goes back in to the U.S. economy?
Goodpasture said:In a world where Muslims are considered both our strongest allies (Saudi Arabia, the Royal Family of Kuwait, Dubai, Jordan, Indonesia, etc) and our greatest enemies. I think it would be wise to have someone in the Oval Office that does not have a knee jerk reaction to Muslims. And do not think that Muslims move in lock step with each other......to do so would be to ignore the history of Iraq and Iran (which dumya did). From what I heard last night, Obama is NOT soft on defense (If, as you say, he has Muslim tendencies, show me a pacifist or non-military oriented Muslim anywhere in the world.....I don't think the "Prince of Peace" means anything to them). I will be happy to have a President that can articulate (tell dumya to say that fast three times) a direction and is willing to leave it to the peoples representatives (we call it Congress) to develop the programs to implement the vision.
I think you should think twice before you support a President who plans on being at war for 100 years at the cost of $275,000,000 a day. Unless, of course, you have plans to pay the bill as it comes due.
The NY Times has a story on gas price increases. With oil over $100 a barrel now, gas prices could hit $4 a gallon, tipping the country into recession. Historically, recessions in election years are not good for the party in power and may be especially bad news for John McCain since he has repeatedly said he is not an expert on the economy. In truth, by the time the next President is inaugurated on Jan. 20, it will be too late to do much about the recession, but Presidential candidates are expected to claim they will magically fix the economy, even though whatever the new President does will be too little too late.
McCain is in a funny situation. If things remain quiet in Iraq, people tend to forget about it, which is bad for him because foreign policy and military affairs are his great strengths. He would much rather the election were about who will be the best commander-in-chief than who would be the best economist-in-chief. On the other hand, if Iraq flares up, it will remind a lot of people that he said he is willing to stay in Iraq 100 years if that was needed to achieve victory. Many voters do not want their sons and grandsons and great grandsons (and daughters) in Iraq for 100 years no matter what. The best scenario for McCain is that the Iraqis come to a political settlement, the war there ends, and the troops can come home because there is no more war. But there is little he can do to push things in that direction. It is doubtful that the Shiite and Sunni leaders will get together and say: "Look, we better end this war fast or McCain's gonna get clobbered." They have their own agendas.
and your implication that the Saudi's are not allies in the region shows how incredibly stupid you are. Moreover, if you are not aware that the Bin Laden family is one of the bush Family friends you're more than stupid.aplusmnt said:The fact that you think there is Muslim nations that are of our STRONGEST allies, shows how ignorant you are on this subject.
Prove it.......quote Dubya..........aplusmnt said:Anyone can articulate things.........