Obama Abroad

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: Cloudosmoke @ 07/23/2008 2:15:52 PM

    What's the number of Iraqi's that have been killed now? Over 1 million? And the 100 year occupation comment from McCain meant what? And the surge was meant to do what since it should have been a high numbered surge from the beginning? And how many generals were thrown under the bus due to Bush's foul ups? Why are we at war in Iraq? and the number 1 question.... Who let the dogs out?

    • Posted By: Davole @ 07/23/2008 7:12:10 PM

      Cloudosmoke -

      You ask - "who let the dogs out?"
      It was Barack Obama - when he released his intellectually-inhibited obamabots!

      • Posted By: Pia1981 @ 07/23/2008 8:41:52 PM

        Now that wasn't nice, Davole. As an ex Canadian citizen, I know that Canadians are kind people.

        • Posted By: Davole @ 07/24/2008 3:20:27 AM

          Pia1981 -

          You've got it - but this Canadian is also forthright - and I was just answering the question.

          Nice hearing from you!

          Ciao for now!

          • Posted By: Pia1981 @ 07/24/2008 7:02:58 AM

            Good morning Davole.

            I was teasing you about not being nice. You always are.

            • Posted By: Davole @ 07/24/2008 9:39:07 AM

              Pia1981 -

              You're a real tease - but I like you for it, and consider it an honour to be teased by you.

              That teasability must be a result of your latin DNA.

              If I may be so bold (and I definitely am) to ask, what is the significance of your "1981"?
              Is that your birth year?

              Well, it's been nice "dancing" with you - but may I add - I'm the one that leads! (Just kidding).

              Have a good one - be optimistic - Gee, that would probably make a Republican out of you!

  • Posted By: vallihi @ 07/23/2008 6:44:57 PM

    Most Americans outside of the Media want a President of The United States , not of Europeor the the Mideast. No one can say that George W Bush ever favored the interests of the World rather than those of the United States. As the most powerful nation in the world our President is the main protector of our interests above all. Obama is too eager to please and not informed enough to understand the perils of one sided diplomacy as practiced at the UN.
    That is why despite dire predictions by the Media , Bush was elected in 2004 to a second term with a comfortable mayority. Despit his Media popularity Clinton never received a mayority vote in his two elections. Has the Media noticed any of these facts!

    • Posted By: raddave @ 07/23/2008 7:39:05 PM

      "One sided diplomacy as practiced by the U.N.?" The only one who has practiced one sided diplomacy is George Bush "Stop enriching uranium and then we will negotiate." There would be no reason to negotiate, if the objectives of the negotiation are met beforehand.

      Bush did not win by a comfortable majority in 2004 he had 286 electoral votes and Kerry had 251. Popular vote bush 50.04% Kerry 48.3% And the election came down to one state, Ohio, where Bush won by less than 100,000 votes.

      Don't forget that Bush didn't even have the most popular votes in 2000 and was elected president.

      • Posted By: Skypoint @ 07/23/2008 7:55:33 PM

        Quote: "Don't forget that Bush didn't even have the most popular votes in 2000 and was elected president."

        Radical Dave!!!!.... Are you still stepping in this stuff 8 years later?

        • Posted By: Pia1981 @ 07/23/2008 9:01:43 PM

          I agree with raddave. Pres. Bush had the electoral votes. Al Gore had the popular vote. In 1992, Pres. Clinton didn't have the pop. vote either. Pres. Bush senior did.

          • Posted By: raddave @ 07/23/2008 9:14:53 PM

            You are wrong. Clinton did have the popular vote as well, but an argument could be made that the majority of people who voted for Perrot would have voted for Bush and giving him the popular vote.

            • Posted By: Skypoint @ 07/24/2008 9:14:52 AM

              Correct... consensus on this is that Perrot put Clinton in office.

            • Posted By: Pia1981 @ 07/23/2008 11:23:57 PM

              Oh, I didn't know Pres. Clinton had the popular vote, I always thught Pres. Bush senior did. Good to know, thanks raddave.

          • Posted By: Skypoint @ 07/23/2008 9:56:29 PM

            Hello again Piazadorable.... that was 8 years ago, remember???

            • Posted By: Pia1981 @ 07/23/2008 11:22:15 PM

              Hello skypoint. Moi, adorable again? Very kind of you to say that but was I not bad today? I posted mean comments to News and Notes. I posted that I had no interest in his posts. I lied. I do. I need to apologize. Have you seen him?

              • Posted By: Skypoint @ 07/24/2008 12:22:46 AM

                No, I 've not seen him today. He really isn't a bad guy from what I can tell... he just jumps the gun once in a while when he shouldn't! As alway, I hope you don't take him too seriosly!

                • Posted By: Pia1981 @ 07/24/2008 8:40:38 AM

                  No, I dont think he's a bad person and I think he makes some good arguments. Of course he supports neither candidate right now.

                  • Posted By: Skypoint @ 07/24/2008 9:12:26 AM

                    Right.... he's really more down the middle than most of us here.

        • Posted By: raddave @ 07/23/2008 8:38:41 PM

          It is the truth though. Bush had 50,456,002 votes with a 47.9% Gore had 50,999,897 votes with a 48.4%. Is it relavent? NO and neither is the fact that Clinton did not have a majority in 1992 and 1996. The presidential election is not decided on the popular vote, but the electoral college does. And in all three of those elections, Clinton and Bush had a majority there.

          • Posted By: Skypoint @ 07/23/2008 9:46:11 PM

            Radical Dave... We gotta love ya bud... you do come up with those numbers!

            • Posted By: Skypoint @ 07/23/2008 10:05:33 PM

              BTW, You may be right on that tax thing we've be arguing about.... actually we both may be wrong. It looks like the largest tax increase in history belongs to Reagan, back back in 1982. It actully is above the one you sited in 1917. In any event, each side looks at it differently.... percentage vs. adjusted dollars and so on. I don't think a difinitive answer can really be found. (IMO)

              • Posted By: raddave @ 07/23/2008 11:31:38 PM

                No worries. I do not believe all tax increases are bad and I do not think all tax cuts are bad either. If the tax increase is only for people who can handle the burden and the cuts benefit the middle class, who actually pays most of the taxes in America. I just do not like it when politicians say they are going to cut taxes for everyone, but the cuts only benefit the super wealthy. I also do not like it when republicans try to scare the common people into believing that the dems are going to tax them to death and spend that money extremely unwiselty, not when the defecit has encreased to record highs under the republicans.

                • Posted By: raddave @ 07/23/2008 11:34:57 PM

                  I do think that BOTH parties tend to give it up that arses of the middle class

            • Posted By: raddave @ 07/23/2008 10:03:23 PM

              Its quite easy, you can find them on the google. And I do not use some obscure liberal blog either. ;-)

  • Posted By: HolyRoller @ 07/24/2008 8:59:23 AM

    President Obama: MSNBC???s Howard Fineman wrote July 22, 2008:

    [The] American people may be repelled at the sight of a man touring the planet in presidential style who has yet to even be nominated by his own party. There is something a little off about Obamapalooza, even if it is not entirely the candidate???s fault. The self-conscious mimicking of J.F.K. can be cloying or even worse. Kennedy went to Berlin in the midst of a Cold War crisis. To stand at the Brandenburg Gate and declare ???Ich bin ein Berliner??? took enormous guts. Obama has yet to match that fortitude ??? and he hasn???t been chosen president. However quaint it may seem, voters may want a say in that decision.

    NOBAMA!!!

  • Posted By: Omaar @ 07/24/2008 8:52:41 AM

    -----------------------------------------------
    Semi-Senile, Johh McCain, on the "Surge"

    The Major Sunni Sheik who John McCain said was protected by the surge and subsequently helped lead the Anbar Awakening, was actually assassinated by an al-Qaeda led group in midst of the surge.

    On Tuesday evening, McCain falsely claimed that the downturn in violence in Iraq's Anbar province was a result of the surge, when in fact the surge began months afterward. Moreover, he said, if it weren't for the work of U.S. forces, the major Sunni figure leading that awakening wouldn't have had the protection he needed.

    "Colonel MacFarland was contacted by one of the major Sunni sheiks," said the Senator. "Because of the surge we were able to go out and protect that sheik and others. And it began the Anbar awakening."

    The Arizona Republican's campaign went further the next day, claiming that the major figures that turned around Anbar province would have been killed had the surge policy not been in place. "If Barack Obama had had his way, the Sheiks who started the Awakening would have been murdered at the hands of al Qaeda," said spokesman Tucker Bounds.

    Sadly, that murder took place even with the surge underway. In September 2007, Abdul Sattar Abu Risha, the sheik widely credited with persuading Sunni leaders to turn against al Qaeda in Iraq, died in a bomb attack in Anbar. His work, prior to then, was held as a major effort in transforming the province from one of Iraq's deadliest areas into one of its safest.

    It was in a September 2006 interview with UPI, when U.S. Army Col. Sean MacFarland first spoke about Sattar's efforts. "Some of the sheikhs have begun to step forward and some of the insurgent groups began to fight against al Qaeda," he said. His reference was Sattar, according to a Reuters article published upon the sheik's death.

    Below is more from the Reuters article on Sattar's death:

    "When U.S. Army Col. Sean MacFarland, working in his Pentagon office last Thursday, heard that a tribal leader had been killed in Iraq's Anbar province, his first reaction was: "Please don't let it be Sattar."
    His fears proved well-founded. A bomb had killed Abdul Sattar Abu Risha, the founder of a movement of Sunni leaders who turned against al Qaeda in Iraq, who are also Sunnis, and transformed Anbar from one of Iraq's deadliest areas into one of its safest.

    MacFarland is in a unique position to offer insights into the movement Sattar led and how it may develop without him. As a brigade commander in Iraq, he was present at the alliance's founding and worked closely with Abu Risha for months.

    "I owe him a lot," MacFarland said. "He was a young guy with a great vision of the future and he was a fast friend of the United States."


  • Posted By: raddave @ 07/23/2008 10:43:29 PM

    BREAKING NEWS. This just reported by the world renowned Swedish Newspaper, The Daily Stockholm Times.

    BARACK OBAMA IS THE ANTICHRIST!!!

    Larry Johanson, the top photo analyst in Swedens intelligence agency has found proof that Barack Obama is in fact the child of Satan. By using reverse osmosis techniques under a high powered electron microscope, Johanson discovered that Obama has the Mark of the Beast on his forehead. Johanson said. "The mark is very small and cannot be seen by the naked eye.

    Larry Juergenson, a coleague of Johanson, has uncovered Obama's real birth certificate. And it is true that Obama is not an American citizen. Was he born in Hawaii, Kenya? NO he was born in Hell!!! He also uncovered that Obama's skin color is not black, but red. Obama knew that Americans would never elect someone with red skin, and since it is easier to darken your color than it is to lighten, Obama CHOSE to be black.
    Obama is against drilling in ANWR, not because he wants to protect the environment, but because Hell is located directly under ANWR. And, he is afraid that if an oil company would accidently discover this, his secret would be out. Because there is a sign at the Gates of Hell that reads. "Welcome to Hell, the birthplace of Obama."

    The Swedish Intelligence has also discovered the true meaning of Barack Obama's name. It is not African, or Arabic, but it in fact come from the Ancient language of the Buttmunchurians. Barack Hussein Obama actually means Demon Seed.

    Again, I did absolutely no research in this post. And I paid tribute to Holy Roller by naming all of my sources Larry.

    • Posted By: Pia1981 @ 07/24/2008 8:46:37 AM

      The media needs to make up their mind. Is he our Messiah or the anti-christ? Crazy. Neither. IMO, Obama is the man who is the best candidate fit to be president.

  • Posted By: arielglobalist @ 07/23/2008 7:37:48 PM

    Obama has the character and stature of a leader who can productively engage with the globalized world in which we live. I can't think of a better representative of the United States on the global stage than Barack Obama.

  • Posted By: jon divine @ 07/23/2008 1:17:53 PM

    I like Obama's idea: Leave Iraq, escalate our presence in Afghanistan, and (I hope) bomb the hell out of corrupt double-crossing evil Pakistan.

    • Posted By: Pia1981 @ 07/24/2008 8:34:55 AM

      There are innocent people in Pakistan. Men, Women, Children. Is that what you want, to bomb them?

    • Posted By: desertgirl @ 07/23/2008 1:42:20 PM

      Why do you find it acceptable to bomb Pakistan? Do you find it acceptable that McCain alluded to bombing Iran?

  • Posted By: Kboogie @ 07/23/2008 2:51:22 PM

    YOU HAVE TO SEE THIS!!!!!

    Vanity Fair satirizes McCain/New Yorker!!!
    http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/07/vanity_fair_satirizes_mccainne.html

    The magazine posted a cartoon on its website featuring John McCain holding a walker with one hand and giving the fist bump to a pill-popping (well pill-holding) Cindy McCain. The Constitution burns in the fireplace of the Oval Office while a painting of George W. Bush hangs on the wall.
    -----------------------------------

    The funny thing is, Obama's cover was a depiction of silly rumors. The McCain cover illustrates factual events.

    HILARIOUS!!!!!!

    • Posted By: Davole @ 07/23/2008 6:45:10 PM

      kboogie -

      Wow - Vanity Fair - now you're talking serious journalism - not!

      • Posted By: Pia1981 @ 07/24/2008 7:22:19 AM

        I used to collect Vanity Fair issues only for Princess Diana articles and photo layouts. I'm a big fan.

      • Posted By: Kboogie @ 07/23/2008 7:21:54 PM

        Who said anything about journalism? The cover is hilarious. With the pulse of political satire at a flatline, Vanity Fair provided a refreshing laugh.

        So, yes, Vanity Fair.

  • Posted By: Davole @ 07/24/2008 4:21:01 AM

    Arctic May Hold 90 Billion Barrels of Oil, U.S. Says (Update2)
    By Joe Carroll
    July 23 (Bloomberg) -- The Arctic may hold 90 billion barrels of oil, more than all the known reserves of Nigeria, Kazakhstan and Mexico combined, and enough to supply U.S. demand for 12 years, the U.S. Geological Survey said.

    One-third of the undiscovered oil is in Alaskan territory, the agency found in a study released today. By contrast, a geologic formation beneath the North Pole claimed by Russian scientists last year probably holds just 1.2 percent of the Arctic's crude, the U.S. report showed.

    Energy producers such as Royal Dutch Shell Plc and Chevron Corp. have accelerated exploration of the northernmost regions for untapped reserves amid record prices and receding access to deposits in more hospitable climates. Russia's move to scrap a United Nations convention and carve out an exclusive Arctic zone sparked protests from Canada, the U.S., Norway and Denmark.

    ``Most of the Arctic, especially offshore, is essentially unexplored with respect to petroleum,'' Donald Gautier, the project chief for the assessment, said in the report. ``The extensive Arctic continental shelves may constitute the geographically largest unexplored prospective area for petroleum remaining on Earth.''

    Russia dispatched a nuclear-powered icebreaker to the Arctic Ocean last year to map a subsea link between Siberia and the North Pole as part of a bid to refute a UN convention limiting resource claims beyond 200 miles (321 kilometers) offshore. Canada said earlier this month that it plans to counter the Russian overture with ``a very strong claim'' to Arctic exploration rights.

  • Posted By: MartinCarmel @ 07/24/2008 1:01:02 AM

    A portion of this nation has clearly lost its mind. Obama has learned A LOT from people who hate and now he is being pushed by American media. Can you deny that? Give us a black President, no problem, but NOT this man.

    Why are you continually ignoring this reality: Obama had a "close, personal, 20 year relationship" with a bigot named Reverand Wright......who is close friends with one of America's BIGGEST racists, Louis "I hate Jews and White Devils" Farakhan.

    Did Obama object when his OWN CHURCH gave Farakhan a lifetime achievement award? This is the conversation at the water coolers of the nation, folks. Most Jews and Hillary fans will NOT vote for Obama and the polls are showing it. Do you really know who Farrakhan is? Did you forget? Did you also forget that Obama's mentor is convinced the US Government planted AIDS so it would exterminate black people?

    The Obama Fever is wearing thin. Gallop now shows a 6 point lead. Remember, John Kerry had a 6 point lead over George Bush in 2004.....and he lost in November. Same with Dukakis and Bush 1 in 1988....a double digit lead in July. And he got smoked in November.

    This is the SAME nation that re-elected an unpopular President Bush during an unpopular war just 3 1/2 years ago. Translation? This is so predictable.- McCain will win in November.

  • Posted By: the_shelton @ 07/21/2008 10:53:16 AM

    I think it was a good article. To me, if foreign policy were a known fact or science, we wouldn't be having the problems in the world we now have. It is about as sure of a 'science' as social sciences and criminal sciences, none of which have accomplished any of the stated goals for the science. Even in it's meager success, you can call medical science attaining some of its goals.

    This world is in a mess, not just the US. It has been since the beginning and most of the remedies are worse than the disease. I think it is time someone came into a position of power with new ideas or at least the will to try something new. The old ideas have only resulted in the same old outcomes and we have all stood around looking aghast saying "Gee, why did it happen, just like it happend before? What went wrong?'. Insanity is defined as attempting the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome.

    I applaud the "junior", "unschooled", "naive" person who is able to look around and see that what has been passed off as wisdom, is just a bunch of old men who couldn't accomplish anything substantive, saying it was the other sides fault.

    As for all the naysayers and others posting here, I think you should go look in the mirror and with a magic marker, write in under your faces, "Racist". Your posts, no matter how you try to make them seem otherwise, seem to have a bit of a tilt in the wrong direction. Get over it, slavery is abolished, the war was lost to prolong it and race, color and all the rest are just convenient labels idiots use to keep from finding out that maybe, just maybe, that other person is better than you.

    • Posted By: News and Notes @ 07/21/2008 11:49:26 AM

      Those who have concerns about Obama are racists? That is completely ridiculous, insulting and divisive. If a 47 year old first term white senator was the presumptive democratic or republican nominee, there would be concerns also. That comment is outrageous and dismissive, not to mention elitist and arrogant. That comes right out of George W. Bush's playbook of divisive politics

      • Posted By: a_guy_in_NY @ 07/21/2008 2:08:18 PM

        Actually, I believe it was Abraham Linocln (less than one term in the Senate) who had even less experience in the Senate than Senator Obama...fact check for once, jeez.

        • Posted By: News and Notes @ 07/21/2008 5:06:37 PM

          So you had to go back 148 years to find a president less qualified than Obama? The country has changed a whole lot since 1860. That will convince Obama skeptics!

          • Posted By: raddave @ 07/24/2008 12:44:23 AM

            Well no, I didn't have to go back that far. Dwight Eisenhower held no political office before becoming President. Yes, he was a career military Officer, but being a great military officer does not make for a good president. Ulysses S. Grant was a career military officer, but was not a great president.

        • Posted By: raddave @ 07/21/2008 5:14:09 PM

          Abraham Lincoln was not a Senator, he was a member of the house of representatives. He did only serve one term in that capacity (two years).

    • Posted By: Cloudosmoke @ 07/21/2008 11:19:26 AM

      Actually before Bush ran for office, he said he wasn't worried about foreign policy. That was teh cowboy way of doing things. That was his way of saying I'm a Republican and Clinton spent too much time on foreign policy, righting the wrongs of the world. So yeah, foreign policy works if you work on it before it becomes a problem. It's called an olive branch and it sounds like you aren't too keen on extending one.

  • Posted By: MartinCarmel @ 07/22/2008 10:49:09 PM

    A portion of this nation has clearly lost its mind. Wake up! Obama is a scam artist who has no business being where he is. Give us a black President, no problem, but not this man. Here is the reality: Obama had a "close, personal, 20 year relationship" with a biggot named Reverand Wright......who is close friends with one of America's BIGGEST racists, Louis "I hate Jews and White Devils" Farakhan. This is the conversation at the water coolers of the nation, folks. Most Jews and many Hillary fans will NOT vote for Obama and the polls are showing it.
    The Obama Fever is wearing thin. Gallop now shows a 6 point lead. Remember, John Kerry had a 6 point lead over George Bush in 2004.....and he lost in November. Same with Dukakis and Bush 1 in 1988....a double digit lead in July. And he got smoked in November.
    This is the SAME nation that re-elected an unpopular President Bush during an unpopular war just 3 1/2 years ago. Translation? Watch it unfold and watch the accusations of racial bias when Obama loses. So predictable.- McCain will win in November.

    • Posted By: News and Notes @ 07/23/2008 10:37:47 AM

      Nobody was madder than I was when Bush got re-elected in 2004. So how did the DNC and democratic party elites respond? They pushed through the weakest candidate they could find in 2008.

      • Posted By: raddave @ 07/23/2008 9:40:41 PM

        Get over it News, Clinton LOST the primary. NOT because of the DNC and party elites, but because she ran a VERY poor campaign and blew a sure thing.

    • Posted By: Jack999 @ 07/23/2008 2:43:32 AM

      This another "AUSTISM" ...another one need a language theraphy or perharps need a pyschiatrist urgently, I cant help you here,I'm afraid that I'll give you wrong advice....lol

      • Posted By: Zombiehero @ 07/23/2008 9:33:00 AM

        Have to attack the poster because you don't have a comeback for the content....typical....ad hominum is becoming quite synonymous with Obama supporter.

    • Posted By: NO OOOOOOOOO @ 07/23/2008 4:12:44 AM

      YOU GO MARTIN!

  • Posted By: ICYEYES800 @ 07/22/2008 10:56:53 PM

    It's amazing to see this scam artist leading the lambs to slaughter....and you're loving it??? This dude had a perfectly normal, average American name, chose to CHANGE IT...to a MUSLIM name....my question is WHY? Certainly at the time he changed the name, did he have a clue that we'd be dealing with Saddam about the time he's trying for OFFICE!!!! This guy is CLUELESS in Washington, he's no clue about how to crue any of the ILL's that face our nation!!! EGO is the drive and has nothing SOLID to offer our nation as the president of the USA....JUST SAY NO TO OBAMA

    • Posted By: raddave @ 07/23/2008 9:37:30 PM

      First of all, there are no "Muslim" names. There are names from countries and regions, but not religions. My name is David, but I am not jewish. Secondly, he was born Barack Husseing Obama, named after his father. True he was called Barry, but as an adult he decided he wanted to be called Barack. Just like my brother who was called Bill until he became an adult, then he started introducing himself as William

    • Posted By: Jack999 @ 07/23/2008 2:24:16 AM

      What Scam Artist?? He's Democratic US presidential Candidate for God sake.....You'looks like a "AUSTISM" Scammer to me.

      • Posted By: Pia1981 @ 07/23/2008 8:22:22 AM

        Jack, one can't reason with these types people. They have no credibility on anything they post.

    • Posted By: NO OOOOOOOOO @ 07/23/2008 4:09:52 AM

      YEA ICYEYES!

      • Posted By: Pia1981 @ 07/23/2008 8:20:51 AM

        Nooooooooo. What a silly name. Gotta love it though. The Obama haters are one big joke.

    • Posted By: Pia1981 @ 07/23/2008 8:17:37 AM

      Icyeyes is a scam artist and a racist. Just say NO to Icyeyes and her Obama smears and lies.

  • Posted By: raddave @ 07/23/2008 1:01:55 AM

    NEWSFLASH!!!!! This has just been reported by the USA World Today Newspaper, and will soon be picked up by the MSM.

    John McCain is an illegal Alien!!!!

    Larry Smith, a career FBI agent, who worked on the secret Project Blue book has uncovered proof that John McCain, the republican president is an illegal alien, not from another country, but from another planet.

    Smith reports that John McCain, the fighter pilot was not shot down over North Vietnam by the North Vietnamese, but was shot down by a UFO piloted by Uranians, that???s right, they are from Uranus. He survived and was quickly picked up by the Uranians. A Uranian was made to look identically like John McCain. However, because of the body structure of the Uranians, his arms and legs do not work like a humans and because of this, ???McAlien??? does not have full range of motion in his limbs.

    Smith goes on to say that the Uranians introduced ???McAlien??? to the planet because they want him to become POTUS and thereby giving the Uranians a base of operation on Earth so they can concur our beautiful planet.

    ???McAlien??? left his first wife because he feared that she would find out his true identity. He then married ???Cindy,??? who is in fact the chief of Uranian security. Cindy???s cover story as an heiress to the largest beer distributor in the universe is so that the Uranians can supply the ???McAliens??? with trillions of dollars, so they appear to be normal Americans. The Uranians have also financed the campaign.

    • Posted By: Pia1981 @ 07/23/2008 8:14:50 AM

      Lol! Good one, raddave.

      • Posted By: Zombiehero @ 07/23/2008 9:09:19 AM

        See that's funny....that is Satire....oh wait it's only funny when its about McCain and not Obama my bad.

        • Posted By: Pia1981 @ 07/23/2008 9:19:30 AM

          Z, will you please stop it? See, I'm asking you nicely. FYI, I have laughed at Obama too, at a couple of comments HolyRoller made about Obama. They were a bit offensive, yet very funny and I couldn't help myself.

          • Posted By: Zombiehero @ 07/23/2008 9:31:26 AM

            Hey if people like raddave make post like this...then I will bring up the New Yorker article....btw did you ever read it...it was actually positive for Obama. Imagine that from a liberal magazine!
            If you don't like me posting about the NYer then you should tell people to stop posting crap like this.

            • Posted By: Pia1981 @ 07/23/2008 9:44:59 AM

              Z, can't you see the post by raddave is funny because it's ludicrous? I wasn't laughing at McCain, I was laughing at how ludicrous the comment was. Do you think any Obama supp. would actullay believe McCain is an alien? Of course not. A few but crazy McCain supp. would if the post was for Obama.

              • Posted By: Zombiehero @ 07/23/2008 11:07:24 AM

                Funny because it's ridiculous....hmm that's Satire! OMG so you do know about it....McCain is an Alien is just as ridiculous as Obama being a Muslim or Michelle hating white people.....they are ridiculous...so by making fun of it...you can squash the hate.....Do you see what I mean?

                • Posted By: raddave @ 07/23/2008 11:20:06 AM

                  Well yeah, it is satire. I do not believe McCain is an Alien, Al Gore, maybe! ;-)

                  • Posted By: Pia1981 @ 07/23/2008 1:00:32 PM

                    Raddave, your post was very funny. I don't see why Zombiehero doesn't get it.

                    • Posted By: raddave @ 07/23/2008 4:01:03 PM

                      I think zombie gets it. Don't worry conservatives. I am trying to come up with some "breaking news" on Obama as well, but that one came to my head first.

                      • Posted By: Zombiehero @ 07/23/2008 8:15:05 PM

                        Trying to be fair and balanced? Iddin't know you had it in you

                        • Posted By: raddave @ 07/23/2008 9:32:57 PM

                          sure I do, at least when it comes to satire.

                    • Posted By: Zombiehero @ 07/23/2008 2:29:15 PM

                      Oh I get it....but do you? Remember the hubub over RFK comments? Same hubub as the NYer cover...

                      • Posted By: Pia1981 @ 07/23/2008 8:55:25 PM

                        I know you get it, Z. I was joking. You gotta lighten up. Have fun. You're too serious lately.

                        I have to disagree on your comparison to the RFK incident. Even though Hillary didn't mean anything by it, that was considered serious compared to what raddave posted about McCain being an alien. You know the alien post was for fun.

    • Posted By: raddave @ 07/23/2008 1:04:24 AM

      The Uranians have also manipulated the Republican primaries by forcing all of the front runners to drop out of the race, even though ???McAlien??? was in last place. They gave them an up close look of Uranus and threatened to make their lives very crappy if they did not drop out. All but one of them dropped out of the race. Only Ron Paul was brave enough to stand up to the Uranians. He reportedly said ???I am not afraid of some turd from Uranus.??? Mitt Romney seems to be traumatized by the encounter with the Uranians. His wife has said that she has heard Mitt screaming in his sleep. ???MY GOD URANUS IS DARK AND SMELLY.??? Mitt has claimed that he has no memories of these dreams.

      The plot doesn???t end there though. The Uranians have a plan to get ???McAlien??? elected. Their plan, according to Smith is simple. The 2008 Election will again to come down to the State of Florida, where ???McAlien??? will win by a single vote. After the fiasco of the 2000 election, most Americans will believe this. In fact the 2000 election was suppose to end like this, with their candidate ???Al Gore??? winning. But, the Supreme Court discovered the plot and stopped the recount of Florida, just in time.

      Have you ever wondered why ???McAlien???s??? skin on his face is looking loose? Well according to Smith it is because of the extremely busy schedule of the campaign. ???McAlien??? has not been able to maintain a proper Uranian diet and has lost a lot of weight, causing his real face to shrink. Also, because of the continuous coverage by the MSM, he has not been able to fly up to Uranus to have his skin tightened.

      Another well known fact is that the Uranians do not believe in God. They, instead worship the Almighty Bunhole. ???McAlien??? is a high priest in the Church of Bunghole. His firs act as President will be to outlaw all religions in the U.S. and make the Church of Bunghole the official religion of the States. He has been overheard saying that he will ???Make America bow down to the Almighty Bunghole.???

      Do you want to have some turd from Uranus to become POTUS? If not, we need to get the word our ASAP to stop this madness!!!!! In fact, when Obama hears of this he will probably change his campaign slogan to ???Stop Uranus from spreading their crap.???

      for more information visit www.stopuranus.org.com/uk. McCain is an Alien.html

      Of course I did no research in writing this post (at least I didn???t copy and paste). I hope people will realize how absurd the postings from the lunatics on BOTH sides of the campaign are and will in fact start focusing on the issues.

  • Posted By: Jack999 @ 07/23/2008 1:53:31 AM

    Dr Rice had given Memos to all 3 American Embassy in Europe to LIMIT any asistance to Obama visit in Europe.As she said If the Campaign needs the Bus for journalist....she told those Embassy staff just give instruction where they can get them....that all asistance Embassy staff can do....As this is personel visit paid by Obama Campaign he can do what he wants....Even G.W.Bush CANT stop him.

    • Posted By: raddave @ 07/23/2008 9:31:08 PM

      And you have proof of this?

    • Posted By: Zombiehero @ 07/23/2008 5:39:15 AM

      Good thing your tax money is paying for his Campaign Trip.....oh yeah but he declined Public funds....can't get more public than that.

  • Posted By: Omaar @ 07/23/2008 9:04:34 PM

    Semi-Senile on the "Surge"

    The major Sunni sheik who John McCain said was protected by the surge and subsequently helped lead the Anbar Awakening, was actually assassinated by an al-Qaeda led group in midst of the surge.

    On Tuesday evening, McCain falsely claimed that the downturn in violence in Iraq's Anbar province was a result of the surge, when in fact the surge began months afterward. Moreover, he said, if it weren't for the work of U.S. forces, the major Sunni figure leading that awakening wouldn't have had the protection he needed.

    "Colonel MacFarland was contacted by one of the major Sunni sheiks," said the Senator. "Because of the surge we were able to go out and protect that sheik and others. And it began the Anbar awakening."

    The Arizona Republican's campaign went further the next day, claiming that the major figures that turned around Anbar province would have been killed had the surge policy not been in place. "If Barack Obama had had his way, the Sheiks who started the Awakening would have been murdered at the hands of al Qaeda," said spokesman Tucker Bounds.

    Sadly, that murder took place even with the surge underway. In September 2007, Abdul Sattar Abu Risha, the sheik widely credited with persuading Sunni leaders to turn against al Qaeda in Iraq, died in a bomb attack in Anbar. His work, prior to then, was held as a major effort in transforming the province from one of Iraq's deadliest areas into one of its safest.

    It was in a September 2006 interview with UPI, when U.S. Army Col. Sean MacFarland first spoke about Sattar's efforts. "Some of the sheikhs have begun to step forward and some of the insurgent groups began to fight against al Qaeda," he said. His reference was Sattar, according to a Reuters article published upon the sheik's death.

    Below is more from the Reuters article on Sattar's death:

    "When U.S. Army Col. Sean MacFarland, working in his Pentagon office last Thursday, heard that a tribal leader had been killed in Iraq's Anbar province, his first reaction was: "Please don't let it be Sattar."
    His fears proved well-founded. A bomb had killed Abdul Sattar Abu Risha, the founder of a movement of Sunni leaders who turned against al Qaeda in Iraq, who are also Sunnis, and transformed Anbar from one of Iraq's deadliest areas into one of its safest.

    MacFarland is in a unique position to offer insights into the movement Sattar led and how it may develop without him. As a brigade commander in Iraq, he was present at the alliance's founding and worked closely with Abu Risha for months.

    "I owe him a lot," MacFarland said. "He was a young guy with a great vision of the future and he was a fast friend of the United States."

  • Posted By: Zip1 @ 07/22/2008 11:17:36 AM

    It looks like most of the anti-Obama commenters didn't even bother reading this article. Or at best they come up with critiques like "he has too many advisors" showing their complete lack of knowledge about the complexities involved in making foreign (or domestic) policy. I'm sure you're much happier with a president who trusts his gut or is able to look into the eyes of foreign leaders and see their sould, but as far as I can tell that approach has wrecked US foreign policy over the last 8 years. I want a president who is informed and who can evaluate multiple perspectives before coming to a decision.

    • Posted By: Skypoint @ 07/22/2008 11:26:34 AM

      Quote: "I want a president who is informed and who can evaluate multiple perspectives before coming to a decision."

      Yep, that's what I want.... He's real informed, and intelligent, too! B.O. reluctantly admits that the troop surge has worked, but would not support it if he had it to do over again. And that's just the beginning.

      Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant.

      • Posted By: mrzoid @ 07/22/2008 11:52:24 AM

        The surge has worked? While i applaud your ability to make that judgement, tell me what the accomplishments that have been achieved are. Has it worked enough to now start the talk of, from Bush's mouth, "time horizons" for withdrawl? I thought the reason we wouldnt even entertain the notion of timelines was the simple reason that all the opponents of our presence would just have to dig in their heels and wait for us to go in order to be ready to incite chaos when were gone. So what has the surge accomplished? A reduction in violence in the most recent part of the 5yr, on-going Iraq War? It hasn't reduced the violence in Afghanistan. Violence in Afghanistan is at its highest levels since the fall of the Taliban (most of whom are free after an entire prison broke free). So please, tell me again how this whole thing is such a great success of George Bush and John McCain please.

        • Posted By: Skypoint @ 07/22/2008 11:56:15 AM

          My poist wasn't about Bush, it was about B.O. and his stand (on any given day) about the surge.

          Regarding the surge, your post seems to read: it aint perfect, aint it awful!

          • Posted By: Zombiehero @ 07/22/2008 12:01:02 PM

            That is Obama position now....he wants to talk up the bad but not give any credit to the good. This trip would not be possible without the gains and success made by the Surge. Remember Barry had introduced Legislation Jan 2007 to have all the troop out by march of 2008!

            • Posted By: Cloudosmoke @ 07/22/2008 12:18:07 PM

              "he wants to talk up the bad but not give any credit to the good. This trip would not be possible without the gains and success made by the Surge. Remember Barry had introduced Legislation Jan 2007 to have all the troop out by march of 2008!"

              Remember that if it weren't for Bush's pitiful tactics, throwing Generals under the bus, underestimating the enemy, Blackwater issue, killing innocent people (which infuriated the local tribes to civil war) the surge would never have been needed. As a matter of fact, the war was never needed in the first place as Mr. Obama never voted for it because he knew Afghanistan was where the spear needed to be pointed. Remember "Mission Accomplished"? Well it still hasn't been accomplished and yet Maliki is saying we're ready to do this, so you can go now. There is a war on terror and Iraq is saying that we can now focus our efforts on the areas that really need it. Afghanistan is worse off than Iraq and yet Bush is getting off scott free. He has bungled all the operations to the point that Petraeus is probably glad see him go.

              • Posted By: Zombiehero @ 07/22/2008 12:34:02 PM

                I agree....it was Bush's mistakes....not McCain's....McCain had advocated the Surge strategy from the beginning...McCain said..give the Military what it needs...It was Bush that said no. Bush said he knew better than the Generals.

                You just tipped your hand...your only voting for Obama because you hate Bush. Get with the program no matter who gets elected, there will be change...The Dems are going to be in control of Congress no matter what. You think one Party rule is a good thing?

                • Posted By: Pia1981 @ 07/23/2008 8:58:55 AM

                  Z, you are only voting for McCain because Hillary lost and because you don't like Obama.

                  • Posted By: Zombiehero @ 07/23/2008 9:40:09 AM

                    What trying to belittle my argument? You trying to paint me as a disgruntled Dem...so don't take anything I say seriously?
                    You of all people should know why I'm supporting McCain over Obama. You've replied to a lot of my posts over the months...obviously you were "listening."

                    • Posted By: Pia1981 @ 07/23/2008 10:03:02 AM

                      You're right, Z. I do apologize. I was very way out of line. I wish I could edit what I posted, but I can't. I'm in a bored mood today. I needed attention. Forgive me?

                • Posted By: Cloudosmoke @ 07/22/2008 12:52:28 PM

                  Hate is a strong word. I would say I don't like his governance. Actually Bush has brightened my day a time or two. Made me laugh when I was down, made me laugh when I was up. =)

                  I'm voting for Obama because he is about change in how Washington and the country shall be governed. McCain supported Bush policy and now backs away because he has to, not because he wants to. He has shunned the VA centers, PTSD programs because he was not there or he didn't fully understand them. Just look at his voting record. He couldn't even remember about the birth control question. As for the "one party rule" it's been that way up until 2006 and that was awful but then it was GOP run. I'm sure we can turn things around.

                  • Posted By: Zombiehero @ 07/22/2008 1:45:27 PM

                    And just so you don't think I'm cherry picking my replies....I agree Bush wasn't all that bad...did do some good.
                    I'm voting for McCain because he has the better judgment in my opinion. The fact that Barry can't and won't agree that the Surge was a success (even though he took "Surge is not working" off his website) tells me he will govern like Bush....the I don't make any mistakes type of governance that the Dems have hated for the last 7 years...I know McCain has and will working across party lines...he has a record of doing so...Barry doesn't....then there is Energy policy which I agree with McCain on 100%. I don't agree with McCain on Economics but then again I don't agree with Obama either....they both are being to partisan...but then again I know McCain will work with both sides...I know Obama won't because he won't have to.As for Gaffes...they both make em....Barry's people like to harp on that and the Shia gaffe...but what about 57 states? or the new one about being in office for 8-10 years....2 terms = 8, not 8-10.

                  • Posted By: Zombiehero @ 07/22/2008 1:38:13 PM

                    So one party rule is ok if its your party? just not when its the other one? Try telling that to Cuba circa 1960's.

            • Posted By: Skypoint @ 07/22/2008 12:08:25 PM

              Quote: "This trip would not be possible without the gains and success made by the Surge. Remember Barry had introduced Legislation Jan 2007 to have all the troop out by march of 2008! "

              Dead on...

              • Posted By: metzlerd @ 07/22/2008 2:36:43 PM

                Well... not exactly...
                This trip would not have been possible if it wasn't for the fine strategic performance of our military back before the surge. They started recruiting Sunnis who used to be fighting against them. Increasing troop levels certainly didn't hurt, but... violence started dropping Feb 2007 before the surge even started to go into affect, March/April 2007.

                But, most importantly Obama's trip could easily have taken place without it, quite simply because McCain had no problem going.in April of 2007. And before that, well... Obama was there in 2006, so I guess it was doable, huh?

      • Posted By: elizabethpaige @ 07/22/2008 2:54:48 PM

        The 'surge' has worked and when is the war in Iraq going to end? Maybe in 100 years if you vote for McCain.

        • Posted By: Skypoint @ 07/22/2008 3:06:42 PM

          McC wants it over as quickly as possible, without the mess you and your idol would leave behind by pulling out tomorrow.

  • Posted By: junk3555 @ 07/22/2008 11:31:36 AM

    The only good policies were provided by McCain. Obama is a Bush-type cokehead.

    • Posted By: Cloudosmoke @ 07/22/2008 11:36:01 AM

      You sound pretty confused. You sure you're not on that stuff?

      • Posted By: junk3555 @ 07/22/2008 11:58:39 AM

        Yes. I will submit to any test. Are you sure Obama is off the stuff? Given Obama's history of dealing with drugs, I would like a monthly drug test if he becomes President. That's what they do to guys at my local store. Do it for McCain too if you want.

        • Posted By: Cloudosmoke @ 07/22/2008 12:24:01 PM

          The reason why I asked is because of your name. Junk 3555, junk referred to drug and 3555 translated to 18 which is 666. Be careful of your meanings. =)

          • Posted By: Zombiehero @ 07/22/2008 1:49:16 PM

            Whats wrong with 666 that one of my fav numbers

            • Posted By: Pia1981 @ 07/22/2008 10:29:02 PM

              Of course it is Z after all scorpios are interested in the occult. Now me, I'm interested in witchcraft. Positive witchcraft.

              • Posted By: Zombiehero @ 07/23/2008 5:28:19 AM

                I don't believe in that crap...it's all crap you know.

                • Posted By: Pia1981 @ 07/23/2008 8:37:05 AM

                  Well, aren't we and a mood today. What happened to that friendly guy I posted with yesterday? Is it something I said Z? Tell me and I will make it right.
                  Witchcraft- I'm not really interested in that. I have read two books on it just out of curiosity.

                  • Posted By: Zombiehero @ 07/23/2008 9:38:14 AM

                    you know my position on religion...its all crap. no reading clouds rant that McCain supporters don't care about anything got me going...which you agreed with....so yeah I'm probably going to be a bit more aggressive today because of it.

                    • Posted By: Pia1981 @ 07/23/2008 10:10:56 AM

                      Oh okay, I made a mistake in my post below. I don't agree that McCain supporters don't care about anything. Where did I post that I did?

                      • Posted By: Zombiehero @ 07/23/2008 2:32:42 PM

                        Above The comment Cloud says that starts VISION VISION....

                        • Posted By: Pia1981 @ 07/23/2008 8:37:16 PM

                          Oh, shoot, I must not have paid attention to his entire comment. I had two co-workers in my ear while I was reading and typing.. Sorry Z. I will correct that.

                    • Posted By: Pia1981 @ 07/23/2008 9:56:45 AM

                      Z, what is a 'no reading cloud rant?' I agreed with someone who commented that McCain doesn't care about anything? I don't support him but I don't believe that McCain is like that. Which post was it please?

          • Posted By: junk3555 @ 07/22/2008 12:44:21 PM

            You're worried about me being confused? Please look in your mirror first. BTW, what's in you're cloudosmoke? I would guess it ain't cigarretes.

        • Posted By: summer4077 @ 07/22/2008 1:35:51 PM

          Lol are you serious? Wow, you must have never been on pretty much EVERY college campus, especially in the 70s. Come on, now, really?

      • Posted By: Zombiehero @ 07/22/2008 11:58:24 AM

        Barry is the one that said it...he still smokes so maybe he still ski's.

    • Posted By: Pia1981 @ 07/22/2008 12:18:36 PM

      McCain= Pres.Bush

      • Posted By: Zombiehero @ 07/22/2008 12:28:51 PM

        Bush likes Faith Based Initiatives, Telecom Immunity, Ban of gun controls, NAFTA

        Obama (Now likes but that is subject to "change") Faith Based Initiatives, Telecom Immunity, Ban of gun controls, NAFTA

        • Posted By: News and Notes @ 07/22/2008 12:35:16 PM

          Not sure I agree on policy, but I would say both Bush and Obama are arrogant

          • Posted By: Zombiehero @ 07/22/2008 12:47:24 PM

            My point is Obama seems to be agree with Bush on a whole lot of things right now in his rush to the right....arrogance and ego...same personality traits that the Dems hate in Bush...are even more prevalent in Obama.

            • Posted By: junk3555 @ 07/22/2008 12:56:29 PM

              Bush and Obama share the coke-user syndrome, IMHO.

              • Posted By: Zombiehero @ 07/23/2008 9:36:30 AM

                I'm sure they have different dealers....Bush gets a discount for free trade... ha ha

        • Posted By: metzlerd @ 07/22/2008 1:22:16 PM

          You could start by being more informed:

          Obama likes teaming up with churches to help the poor while maintaing seperation of church and state, does not support Telecom Immunity but willing to compromise on that to fix the problem, (Does not support Ban of gun controls) supports gun control but not bans on reasonable fire arms, wants to renegotiate NAFTA to include environmental and labor protections that should have been there to start with.

          Those postions have not changed. Only the way people like you distort them has changed.

          • Posted By: Zombiehero @ 07/22/2008 1:35:31 PM

            Position that I never liked to begin with...
            Faith Based Anything is bad....if it uses Government funds....of course Obama loves Faith Based crap...look at Wright's new Mansion and how much money did Obama funnel to Trinity over the years?

            He supports a compromise bill AFTER he said during the Primaries that he would FILIBUSTER ANY bill that had Telecom Immunity.

            Obama said during the Debates that he was all in favor and saw nothing Unconstitutional with the DC Ban...now he thinks it was wrong...

            He though NAFTA was the worse thing in the world when campaigning in Ohio, now its not so bad....

            You need you get your facts straight bud.

      • Posted By: News and Notes @ 07/22/2008 12:25:22 PM

        oversimplification

  • Posted By: Davole @ 07/21/2008 7:37:39 PM

    Is there any irony, hypocrisy, and contradiction in the fact that Barack Obama has flown on a plane which uses fuel derived from oil to visit several oil rich nations abroad, yet he refuses to support on-shore and off-shore exploration and drilling for oil in the US?

    His pathetic answer to the use of oil in the US is to deny oil drilling there, and instead, have us twiddle our thumbs while we wait for some magic elixir or alternate form of energy to be devised and made available.

    I believe that this trip of his to the Mid East would be the perfect ???storm??? opportunity for him to demonstrate his commitment to alternate forms of energy.

    Is he willing to replace his extensive motorcades with camel caravans as his preferred method of land transportation?
    Maybe the democrat party can campaign on this slogan back home - ???Put a camel in every Driveway???!

    Would he be willing to delay his return to the US until he could fly back in a plane which would be fueled by wood chips, solar panels, or even windmills?
    Let him lead by example - demonstrate to us that his energy plan is practical and feasible!

    Barack Obama - are you stranded up S**t Creek without a paddle?
    But that might even afford another option for you - row your way back to the US!

    In all reality, do we actually expect practical economic, health, social, security, immigration, environmental, heating, and transportation policies to originate from a political party which touts a jackass as its mascot?

    • Posted By: raddave @ 07/21/2008 7:50:28 PM

      Obama is not against drilling for oil in the U.S. He is against new leases being given out when 86% of the existing leases have not been explored, not when existing refineries are operating at capacity and cannot keep up with the demand. Oil companies spend less than 5% of their profits in exploration, yet spend 55% of their profits in stock buybacks and dividends.and a new refinery has not been built in this country in 30 years. Oil companies do not need new leases to drill more wells, they have millions of acres already leased to them.

      • Posted By: Davole @ 07/21/2008 10:16:01 PM

        raddave -

        Thanks for replying to my post.

        I disagree with your statement that Barrack Obama is not against drilling for oil in the US.
        You state that he ???is against new leases being given out when 86% of the existing leases have not been explored.???

        Why haven???t those leases been explored? I believe some of them have been explored, but either the quantity of oil which has been discovered is minimal, or else the cost to drill and refine that oil would be too prohibitive.

        And a second consideration would be the number of those leases that have been restricted by environmental and other legal court challenges.

        A third consideration would be whether the remaining time limit for many of the leases would make it unprofitable for the companies to begin drilling for oil.

        I agree with your statement that ???a new refinery has not been built in this country in 30 years.??? And again I wonder why? Were there any moratoriums in place forbidding the building of any new refineries? Or was that a direct result of the leases only being granted on lands which would generally prove to be minimally profitable or even unprofitable?

        Recently vast quantities of oil have been discovered in the Rocky Mountains, the Dakotas, ANWR, and on the oceanic and gulf coasts. In an energy crisis, what logical reason should forbid drilling in those areas, provided that it can be done safely? I believe that American oil companies have that ingenuity.

        Even the Chinese have been negotiating with Cuba to drill in the area between Cuba and Florida. Why shouldn???t the US lay claim to a sizeable portion of that expected vast area???s oil reserves?

        If the US continues to ignore those reserves, what will happen when China and Russia begin to exhaust their available supply of oil? Do you think that might be an incentive for either of those countries to start a war with the US to confiscate the last available reserves?

        I know that Nancy Pelosi, Howard Reid, and Al Gore have tried to turn the public against fossil fuels within the next 10 years. Does that indicate that they are only trying to continue placing obstacles in the path of the oil industry? Can???t you see that?

        To me, and a sizeable portion of the US population, the Republican energy policy to drill now is a viable solution to the energy crisis.

        What is the democrat alternative, what is its cost, and what is its timeframe? And is it realistic?

        Would you care to respond to the other questions which I have asked in my post?

        • Posted By: raddave @ 07/22/2008 1:06:46 PM

          You asked alot of questions, so I will have to do lots of research, I will try to reply to them in a timely manner.

          • Posted By: Davole @ 07/23/2008 8:33:29 PM

            raddave -

            Thanks!

            Awaiting your reply, but please do repost my comment, and then include your response as a reply.

            Due to the number of blogs posted daily on this site, it's time-consuming to read back 2 or 3 days for replies.

            All the best!

      • Posted By: RetiredMarine @ 07/21/2008 8:50:02 PM

        Yes and they have congress that wont allow them to drill nor build refineries. I guess that's the scapegoat for the left... blame oil companies while not getting the complete truth out there. What good is the lease if their hands are tied by the very jacka$$es blaming them????

        • Posted By: raddave @ 07/21/2008 9:13:18 PM

          Read my post they already have land for drilling and 86% has not been explored. Nothing is stopping the oil companies from building refineries, they just do not feel like investing their profits into making gas cheaper. Actually repbulicans are against new drilling. The republicans blocked a resolution proposed in the house to force oil companies to either explore and drill land that they hold leases on or lose their leases. So who is against drilling now?

          • Posted By: RetiredMarine @ 07/22/2008 12:26:28 AM

            And if you knew what you were talking about I would agree with you. But you haven't looked into the lease agreements. Do you honestly think that these companies wouldn't drill? Do you fully understand economics and the money to be made by drilling? Do you honestly believe American companies would rather see the profits go to a foreign country? Get off the kool aid man!

            • Posted By: raddave @ 07/22/2008 12:41:53 PM

              Maybe you need to undestand the economics a little more. The oil companies are not willing to spend their profits on the upfront costs associated with exploring and drilling.

          • Posted By: Davole @ 07/21/2008 11:42:46 PM

            raddave -

            Ah, true socialism exerting its force on those damn capitalists that built that country!

            • Posted By: raddave @ 07/22/2008 12:29:33 PM

              It is not socialism. Why should oil compaines be able to sit on this land and not explore it and drill it, when it can go to someone who will?

        • Posted By: raddave @ 07/21/2008 9:26:17 PM

          there hands are tied only by their greed.

  • Posted By: junk3555 @ 07/22/2008 9:01:28 AM

    Today is a new day. What is the Obama foreign policy of the day? I bet you it's the opposite of whatever he said yesterday. If you look farther in history, you ill find out at some point he said something similar as to what he will say today. Still it was different from what he will say tomorrow. Surge? I supported the surge. Surge? The surge will make thing s worse. Jerusalem: It should remain the undivided capital of Israel. Jerusalem: It is subject to final negotiations between Israel and Palestinians. Darfur: We should intervene in Darfur. Darfur, we should not intervene in Darfur. Pakistan: We should bomb without their approval. PAkistan. Is doing a fine job with th their war on terror. My head is spinning. Are you paying attention?

    • Posted By: Cloudosmoke @ 07/22/2008 9:10:52 AM

      Just like I said before, quit making your points out to be Obama's points. If you want a third Bush term, then vote for McCain. Plain and simple. Your head is spinning because it can't keep up with your own "spin".

      • Posted By: Davole @ 07/22/2008 9:37:47 AM

        Cloudosmoke -

        If you ever manage to step out from inside that cloud of smoke, and breathe some fresh air, you will be able to see that those were Obama's positions as of yesterday. Chances are, they have already been changed , revised, fine-tuned, modified, etc. by now.

        Also, although a third term Bush presidency would be advantageous for the nation, it is impossible due to election restrictions. Your fine President Bush's name will not appear on the ballot, even though the vast majority of thought controlled democrats will probably repeat your mantra for the next 50 years.

        • Posted By: Cloudosmoke @ 07/22/2008 9:50:34 AM

          So your argument is that Obama changes his position. Maliki says that he wants us out by 2010 which is the "timetable" that Obama has stated for the last 2 years give or take 2 months. However McCain says to stay forever and Bush says he agrees with Obama. It sounds like the GOP are a) confused among each other b) at odds with each other c) or just don't know what they are doing; but I'm going with all the above. Like I said, McCain supporters are out of touch with this mentality of "I'm gonna take care of myself and forget the rest of the world." And don't say it ain't so. You have no valid argument on any of his stances. All you can do is generalize which is to poor to discuss.

          • Posted By: Skypoint @ 07/22/2008 10:17:23 AM

            Quote: "So your argument is that Obama changes his position." Yes, and it's a legitimate argument. It was reported yesterday that B.O. has close to 400 "advisors", telling him what to say about foreign issues, whether to wear a flag lapel pin or not, and so on. With all those people in his face, no wonder he changes with the wind!

            After all, he does preach change, doesn't he....

            • Posted By: Zombiehero @ 07/22/2008 10:21:07 AM

              Well when you have to have 300-400 people spoon feed you policy....I'm not so sure that's the person I want making the calls....I mean does he not know anything, that why he needs so many people?

              • Posted By: Cloudosmoke @ 07/22/2008 10:35:38 AM

                Both of your stances are so funny that I have to go to the hospital from laughing so hard. But wait if I go to the hospital under the McCain plan, I will never be seen. If Obama has advisors like that of McCain, i.e. Gramm (who doesn't care about you nor me), Black (who said that McCain would benefit from a terrorist act; which if we were to be attackedm, then that would mean Bush and Cheney weren't doing their job) then we are in deep doo doo. But let's be greatful that he has competent advisors unlike Bush who has had so many people thrown under the bus that the road would be undrivable because of all the bodies lying around. McCain supporters have no arguments with merit. Just sit back and enjoy the fruits of Obama's labors of giving you a good moment of life and history.

                • Posted By: Skypoint @ 07/22/2008 11:01:18 AM

                  Quote: "Just sit back and enjoy the fruits of Obama's labors of giving you a good moment of life and history."

                  You mean like socialized health care? People in Canada come here for health care because they'll die waiting for an operation in their own country. You mean stuff like that?

                  • Posted By: Cloudosmoke @ 07/22/2008 11:22:25 AM

                    Point well taken. I have noted your statement and put it in my sock to remind me to go to Canada and die if McCain is voted into office.

                    • Posted By: Davole @ 07/23/2008 8:04:31 PM

                      Cloudosmoke -

                      No, don't come here to Canada.

                      Instead, consider going to Mexico - it needs to replace at least some of the immigrants that have illegally "slipped" into the US.

                    • Posted By: Skypoint @ 07/22/2008 11:42:18 AM

                      Good one, Cloud! That one made me laugh!

                  • Posted By: raddave @ 07/22/2008 10:37:54 PM

                    You are distorting Obama health car plan. He does not propose a socialized health care system. He does not want to end private health insurance. His plan will be for people who cannot afford to buy health insurance. He wants to reduce the cost of insurance so more people can afford it. He does not want to make health insurance mandatory for anyone except children.

                    • Posted By: desertgirl @ 07/23/2008 1:47:35 PM

                      And how does he plan to lower the cost of health insurance? By offering subsidies. Where do you think subsidies come from? And how will he enforce any mandate that children have health insurance? Who will police that? How much will policing it cost We The People?

                • Posted By: Zombiehero @ 07/22/2008 11:05:51 AM

                  No he has advisors like Powder who goes to other countries and calls Hillary names....he has advosors like Goldsbee that goes to other countries to assure them that Obama is just talking and don't take him seriously.....

              • Posted By: Zip1 @ 07/22/2008 11:09:29 AM

                Much better to have someone who doesn't listen to advice before weighing his option. Look how great Bush's gut has been at guiding us or his ability to see into the souls of foreign leaders. You either have no idea of the complexities involved in setting foreign policy (or domestic policy for that matter) or you don't have any real argument relative to what this article said. Come to think of it, both are probably true.

                • Posted By: Zombiehero @ 07/22/2008 12:51:06 PM

                  I keep seeing the same thing...you all hate Bush....I hate Bush too...but McCain isn't Bush. It's the partisan politics that Obama and the Dems are playing that keep telling you that....
                  Barry is using the Fear of Bush to try and sway your vote....we are all afraid of Bush....but McCain isn't Bush...

              • Posted By: Skypoint @ 07/22/2008 10:54:30 AM

                A good question.... I was stunned when I heard that. I was thinking that he might have 30 to 40 adivisors, not close to 400.

        • Posted By: News and Notes @ 07/22/2008 9:43:57 AM

          Advocating for a third Bush term is not going to help McCain's cause anyway. If Bush ran for a third term, he would lose 540 electoral votes to 0, even if his opponent were Mickey Mouse. There are plenty of arguments against Obama, but promoting Bush is not a strong one.

          • Posted By: junk3555 @ 07/22/2008 12:17:01 PM

            I agree. And McCain earned his stripes as a bipartisan maverick going against Bush in many occasions. Obama always follows the Democrat party line. If you want bipartisanship, McCain is your guy. I have voted for Kerry, Gore,Clinton but Obama has no scrupples, a typical corrupt Chicago politician. Plus McCain will balance the budget.

            • Posted By: pearsoncrz @ 07/22/2008 5:17:56 PM

              Except when it's time to pay back one of his financial supporters, like when he voted to extend Bush's FISA policy so that his Communications industry buddies would get retroactive immunity for violating their customers civil and constitutional rights.

              • Posted By: desertgirl @ 07/23/2008 1:48:26 PM

                Obama backed FISA. Didn't you hear?

      • Posted By: junk3555 @ 07/22/2008 11:46:23 AM

        My head is spinning because Obama and his 300 spinmasters are providing a different spin on foreign policy every day.

        Heil Obama. See you at the next Nurenmberg-like rally.

        • Posted By: Cloudosmoke @ 07/22/2008 12:08:11 PM

          I guess I'm not paying enough attention since you are referring Obama to Hitler. I guess I missed something there. But let's say for instance that you were right about "300 spinmasters" giving Mr. Obama ideas about how to reach the public. That is 300 people giving 300 different broad aspects and views as say to 10-20 narrow views. I would rather have what we referred to in school as "brainstorming" sessions and narrow down the policy than having only one policy of the collective 10-20. Listen you can beat this horse until the bones are dust but I don't see any disadvantage to having 300 advisors assessing the world stage. It's too big for one man to handle as Bush has tried and failed. Take it with a grain of salt, he needs these people. McCain would do good to take a page from his playbook once again.

          • Posted By: desertgirl @ 07/23/2008 1:45:18 PM

            So what? People have compared Bush to the Nazis (along with several others in his administration). Get over it.

          • Posted By: junk3555 @ 07/22/2008 1:16:05 PM

            If you have set some principles that guide your policies advise by many "spinsters" will help. IF you don't have any principles. Or better, if your principle is attaining power regardless of the means. Then the advise is used to determine the foreign policy of the day. In OBama's case everything is guided on how to get the chair. Damned the principles, Damn the foreign policy. Whatever anyone who is listening wants to hear, you say it. The next minute someone different is listening, you say the opposite thing.

      • Posted By: News and Notes @ 07/22/2008 9:44:50 AM

        Truthfully there is nothing plain or simple about this election. The choice is difficult, and neither candidate is all that impressive

    • Posted By: pearsoncrz @ 07/22/2008 5:15:19 PM

      Why isn't he talking about China - that's the country that poses the real threat to the American way of life?

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse