How dumb do you have to be

by valerieSONORA

Posted: 16 years ago 39 replies

OFF TOPIC

If you don't know how many houses you own??? :confused:

TimPhelan

16 years ago

Originally Posted by annoyedgirl

If you don't know how many houses you own??? :confused:

His class rank at the U.S. Naval Academy was 894 out of 899.

Thanks
3 replies

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[54852].message }}

Kay King 16 years ago

McCain was known a someone who did well in courses he liked and ignored the others. With 4 star admirals as grandfather and father, it seems he opted out of trying to live up to that.

Obama was known for his ambition. His wife claims only his two books enabled them to pay off students loans - but at the time she was earning $360k a year. Not exactly peanuts.

Both attended private schools and I doubt many politicians remember what it's like (if they ever knew, that is) to live the lifestyle most American families have.

Does it matter how many houses a rich man owns? Or whether middle class includes having a wife earning $360k? Campaign ads may focus on useless trivialities but votes should be based on something with a bit more substance. But - is there anything of substance going on?

kay
- Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
***
One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
what it is instead of what you think it should be.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[54907].message }}
- Jose Delgado 16 years ago
  
  Ok,I'm lost.
  
  Thanks
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[54921].message }}
Michael Gentry 16 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

His class rank at the U.S. Naval Academy was 894 out of 899.

Thank you, whether Senator McCain becomes Preasident or not he should have everyones respect.
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[57406].message }}

Michael Ellis

16 years ago

Huh??? You countered me point by point? lol

Dude, seriously, you are in fantasy land. If I could figure out a readable way to do a multi-quote of multiple quotes I would, but I just don't have that kind of time, so here's my response to you. Pardon the lack of quotes.

According to you Obama will be the next President and it's completely ok for him to have Rev. Wright as a mentor for the last 20+ years. You're totally fine with that. Of course you don't think Wright's words were racist and repulsive, so let me see if I can find a video for you to watch.

Here:

http://www.youtube.com/v/JEMZHQsQJ6Y&hl=en&fs=1

Next topic... which is a rewrite, but you didn't get the idea the first time, so here we go again (Note: this applies to response 2-5 in your last post)...

All intel (domestic and trusted foreign) said Iraq had WMDs, republicans and democrats studied this SAME intel and came to the SAME conclusion - THEY ALL (Bush, Cheney, CLINTON, BIDEN, etc, etc, etc.) BELIEVED IRAQ HAD NUKES. Republicans and democrats believed WMDs in Saddams hands were very likely to end up in terrorist hands. This is just post-Sept. 11th. TEN years of United nations pressure had failed to prove Saddan didn't have WMDs (He was basically toying with the UN for a decade under Clinton). Result, the Dems and Reps ALL voted to go to war to safeguard the US from an even more deadly attack. Where did Bush lie???

Tim, seriously, I have to get back and do some work. You really need to take off your blinders and stop regurgitating the same lame excuses. Really, Hillary won't come looking for you if you disagree with her.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[58110].message }}

TimPhelan

16 years ago

Originally Posted by Michael Ellis

Where did Bush lie???

Where have you been Michael? Geesh. I guess I have to go dig up this crap again. Unbelieveable. "Where did Bush lie?".

Here's a start:

Iraq: The War Card - The Center for Public Integrity

President George W. Bush and seven of his administration's top officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, made at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11, 2001, about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Nearly five years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, an exhaustive examination of the record shows that the statements were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses.

On at least 532 separate occasions (in speeches, briefings, interviews, testimony, and the like), Bush and these three key officials, along with Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan, stated unequivocally that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (or was trying to produce or obtain them), links to Al Qaeda, or both. This concerted effort was the underpinning of the Bush administration's case for war.

President Bush, for example, made 232 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and another 28 false statements about Iraq's links to Al Qaeda. Secretary of State Powell had the second-highest total in the two-year period, with 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq's links to Al Qaeda. Rumsfeld and Fleischer each made 109 false statements, followed by Wolfowitz (with 85), Rice (with 56), Cheney (with 48), and McClellan (with 14).

On August 26, 2002, in an address to the national convention of the Veteran of Foreign Wars, Cheney flatly declared: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." In fact, former CIA Director George Tenet later recalled, Cheney's assertions went well beyond his agency's assessments at the time. Another CIA official, referring to the same speech, told journalist Ron Suskind, "Our reaction was, 'Where is he getting this stuff from?' "

That was a good one there Michael. Notice the "no doubt" part?

Here's another:

In the closing days of September 2002, with a congressional vote fast approaching on authorizing the use of military force in Iraq, Bush told the nation in his weekly radio address: "The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given. . . . This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year." A few days later, similar findings were also included in a much-hurried National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction -- an analysis that hadn't been done in years, as the intelligence community had deemed it unnecessary and the White House hadn't requested it.

Here's another Michael:

In July 2002, Rumsfeld had a one-word answer for reporters who asked whether Iraq had relationships with Al Qaeda terrorists: "Sure." In fact, an assessment issued that same month by the Defense Intelligence Agency (and confirmed weeks later by CIA Director Tenet) found an absence of "compelling evidence demonstrating direct cooperation between the government of Iraq and Al Qaeda." What's more, an earlier DIA assessment said that "the nature of the regime's relationship with Al Qaeda is unclear."

Here's a big one:

On January 28, 2003, in his annual State of the Union address, Bush asserted: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production." Two weeks earlier, an analyst with the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research sent an email to colleagues in the intelligence community laying out why he believed the uranium-purchase agreement "probably is a hoax."

This last one was where Wilson went and investigated. Then the Bush admin outed one of their own CIA agents, who was Wilson's wife of course.

That's only a few Michael. There's a few hundreds more.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[58212].message }}

Michael Ellis 16 years ago

Tim, you kind of blew over the whole Wright video, huh?

Why are you completely missing the points of these threads? I can respond to all of your quotes (cut-n-paste blurbs from left-wing sites) with the one paragraph from my last post. Re-read it, or create a pdf with it and read it later.

I really don't care if you don't get it anymore... work is calling.
- Thanks
- 1 reply
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[58225].message }}
- TimPhelan 16 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by Michael Ellis
  
  Tim, you kind of blew over the whole Wright video, huh?
  
  I saw it Michael. Months ago. That's old news. What do you want me to say? "Oh my. He's almost as crazy as McCain's reverends."?
  
  Thanks
  
  Signature
  Over 50 Dating
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[58241].message }}
Kay King 16 years ago

When Bush was Governor of Texas he was well known among his aides for one thing:

His opinion on any topic almost always agreed with the last person who talked to him about it. He has the same rep D.C. It's no use arguing over bush and truth - they don't fit together well. I don't even think he intentionally lies (though I think Cheney does in a heartbeat) - he just is able to convince himself that facts are what he wants them to be. I do think history will judge Bush very harshly - and it is well deserved.

Best political quote I've ever heard was from Ann Richards in Texas -

"Poor George, he was born with a silver foot in his mouth". What a line!

I didn't get to hear Michelle O's speech last night but the "poor little southside chicago girl" doesn't hold up to the facts about her life. Very interesting article about her early years at the link below.

Mrs O: The truth about Michelle Obama's 'working class' credentials | Mail Online

and about her college thesis that is being withheld until afer the election at

snopes.com: Michelle Obama's Thesis

The old arguments what the Democratic and Republican parties stand for don't seem to hold true these days. The size of government has grown faster and larger under Bush than anyone could have foreseen. The Dems are supposed to be the big tax and spenders - yet we had a good economic grip when Bush took office and we're now in a horrific mess that will last for many years.

Howard Dean made a farce of the democratic process with his proclamations about when states are allowed to hold primaries. His ego and stubbornness may have cost Clinton the primary (and maybe that was the point of his idiocy) - and I felt then and feel now that she could have easily beaten McCain. I don't think Obama can. The Dems totally missed the point of the elective process - the purpose is to choose a candidate who can win and do the job. The went for "star status" instead and deserve whatever they get.

I am truly amazed at the number of people I've talked to who say they are not going to vote at all - they are disgusted with the entire process.

My sense of McCain is that he is an honorable man - but with a temper and perhaps of an age not suited for the presidency. My sense of Obama is that he is not truly committed to much of anything and but his own ambitions and changes his opinions to suit expectations. We don't need far right - or far left - we need some common sense in the middle.

Because of his age, McCain's VP choice is critical so that will be interesting.

kay
- Thanks
Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
***
One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
what it is instead of what you think it should be.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[58250].message }}

Michael Ellis

16 years ago

Originally Posted by annoyedgirl

If you don't know how many houses you own??? :confused:

I'd say you have to have a severe lapse of memory, or be very rich... neither are good excesses for him right now.

However… how stupid do you have to be to have a radical, racist, conspiracy theorist Reverend for the past 20 years? I’m talking about Obama’s old Reverend Wright (the one Obama actually referred to as his mentor).

Neither of these choices are great….

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[54952].message }}

TimPhelan

16 years ago

Originally Posted by Michael Ellis

I'm talking about Obama's old Reverend Wright (the one Obama actually referred to as his mentor).

Neither of these choices are great....

Wright was Obama's spiritual mentor. He wasn't his mentor when it comes to politics. Obama's political heros include Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Delano Roosevelt. His personal political mentor early on was State Sen. Emil Jones, the president of the Illinois Senate.

McCain had his wacky radical reverends also, but I agree Wright is out there.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[55043].message }}

Michael Ellis

16 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

But Tim, the "spiritual" part of the mentor description didn't kick in until Wright's comments became public... The problem is, you don't associate yourself with a wacko like that (especially for 20 years), and especially a person aspiring to be the President of the United States.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[55101].message }}

Gary Mader 16 years ago

He's a kept man and his wife only lets him know what she wants him to know. Kind of like the president and congress.
- Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature

http://www.YourHomeBizSolution.com Proven Home Business and Work at Home Ideas and Opportunities
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[55162].message }}
- HeySal 16 years ago
  
  Not knowing how many houses you own isn't a matter of stupidity but a matter of having an excellent investment broker, accountant, etc.
  
  He owns 10 houses - okay, do you imagine for once he has lived in them all? If he has people good enough for him making his investments he probably just has them green lighted to do what they want as long as he likes the revenue coming in. At the returns he's probably getting I doubt he even looks twice at the investment reports he gets from them - or listens to what they say before he gives the go ahead.
  
  That's not stupidity.
  
  It is a major red light that this guy is living high enough that, as Kay remarked, he hasn't got a clue what it is like to live like an average American.
  
  Thanks
  
  1 reply
  
  Signature
  
  Sal
  When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
  Beyond the Path
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[56344].message }}
  
  espacecadet Banned 16 years ago
  
  [DELETED]
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[56427].message }}
  
  Kay King 16 years ago
  
  As for houses, turns out some of the properties owned are rented out - and I'm sure they are managed by a property manager. I don't expect any presidential candidate to have the same typical daily experiences I have - but I want some kind of "real life" experience.
  
  The only positive I find in this election is McCain's war record - because I've found that experience is an equalizer not forgotten by those who lived it.
  
  I see only privilege in Obama's background - no real testing by life, and too many who have known him over the years describe him as ambitious and emotionally uninvolved in various projects.
  
  Cindy McCain doesn't pretend to be other than she is - but Michelle Obama insists she is not "privileged". When's the last time she cleaned a toilet?
  
  My big point is this for both of these candidates: what are you going to do to get this country out of the current mess it's in? I don't care about your childhood, your houses or how many cleaning woman and cooks you employ. WHAT are you going to change? HOW are you going to do it?
  WHEN will it happen? HOW MUCH is this going to cost me?
  
  So far - neither candidate is answering those questions.
  
  Must say - so far the most interesting part of the dem convention has been the PUMA members demonstrating there. Obama chose to ignore these women - and it may just come back to bite him.
  
  PUMA - that's "party unity my ass". These are voters disgusted during the primary when Clinton was referred to as "haggard" when she looked tired, while a haggard Obama was "working hard". They were outraged at Obama's "sweetie" comment to a female reporter and his blowoff of the concern when it was pointed out to him. They saw the "powers that be" use well-timed super delegates to choose a candidate and a media in love with Obama. They were former staunch Democrats - who will not vote for the Dem candidate. They may vote for McCain - may do a write in - or may not vote at all.
  
  It was interesting to see the group there and read the blogs after weeks of the media claiming "PUMA members have converted to Obama". No, they haven't and they won't.
  
  By choosing Biden as a running mate, Obama chose someone as verbose as himself. His camp says he couldn't choose clinton because she's a D.C. "insider" - but apparently a male "insider" is OK.
  
  The entire system is weighted and flawed - and the result is two candidates that many of us are not comfortable electing. Truth is, I think we're in trouble no matter which of them wins. It could be a long FOUR years.
  
  kay
  
  Thanks
  
  1 reply
  
  Signature
  
  Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
  ***
  One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
  what it is instead of what you think it should be.
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[56638].message }}
  
  Michael Ellis 16 years ago
  
  Excellent read Kay! Fair and Balanced.
  
  Thanks
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[56664].message }}
  
  Michael Ellis 16 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by HeySal
  
  It is a major red light that this guy is living high enough that, as Kay remarked, he hasn't got a clue what it is like to live like an average American.
  
  Major redlight for McCain? Huh??
  
  I think the most amazing part is none of Obama's faults seems to make a bit of difference to this conversation... it's still all about McCain forgetting how many houses he owns.
  
  Thanks
  
  2 replies
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[56602].message }}
  
  HeySal 16 years ago
  
  I was talking about McCain, Michael.
  
  Actually -- if we are going to go real at both of them, we should be smart enough by now to pick a third party candidate. The first two are both schills.
  
  Thanks
  
  1 reply
  
  Signature
  
  Sal
  When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
  Beyond the Path
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[56630].message }}
  
  explorer883 16 years ago
  
  absolutely, I agree this country needs a third party
  
  Thanks
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[56990].message }}
  
  TimPhelan 16 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by Michael Ellis
  
  it's still all about McCain forgetting how many houses he owns.
  
  Well, that's what Annoyedgirl was referring to.
  
  If you want to talk about faults, how about McCain being completely wrong about the war in Iraq? He was actually talking about invading Iraq before Bush and was more closely alligned with the Neo-Cons than Bush before 9-11. Here's some quotes from McCain before the war and early on.
  
  "Look, we're going to send young men and women in harm's way and that's always a great danger, but I cannot believe that there is an Iraqi soldier who is going to be willing to die for Saddam Hussein, particularly since he will know that our objective is to remove Saddam Hussein from power."
  John McCain, September 15, 2002.
  
  "But the fact is, I think we could go in with much smaller numbers than we had to do in the past. But any military man worth his salt is going to have to prepare for any contingency, but I don't believe it's going to be nearly the size and scope that it was in 1991."
  John McCain, September 15, 2002.
  
  "Proponents of containment claim that Iraq is in a "box." But it is a box with no lid, no bottom, and whose sides are falling out. Within this box are definitive footprints of germ, chemical and nuclear programs."
  John McCain, February 13, 2003.
  
  "I remain confident that we will find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."
  John McCain, June 11, 2003.
  
  "Absolutely. Absolutely."
  John McCain, asked by Chris Matthews, "you believe that the people of Iraq or at least a large number of them will treat us as liberators?" March 12, 2003.
  
  "I think the victory will be rapid, within about three weeks."
  John McCain, January 28, 2003.
  
  "It's clear that the end is very much in sight...It won't be long. It, it'll be a fairly short period of time."
  John McCain, April 9, 2003.
  
  "Well, then why was there a banner that said mission accomplished on the aircraft carrier?"
  John McCain, responding to assertion by Fox News' Neil Cavuto that "many argue the conflict isn't over," June 11, 2003.
  
  "I'm confident we're on the right course."
  John McCain, March 7, 2004.
  
  "We're either going to lose this thing or win this thing within the next several months."
  John McCain, November 12, 2006.
  
  "We are very fortunate that our president in these challenging days can rely on the counsel of a man who has demonstrated time and again the resolve, experience, and patriotism that will be required for success and the hard-headed clear thinking necessary to prevail in this global fight between good and evil."
  John McCain, on Dick Cheney, July 16, 2004.
  
  This is good judgment? This is what experience can do?
  
  The fact is Obama went against what was popular at the time and was against the Iraq war. He was in favor of the Afghanistan war, but felt that a war with Iraq would take our focus off of Al Qaeda, Bin Laden and Afghanistan.
  
  Here's some quotes from Obama at the time:
  
  "'But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history." Oct 2, 2002.
  
  "I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda." Oct 2, 2002. Our own intelligence agency admots that Al Qaeda is stronger now than at any time since 2001.
  
  For all of McCain's experience he sounded pretty naive before and during the early years of the war, while Obama seems prescient.
  
  Over 4000 US dead, tens of thousands wounded, an estimated 93,000 to 1 million Iraqi civilian deaths, half a trillion dollars later, and where are we at now? The Iraqis want US out completely, Iran has more influence than ever in Iraq since they are mostly Shias as is Iraq. The Christian minority in Iraq now is persecuted, killed, threatened, made to worship in hiding and refugees in other countries.
  
  Obama's timetable that was ridiculed by McCain and Bush is now the accepted timetable by the Iraqis and uhmm, now McCain and Bush. Obama's stated desire to focus on Afghanistan has now also been addopted by McCain and Bush.
  
  So, how does McCain show better judgment? :-)
  
  I don't trust McCain's judgment and am willing to put my trust in someone not experienced in the politics of Washington ( can eb a good thing IMO ), but does show a willingness to listen, compromise and make good judgments.
  
  Obama is the one getting my vote.
  
  Thanks
  
  1 reply
  
  Signature
  Over 50 Dating
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[56915].message }}
  
  Michael Ellis 16 years ago
  
  Wow, Tim... you are certainly a master at the "out of context" aren't you?
  
  Don't you know that you can pick and choose someone's words all day long and get them to sound like they are saying just about anything? I mean, c'mon. If you want to pick a topic, I'll discuss it, but these out of context blurbs mean nothing.
  
  Yes, this thread is about "how dumb you have to be..." targeting McCain. I already said that his answer didn't help him, not sure that means he's dumb, but you can form your own decision.
  
  However, I did counter with a "how dumb do you have to be" of my own. I asked, in round about words, how dumb do you have to be to call a radical, racist, separatist your mentor? Like Obama has. How dumb do you have to be to have radical as a mentor for 20+ years and then run for the highest office in the land? Now c'mon, that IS dumb.
  
  Funny part is... for a guy that's so good at picking and choosing words... you don't really have to use that talent to see my point. Just go to Youtube and type in 'jeremiah wright' and you won't have to do any picking and choosing of words. As you're watching the videos, keep in mind that this is the guy Obama has called "a great mentor over the past 20 years".
  
  Still think Barak has shown better judgment?
  
  Thanks
  
  1 reply
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[56970].message }}
  
  TimPhelan 16 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by Michael Ellis
  
  Wow, Tim... you are certainly a master at the "out of context" aren't you?
  
  Oh, and you weren't being "out of context" with the reverend Wright crap? haha
  
  Those are all McCains words Michael. They are about the most important foreign policy decision made by this country in a generation. They are real and show a severe lack of judgment by McCain. They also can be used to answer the OPs question "how dumb do you have to be?"
  
  That Wright stuff is old news and really not relevent. Do you really want to go down that road. Like I said, McCain had his wacko idiot reverends also. One guy blamed Katrina on some gays in New Orleans. How more wacky f**cked up can you get than that?
  
  Here's McCain wacky reverend. One of them, where is calling the Catholic church the "great whore", balmes the US for the terrorist attack ( not something McCain brings up much ) and blames a "homosexual parade" for Katrina leveling New Orleans:
  
  YouTube - TPMtv: McCain Can't Quit John Hagee
  
  Here's McCain's "spiritual guide" who says "we get off on warfare". McCain is heard saying "I tell you, he is the one who should be talking. Not me." :
  
  YouTube - McCain's Spiritual Guide
  
  Here he is talking to a group of blacks about how they are "systematically" being "exterminated" and comparing it to "genocide". Funny he so worried about the "sanctity of life" but a pro Iraq war which has caused hundreds of thousands if not over a million deaths. I guess he gets off on the Iraq war.
  
  YouTube - Rod Parsley: More on "Black...
  
  Thanks
  
  1 reply
  
  Signature
  Over 50 Dating
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[57041].message }}
  
  Michael Ellis 16 years ago
  
  Tim, seriously, you're misinformed. Again, you're grasping to cover the Wright BS. Why? I have no idea.
  
  HUGE difference... but I'm going to set you straight and tell you something you'll most certainly forget.
  
  McCain does NOT attend Hagee's church, unlike Barack Obama who attended Wright's church for decades. McCain does NOT consider Hagee a mentor and a "very important person in his life" which is a quote from Barak Obama referring to Wright.
  
  Get real, Tim... I mean... just what does McCain have on you? Lol
  
  Thanks
  
  1 reply
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[57067].message }}
  
  TimPhelan 16 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by Michael Ellis
  
  Tim, seriously, you're misinformed.
  
  Please tell me where?
  
  By the way, I'm being nice when I say that McCain just had bad judgment. It's clear that Bush cheerypicked his info and used lies to get us into a war with Iraq. This isn't a conspiracy theory. It's the facts. I don't believe in the 9-11 being an inside job crap, but the reality is just as bad really. He was intent on using 9-11 to attack Iraq even though it was clear Iraq wasn't involved in 9-11. For a President to decieve a country to go to war is just about the worst crime I can think of.
  
  What do I have against McCain? He knows this and was a big part of this. We can't afford another 4 years of this so called "maverick" who is in realty a neo-con clone. Look whos running his campaign. Ex Bush campaign aids. This really is McBush.
  
  What do I have against McCain? He calls into question Obama's and Clinton's patriotism because they wanted a timeline to withdrawal from Iraq. He said that was waving the white flag. He said it was surrendering. He said he would "never, ever surrender in Iraq". Guess what. Iraq agreed with Obama. Now we just signed an agreement to withdrawal. I guess he thinks Iraq is surrendering now. I think McCain wants to stay in Iraq though. That's what he says. That's what I have against him.
  
  McCain called this reverend his "spiritual guide". His reverends are more crazy than Wright IMO. So you didn't set me straight. I personally don't think Wright is a racist. From what I have heard many whites attended his church. Whatever, it really pales in importance when you think about all the damage that Bush has done to this country the last 8 years and that McCain is probably his biggest supporter. Try to set me straight on that one.
  
  Thanks
  
  Signature
  Over 50 Dating
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[57141].message }}

TOPGUN08

Banned 16 years ago

[DELETED]

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[57181].message }}

Patrician

16 years ago

Tim Tim Tim --- you know McCain distanced himself from the Reverand Hagee. You conveniently left that out. Same difference Obama distancing himself from Wright.

If you studied the bible you would know why those remarks are made about the ____ church. I am an ex-____ . That is why we have protest_____s - we are protesting the whore.

Not to get on the attack bandwagon on you Tim, because you are a friend, however, I take everything you say with a grain of salt

- because you typically ALWAYS blindly defend your "party" and try to anihilate the opposition - NO MATTER WHERE THE TRUTH MAY LIE, you will probably miss it because you are such a PARTY ANIMAL.

Try having an open mind and take the good and bad of each and then consider that the truth lies somewhere in the middle or to the right (lol or left)

THIMK for YoURSELF! Try it you will like it.

Now I hope this thread isn't removed because 'someone' complains about the 'nut cases' that just happen not to agree with limited leftist views.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Patricia Brucoli
Plug-In Profit Site Helpdesk

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[57349].message }}

Michael Ellis 16 years ago

Hey Tim, how about we agree to disagree?

I think we're both probably too far to one side and need some friendly realigning to the middle.

May the best man win in November!
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[57401].message }}

TimPhelan

16 years ago

Originally Posted by Patrician

Tim Tim Tim --- you know McCain distanced himself from the Reverand whatever his name is. .... Same difference Obama distancing himself from Wright.

Exactly my point.

THIMK for YoURSELF! Try it you will like it.

I do think for myself. That's why I don't read the bible. I've been there and done that.

I see you blanked out the Catholic part of your remarks. So basically you agree with Hagee. That's great Pat. You are calling another religion a whore religion. Nice to know where you stand.

I'm on Obama's side because I have seen what the other side has done. I suggest you open your eyes Pat. There is a choice to be made.

You and others here may consider it the "lesser of two evils". As I have many times in the past. Who likes to vote like that? Some of you think that there isn't that much or any difference between the two partys and I have felt that way many times in the past. I voted Libertarian in 96 instead of for Clinton. However, this year you should think long and hard about just how much less one percieved evil is less than the other. There is a huge difference.

I also know Gore isn't a popular figure in this forum, and again I'm not a big Gore fan, however Gore would not have been influenced by the Neo-Cons and gotten us into the Iraq war. Period.

It would be great to have a legit third party with another candidate. I liked what Ron Paul and also Mike Gravel had to say. I could vote Libertarian or another party again but there is too much at stake. I will vote though. People have died for our right to vote. I hope you all do too and I urge you to vote for someone. I also urge you to vote for someone who can win this year. I also urge you to vote for a change, which is simply a course away from Bush and that is Obama.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[57507].message }}

Michael Ellis

16 years ago

Tim, I hate to say it, but with all due respect, you practically spew ignorance on these issues. And judging by some of the responses, my guess is you do your spewing on these topics quite often.

How can you fairly judge who is the less of two evils when you're such a die hard Liberal that you're too blind to see the faults, however HUGE they may be, with your own candidate?

McCain has his faults, but I can tell you that Hagee or uncertainty over the number of homes he owns aren't them.

Wright is a legitimate problem for Obama, and you've offered no reasonable explanation for his racist preaching ways.

You mention the Iraq war... let's talk about that...

The Iraq war was a decision of Bush as a result of our intelligence agencies (as well as foreign intelligence agencies) indicating Hussein was on the brink of developing Nuclear weapons.

Don't forget, we tried for 10 years (with the majority of those years under Clinton I might add) to allow inspectors to verify there weren't any nukes in Iraq only to be turned away by the Iraqi military and made asses of ourselves. FOR 10 YEARS!

The facts -

- Our intelligence agency (CIA), as well as, trusted foreign intelligence agencies indicated Hussein had or was on the brink of becoming nuclear

- Every major leader INCLUDING CLINTON!!, as well as, leaders of foreign nations agreed Hussein had, or was on the brink of nuclear technology

- Just about every major nation agreed that a nuclear Iraq would totally destabilize the region and very likely result in that technology being sold to terrorist.

- We had a US President presented with these facts (above) after the most horrific terrorist attack in our history - on Sept. 9/11.

What was the major concern Tim? C'mon, you have to know? Terrorists acquiring nuclear weapons! That's why the republicans AND the democrats both voted the resolution to go to war.

So, Tim, I ask you, with the above facts and 10 years of failed chances for Hussein to prove otherwise, what would you expect a protecting President to do?

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[57615].message }}

TimPhelan

16 years ago

Originally Posted by Michael Ellis

So, Tim, I ask you, with the above facts and 10 years of failed chances for Hussein to prove otherwise, what would you expect a protecting President to do?

Simple. Don't LIE!!!!

Wright is NOT a legitimate issue.

Don’t forget, we tried for 10 years (with the majority of those years under Clinton I might add) to allow inspectors to verify there weren't any nukes in Iraq only to be turned away by the Iraqi military and made asses of ourselves. FOR 10 YEARS!

Uhmm. They didn't have nukes. Next question.

- Our intelligence agency (CIA), as well as, trusted foreign intelligence agencies indicated Hussein had or was on the brink of becoming nuclear

This wasn't true. Did you follow the "leak" of the CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson? If not, you should look into that. She was outed illegally by the Bush admin because her husband went against what the so called "trusted" CIA intelligence. Can you imagine an administration leaking the identity of a CIA agent just to justify a political position? I can. From this corrupt admin. To justify a war.

The truth is the Bush admin was responsible for outing a CIA agent because her husband went against what the admin said. Next question.

Every major leader INCLUDING CLINTON!!, as well as, leaders of foreign nations agreed Hussein had, or was on the brink of nuclear technology

Still, no reason to invade Iraq. We had enough on our hands with Afghanistan. As Obama said at the time Iraq was weak. He has been proven to be right. 4,000 American lives and between 90,000 and 1,000,000 Iraqi lives later Bush and McCain has been proven wrong!!!

Now, we are still having major problems with Afghanistan. The Taliban and Al Qaeda are stronger than ever. That's according to the US intellingence reports. Next question.

Just about every major nation agreed that a nuclear Iraq would totally destabilize the region and very likely result in that technology being sold to terrorist.

Yeh, but it wasn't close to being true. It wasn't there Micheal. We had Suddam under control. We had a new war in Afghanistan. There wasn't any WMD. That's because Suddam was a paper lion. He was proven to be that.

Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson was right.

Obama was right. McCain was wrong about Iraq. It's pretty simple really.

Next question.

- We had a US President presented with these facts (above) after the most horrific terrorist attack in our history – on Sept. 9/11.

Uhmm, Iraq was never linked to 9-11 Michael. The above false "facts" are just BS. Please show otherwise.

Next question.

It's true many Democrats voted for the war resolution. They were wrong. Most have stated they were wrong such as Joe Biden. I don't blame them that mcuh because who would have thought the President and his admin would lie about someting so important? Well, many have said they made a mistake such as Joe Biden.

Barack Obama didn't have to say he was wrong because he said from the start this Iraq war was wrong. He was right. Bush/McCain was way, way wrong.

Any more questions Micheal?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[57721].message }}

Michael Ellis 16 years ago

Tim, I suggest you read my last response a couple more times. You're just not getting it. Fortunately, I have to get back to work.

Take care, dude.
- Thanks
- 1 reply
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[58001].message }}
- TimPhelan 16 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by Michael Ellis
  
  Tim, I suggest you read my last response a couple more times. You're just not getting it. Fortunately, I have to get back to work.
  
  Take care, dude.
  
  Haha. That's your response?
  
  I answered your response point by point.
  
  OK, two can play that game:
  
  Michael, I suggest you read my last response, point by point, to your reponse a couple more times. You're just not getting it. :-)
  
  Wow, that was easy.
  
  Thanks
  
  Signature
  Over 50 Dating
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[58022].message }}

Patrician

16 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Exactly my point.

I do think for myself. That's why I don't read the bible. I've been there and done that.

How ignorant. That is the point with the church in question - it is extra-bibical, anti-bibical. A situation contrived by funny little men that molest little boys. (which is not even the point at all) It is the 'whore of babylon' and Christ would kick over the tables the same way he did with the 'Synogue of Satan' (His own words about His own religious organization).

I see you blanked out the Catholic part of your remarks. So basically you agree with Hagee. That's great Pat. You are calling another religion a whore religion. Nice to know where you stand.

Don't try to guilt me - at least with ignorance like you 'been there done that' and by the way while you were doing that you didn't get the message.

...and it was my church and I can say what I want as a baptised, confirmed, EX-Catholic. I didn't wish to offend anyone and that is why I used ____ - but gee you outed me so I guess I am busted now.

I'm on Obama's side because I have seen what the other side has done. I suggest you open your eyes Pat. There is a choice to be made.

You are on Obama's side because he is a Dem. Period. I actually think he is the best thing the Dems have come up with in decades. If he didn't cave on the border issues, and pander to LaRaza, I was actually preferring him over McCain (who also namby-pandered them too) but at least had the gutts to say we need to control the border before we talk immigration reform.) ok so probably lip service. No problem - same old same old.

You and others here may consider it the "lesser of two evils". As I have many times in the past. Who likes to vote like that? Some of you think that there isn't that much or any difference between the two partys and I have felt that way many times in the past. I voted Libertarian in 96 instead of for Clinton. However, this year you should think long and hard about just how much less one percieved evil is less than the other. There is a huge difference.

Check it out oh wise one, I do think for myself and that is why I hate both parties - always have always will. Now my convictions may be to the right of leftist communists and socialists, but I still consider myself a non-conformist.

I will admit to you I rarely vote because that is my vote - NO CONFIDENCE - why bother it is all fixed anyway by lobbyists and God only knows who is running this country for real nowadays.

Only being in this forum and having a friendship with a conservative has made me open my eyes and see that I have been dumb not to vote. My rationalization then, is that why vote for the lesser of two evils. Show me someone/something I can support and believe, and I will vote for that.

It would be great to have a legit third party with another candidate. I liked what Ron Paul and also Mike Gravel had to say. I could vote Libertarian or another party again but there is too much at stake. I will vote though. People have died for our right to vote. I hope you all do too and I urge you to vote for someone. I also urge you to vote for someone who can win this year. I also urge you to vote for a change, which is simply a course away from Bush and that is Obama.

"This is the way the world ends, this is the way the world ends. Not with a bang but a whimper".

Great day in the morning. We agree on something!!! Ron Paul is the only viable candidate in my opinion. However because the mindless dweebs in this country only vote Dem or Rep, no 3rd party has ever had even a small chance to win.

Therefore there are those that will vote McCain as 'the lesser of two evils' and those who will vote Obama as the same. Least Worst - and sickening, but only because to vote for the viable 3rd party candidate, would mean taking a vote from left or right mindless dweeb party, allowing the opponent to win.

Now the downside to us all agreeing with each other is what would we fight about? Would the OT forum implode?

Anyway that's my story and I'm sticking to it.:p

However no offense meant to anyone political or religious and least of all to our buddy Tim.

"The truth is a double-edged sword" and sometimes it hurts, but it is never as harmful as a lie.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Patricia Brucoli
Plug-In Profit Site Helpdesk

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[58198].message }}

TimPhelan

16 years ago

Originally Posted by Patrician

How ignorant.

Actually ignorant means "lacking knowledge" or "uneducated in the fundamentals of a given art or branch of learning" and that doesn't describe me regarding the bible since I read it and understand it as well as you do. The difference is I don't choose to believe it's the "truth". Or word of a so called god. You do. However, I don't usually go knocking other people's faith because if you are an agnostic you are basically saying "I don't know". That is my truth. I don't know. I seriously believe it is actually everyones truth if they admit it. You don't know do you Pat? Be honest. Now remember you want to think for yourself.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[58233].message }}

Patrician

16 years ago

YOU just dig your heels in and simultaneously close your mind. You don't know what I think or what I know except what I choose to share with you.

Actually it is all organized religion that is off base. You have a very distorted view of the Bible and want to judge and persecute me because I believe it.

Those who have an open mind and have discernment know the truth wherever we find it. I am not a robot or anything that believes everything even in the Bible because unlike you I don't kid myself by saying I understand it all.

Tim by being 'agnostic' (gee wow you are so cool, huh?) it just shows you didn't get it.

Again you didn't get it because you are so sure everything you believe is the only truth and your thinking is so superior to mine and anyone else's who disagrees with your point.

"He confounds the {so-called} 'wise'".

Let's not argue about religion now. I can just feel someone who can't win this argument going and reporting the thread or the people who disagree with their point -

...someone who is very offensive him/herself but who will when painted in a corner resort to having people FORCED to stop saying what they can't see the truth in.

So anyway, you win! Whatever. Enjoy the darkness!

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Thanks

Signature

Patricia Brucoli
Plug-In Profit Site Helpdesk

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[58259].message }}

Patrician

16 years ago

no the ignorant i mean is closed minded, narrow minded, deluded and most of all stuck up his own ass ("his head is up his ass").

get over it - come up for air.

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Herein lies your error. There is no in between. No way out by saying 'I don't know' - you either see or you do not see. You are either dead or alive. "The truth will set you free".

... and 'so-called God'? please . 'Those that have eyes, see'.

Oh and Tim I do know - and I do think for myself - that is how I know.

Nah Nah Nah - this has deteriorated into B S. You win you can have it your way. Only your opinion is valid and brother you sure are cool now, huh? (believe me only you think so)

Or word of a so called god. You do. However, I don't usually go knocking other people's faith because if you are an agnostic you are basically saying "I don't know". That is my truth. I don't know. I seriously believe it is actually everyones truth if they admit it. You don't know do you Pat? Be honest. Now remember you want to think for yourself.

p.s. well I hope it is allowable to LEARN about what I don't know and then to believe and trust in my own judgment based on my own analysis? Or would that be not thinking for myself in your opinion? Lord knows I wouldn't want to do or say anything that is not politically incorrect.

But anyway I came back to say I am not mad and am sorry if I was harsh or have offended anyone by being honest.

Thanks

Signature

Patricia Brucoli
Plug-In Profit Site Helpdesk

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[58263].message }}

espacecadet Banned 16 years ago

[DELETED]

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[59110].message }}
- HeySal 16 years ago
  
  Arguing religion is so senseless people. Faith is an extremely personal thing and to call one wrong and one right is obviously a waste of time until either a God shows up and says "hey, here I am" or until we die and see firsthand what the afer is. There is no proof or we would be united with no need for faith. Leave it at that. Good cripse - you can't make people believe what is right in their faces - how do you change their mind on their fatih? Bickering about who has the most righteousness in questions of faith is absolutely bizarre and ridiculous.
  
  Presidents? McCain will give us war. Obama will tax us right out of our own skins - and wants to disarm us. He is much too interested in giving our money to the world rather than putting it to use for his own citizens and I am sick of the "if you don't like me you are a racist" guilt trip he is trying to pull off. He sounds like just a major dose of reverse descrimination coming on, to me anyway. He's just too centered around the racial issue for me to be comfortable with - with all the other extrodinarily essential issues - like how are we going to come up with all the money for all his proposed taxation, it's a pretty lame focus for a campaign by anyone.
  
  Obama is also currently in a lawsuit to prove he is even an American Citizen. If he proves out that he didn't regain his American citizenship on his return from Indonesia - or if he has dual citizenships, he's not even going to make it til election day. Lets see if he is even legally qualified before we get too strung out on his campaign.
  
  If you want change that doesn't involve continual war, or usurption of our wallets and bill of rights - vote third party. The fact that every candidate that isn't one of the arleady "chosen" dissappears from the press as soon as they start to amass a following should be the wakeup call we need to stop voting for the "approved" choices. When media refuses to pay any attention to certain candidates and heaps attention on others and people can't see that they are being led to the next already "approved choice" we are in deep desperate trouble. Anyone voting for either McCain or Obama has been suckered.
  
  Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  Sal
  When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
  Beyond the Path
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[59323].message }}
  
  espacecadet Banned 16 years ago
  
  [DELETED]
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[59332].message }}
  
  Kay King 16 years ago
  
  Allen - some of what you say about black/white is probably true.
  
  The "sticking with your group" doesn't happen everywhere - and it's sad when it does because it just perpetuates the idea of "different" for both sides.
  
  The thesis itself doesn't bother me at all - we all change our views with time and I can understand wanting to examine "your place" in the system.
  
  What struck me all along is that if you believe what you say - then own it.
  If you've changed your mind since then, say so. Withholding info often makes the info appear more important than it is.
  
  There is no in between
  
  I don't believe that. There are shades of interpretations and levels of belief and disbelief. 10 people can read the same thing and form different opinions by thinking for themselves because they have different mental filters.
  
  What you believe is right for you - but that doesn't make it right for someone else. It is a closed mind that thinks an alternate opinion is wrong simply because it is different.
  
  kay
  
  Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
  ***
  One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
  what it is instead of what you think it should be.
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[59400].message }}
  
  espacecadet Banned 16 years ago
  
  [DELETED]
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[59471].message }}
  
  Patrician 16 years ago
  
  'One nation, under God, INDIVISABLE, with liberty and justice for all'.
  
  What we actually have however, is a conglomeration of special-interest hyphenated GHETTOS where 'birds of a feather flock together'.
  
  I feel that it divides our country just the same as people who refuse to speak English and thereby join the rest of us.
  
  Having said that, unless you actually know real African-American people personally you don't realize how deep the hurt goes of being 'separate'.
  
  The fact that people always have to say 'black reporter', 'black candidate', etc., is just immoral in my opinion. These people are Americans. For generations! Do people talk about you and say 'Joe the white reporter'????
  
  However, maybe hopefully not the younger ones, but say my age and older have been taught to believe that ALL white people hate them without reason.
  
  This is not always true, but whether we admit it or not we heard negative connotations all our lives and whether we consciously believe it or not, the seeds are sown.
  
  Black people have heard the stories about the brutal treatment their ancesters received. A FEW USE IT AS A COP OUT - IT ISN'T. Howver, 'it's hard to hide when you are crippled inside' - and I can only imagine what I would be like if I was black.
  
  I have chosen to live in black neighborhoods starting with Haight Ashbury in 1966, which was completely a black neighborhood before the 1960's and hippy invasion. Some families still manage to survive there to this day.
  
  I have had very close friendships with black people and have enjoyed being invited to their homes for dinner, to meet their families and etc. They are wonderful people.
  
  It hasn't always been easy because of the history in this country, however I am proud to say that they have always accepted me and my friendship.
  
  With all the later generations, some are educated, have professional careers, have all the mom and apple pie stuff = yet they are still not considered equal both in their own minds and in the minds of far too many Americans.
  
  I am NOT saying black people should act like or wannabe white - I am saying the only thing that will save this country from being 'divided within' is for people to actually get together with diverse others.
  
  Make new friends today.
  
  Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  Patricia Brucoli
  Plug-In Profit Site Helpdesk
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[59781].message }}
  
  espacecadet Banned 16 years ago
  
  [DELETED]
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[59936].message }}
  
  Patrician 16 years ago
  
  yo, gringo show me your green card, eh amigo?
  
  oops better say spokenzy doiche lest i be called racist and the thread be shut down. parleo vous me souffle? haveabigapizzapie, pizanno?
  
  Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  Patricia Brucoli
  Plug-In Profit Site Helpdesk
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[59965].message }}

How dumb do you have to be

Trending Topics

Are Solo ADs the Most Cost Effective Way to Promote your Product?

How do I effectively build and nurture an email list for affiliate marketing purposes?

Are billboards still effective in driving customers?

Been a while! Any of you Old Timers here?

How much does the rebranding affect CR ?