obama the hypocrite

[FlyingPrick]

Something happened regarding Obama and his passport - it's being billed as the fault of the Bush administration and an "inside job" by Anderson Cooper 180. I will have to read of this more later, but that's a heads up in the effort to be fair.

looks like some morons at the state department wanted to look at obama's passport records out of sheer curiosity. 2 got fired, 1 is on some type of suspension it appears....or i could be completely wrong. just what i gathered from my half-assed listening to fox news this morning. meh.

[Hallen]

Read Niccolo Machievlli: The Prince (or the cliff notes)
This will explain, to an extent, why Saddam Hussein worked for iraq.

Julien

"Worked" or "Was good for"

The Nazi Party worked. Apartheid worked. Slavery worked. Those things weren't much good for anybody in the long run, but they worked. Saddam was extremely effective and created a unified front through fear and brutality. Old'n'Slow implied that Saddam was a better alternative than a democracy and it seems you agreed.

[DEV0 E30]

http://voanews.com/english/2008-03-21-voa10.cfm

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpu...departm-1.html

[Farbin Kaiber]

BTW, Mr Hussein understood long ago how to handle THEIR extremists. He ran a secular country, that while brutal, served to keep Al Qaeda out and the Islamic fundamentalists at bay. I remember a former CIA analyst saying after the first Gulf War, "if you think Saddam is bad, you should see the guys waiting in the wings". Flash forward to the present: now Al Qaeda says ""Iraq is the perfect base to set up the jihad to liberate Palestine."

Mission Accomplished indeed.

In regards to this quote, Hallen, No blogs for that deduction here, just reading the transcript of the new Osama tape and related news reports, I came to this conclusion from the realization that the US has destabilized the region by taking a "controlled/fearful populus" and allowing factioning and social uprising.

Before, when the citizens had cowered in their homes, keeping fearful, as Saddam had used as a tool for the main system of social control following the Iran-Iraq War. Once coalition forces entered, the masses had freedom once the fear of reprimands was negated and multiple groups have taken control of different regions. Now, some of these groups five years out will/may find aleigence with the things Osama has said.


I just don't want someone to be called out for "Blogs" what is an obvious deduction. Now, sorry rot the ramble, back OT...

"Worked" or "Was good for"



The Nazi Party worked. Apartheid worked. Slavery worked. Those things weren't much good for anybody in the long run, but they worked. Saddam was extremely effective and created a unified front through fear and brutality. Old'n'Slow implied that Saddam was a better alternative than a democracy and it seems you agreed.

I agree as well, who is the US to say what form of government the rest of the world is supposed to run via? Whats next, a presidential decree that requires Mars to adopt the Republican and Democratic parties? One day the US will learn to not bully, I just hope it's not too late.

[trent]

I didn't even bother reading this thread, but knowing how many liberals are on on this board, I can't help but comment. You people need to look past your "pride" that Obama was "your guy" and see how these personal and fundamental relationships actually affect him and WILL affect his presidency, if he survives this fallout (which he will not).

Everytime I think of you liberals who drank the kool-aid and can't look past these problems and want to defend him, I just remember that "liberalism is a mental disorder."

[atomic]

Is Obama Wright?

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=72B3tUAqpo4

[DarkWing6]

I didn't even bother reading this thread, but knowing how many liberals are on on this board, I can't help but comment. You people need to look past your "pride" that Obama was "your guy" and see how these personal and fundamental relationships actually affect him and WILL affect his presidency, if he survives this fallout (which he will not).

Everytime I think of you liberals who drank the kool-aid and can't look past these problems and want to defend him, I just remember that "liberalism is a mental disorder."

This deserves to be read again.

[Sean]

I didn't even bother reading this thread, but knowing how many liberals are on on this board, I can't help but comment. You people need to look past your "pride" that Obama was "your guy" and see how these personal and fundamental relationships actually affect him and WILL affect his presidency, if he survives this fallout (which he will not).

Everytime I think of you liberals who drank the kool-aid and can't look past these problems and want to defend him, I just remember that "liberalism is a mental disorder."

Thank, trent! Haha. Couln't have said it better myself.

[E30 Wagen]

Fixed, and why? Seriously, i just don't see the attraction but i would like your insight.

Well, I guess I just have this real neutral feeling about her. I feel that she is totally qualified for the job, that she truly wants it. She's not trying to be this lofty intellectual who thinks she has it all figured out. I feel that Obama is riding solely on the support of impressionable college freshman, African-Americans, and anti-Bush sentiment.

I think McCain is a good guy. I like how comfortable on camera (hosted SNL), and I like how straight forward he is. But, he just seems unprepared, and tired. There's just something about his judgement that I don't trust.

I don't like Hillary's support of gay marriage, but whatever I guess. What concerns me the most is that the country move forward. It has been 200 years and we have never had a female president (granted the first 100 years didn't have a chance); we've never even had a female run for the position. In fact, we have only had one imaginary woman president, Gina Davis. When it comes to that, our country is way behind on having females in a true leadership position. I know Germany is led by a woman (called a chancelor?), and there are a number of other countries that i forget, but you might find surprising are being led by women. It has nothing at all to do with men vs. women, but more about politics in America progressing, and I think that sort of progression will pull us out of the rut America seems to be in. It's not about her beating the odds or any sort of Disney-like inspiration for women across the US. It's just about having something dramatically new. That will undoubtably wear off when we all get used to her as president, but I think it will last longer than Obama's plans for a utopia and McCain's... whatever the heck a psuedorepublican plans are.

It does bother me, however, when she seems to dodge questions. If Edwards was still in the running, he'd probably have my vote.

[DarkWing6]

So really you are voting Hillary cause she is a woman? You think McCain is a good guy but don't trust him, yet you say Hillary is dodging questions and you trust her?

[02robin]

I didn't even bother reading this thread, but knowing how many liberals are on on this board, I can't help but comment. You people need to look past your "pride" that Obama was "your guy" and see how these personal and fundamental relationships actually affect him and WILL affect his presidency, if he survives this fallout (which he will not).

Everytime I think of you liberals who drank the kool-aid and can't look past these problems and want to defend him, I just remember that "liberalism is a mental disorder."

Says the guy with the Rush Limbaugh avatar, aka the biggest blowhard hypocrite out there.

Locke, Voltaire, Kant, Paine, Jefferson, Keyens, Friedman.......bunch of headcases.

Free speech, free thought, a transparent government with limited powers, equal rights, freedom from economic and physical coercion.....clearly the ramblings of mad men, right guys?

Right?

[Hallen]

... I came to this conclusion from the realization that the US has destabilized the region by taking a "controlled/fearful populus" and allowing factioning and social uprising.

I'm sorry, but the "region" has been unstable for a long, long time. We are striving to provide some real, long term stability now. If we can work with Iraq to stabilize their government and then (mostly) leave (and don't get your hopes up, it will be another 10 years before that happens), then at least we have done some good.

The factions you listed have been there all along. Saddam was working on systematically killing some factions while he had the others cowed under his brutal dictatorship. Never, ever forget that Saddam was a horribly evil man along the same lines as Hitler and Stalin.

Before, when the citizens had cowered in their homes, keeping fearful, as Saddam had used as a tool for the main system of social control following the Iran-Iraq War. Once coalition forces entered, the masses had freedom once the fear of reprimands was negated and multiple groups have taken control of different regions. Now, some of these groups five years out will/may find allegiance with the things Osama has said.

Some may find allegiance with Osama, or not. Once freedom spreads there, people will be able to decide for themselves. That is the risk you take when you offer freedom to oppressed people. I think it is a risk worth taking.

What you are suggesting is total control. For some reason, you seem to think that is acceptable. What a frightening thought. And liberals usually point at conservatives as prying into private lives. Jeesh, this goes clear over in to the extreme side and you think it is OK. This really worries me.

I agree as well, who is the US to say what form of government the rest of the world is supposed to run via? Whats next, a presidential decree that requires Mars to adopt the Republican and Democratic parties? One day the US will learn to not bully, I just hope it's not too late.

We didn't tell them what form of government to form. We just suggested that some form of democracy would be advisable since 99% of the stable countries in the world use democracy.

It is this head in the sand, they can't hurt me if I don't look them in the eye attitude that led to WW1 and WW2. Just wishing that it ain't so never, ever works. We are not a bully. We are powerful. We are proud. We have learned our lessons. And we will let anybody walk all over us until vital interests or our safety is at stake. Then watch out.

Saddam needed exterminating, it is just that simple. We have the opportunity now to leave a stabilized country in a sea of chaos. For the people of Iraq, I sincerely hope that our Government stays with it long enough to properly finish the job that we started. No other option is acceptable.

Listen, none of us want to be involved in or control other's lives or country. We have a long, long history of stabilizing and leaving. Look at Germany, look at Japan, look at France, Belgium, etc, etc, etc. We don't occupy. We stabilize and leave. Hopefully, we leave with friends in place. If not, then Oh, well. At least they are free to determine their own fate now.

Some nasty things have to be done in life, things that are lose-lose situations; damned if you do, and damned if you don't. I am glad that we step up when we have to.

France, Germany, Russia... all did not want us going into Iraq. Why? Not because of any feeling of compassion for the people of Iraq. Not because they really worried about America taking control of the country, they knew we wouldn't. No, they knew that they were going to lose lucrative trade and military sales. It was and is all about money.

The liberal, socialist loonies in those countries all think it was because we are bullies (just like you) and they are social conscious, caring people. Bull hockey. Their governments had their fists so deep in Saddam's pockets (just like NATO) it wasn't funny. France is a huge exporter of military hardware to just about anybody who will pay for it. And it doesn't seem to matter to them if that country is an enemy of all western countries or not... as long as they make a buck. You don't hear this stuff from your media because it graphically points out the huge gaps in logic that liberal politics produce.

This all ties back into Obama and Clinton. They want to pull out of Iraq when they need us the most. No matter why the war got started in the first place, it is our mess now and we have the responsibility to stick with it until the problems are solved. If one of those two hucksters pull us out, then I can absolutely, positively guarantee you a huge, awful backlash against this country. Not to mention the fact that all those Iraqis who have worked with us to stabilize their country will surly pay the ultimate price. Thousands and thousands more Iraqis will be killed. Is that what you want? Or, you just don't care because it isn't any of our business?


So my point is again, things are way, way more complicated and dangerous out there than you, with your figurative head in the sand, could possibly know. If we don't make a stand against tyranny and injustice, who will? Certainly not the French.

[Funkmasta]

Well, I guess I just have this real neutral feeling about her. I feel that she is totally qualified for the job, that she truly wants it. She's not trying to be this lofty intellectual who thinks she has it all figured out. I feel that Obama is riding solely on the support of impressionable college freshman, African-Americans, and anti-Bush sentiment.

I think McCain is a good guy. I like how comfortable on camera (hosted SNL), and I like how straight forward he is. But, he just seems unprepared, and tired. There's just something about his judgement that I don't trust.

I don't like Hillary's support of gay marriage, but whatever I guess. What concerns me the most is that the country move forward. It has been 200 years and we have never had a female president (granted the first 100 years didn't have a chance); we've never even had a female run for the position. In fact, we have only had one imaginary woman president, Gina Davis. When it comes to that, our country is way behind on having females in a true leadership position. I know Germany is led by a woman (called a chancelor?), and there are a number of other countries that i forget, but you might find surprising are being led by women. It has nothing at all to do with men vs. women, but more about politics in America progressing, and I think that sort of progression will pull us out of the rut America seems to be in. It's not about her beating the odds or any sort of Disney-like inspiration for women across the US. It's just about having something dramatically new. That will undoubtably wear off when we all get used to her as president, but I think it will last longer than Obama's plans for a utopia and McCain's... whatever the heck a psuedorepublican plans are.

It does bother me, however, when she seems to dodge questions. If Edwards was still in the running, he'd probably have my vote.

Dude, seriously?

You can't be serious. Being a woman does not equal ability. Being a woman does NOT equal inability. Being a woman equals having a uterus.

So, don't vote for Hilary just because she is a woman.

[1991 318is]

The HITS just keep on coming!

McCain has his own version of embarassing statements by religious leaders he has allied himself with. Televangelist John Hagee is openly anti-catholic. He believes that Israel must be defeated by a Russian-Arab military alliance, preceded by a U.S. invasion of Iran. This will bring about Armageddon and the second coming of Christ. Christ will also, in case you didn't know, take control of the US government as the instrument of his rule during the 1000 year reign of the Prince of Peace
The other far-right televangelist McCain embraced a couple of weeks ago was Rod Parsley, who has his own unique perspective on the world. We (the Christians, that is) must literally destroy Islam and that Mohammed received his visions from demons and not from God.
Maybe McCain isn't a hypocrite like Obama is referred to in the title of this thread. That is if he sincerely feels the same way.

[Funkmasta]

McCain has his own version of embarassing statements by religious leaders he has allied himself with. Televangelist John Hagee is openly anti-catholic. He believes that Israel must be defeated by a Russian-Arab military alliance, preceded by a U.S. invasion of Iran. This will bring about Armageddon and the second coming of Christ. Christ will also, in case you didn't know, take control of the US government as the instrument of his rule during the 1000 year reign of the Prince of Peace
The other far-right televangelist McCain embraced a couple of weeks ago was Rod Parsley, who has his own unique perspective on the world. We (the Christians, that is) must literally destroy Islam and that Mohammed received his visions from demons and not from God.
Maybe McCain isn't a hypocrite like Obama is referred to in the title of this thread. That is if he sincerely feels the same way.

Well, the PRIMARY (aka majority) religion in this country is Christianity, so...

At least McCains "spritual advisor" isn't a racist, america-hating, segregator.

Don't get me wrong... I don't think McCain is going to be a great president, but beyond a doubt, he will do the least damage of the three.

I mean, really... Come on democrats, get it together. Focus on your party and put your best foot forward. Your INABILITY to work with others really shows your thirst for power and dictatorship.