The Real McCain

As far as ignoring UN resolutions, well, we've had that precedent set already. After this clusterfuck in Iraq is all said and done, UN resolutions won't quite hold the weight they once did. And frankly, we need a President who will make nicey-nice with Iran, because they are so fucking close to a counter-revolution it's not even funny, and when the regime goes down, we're gonna need lots of friends there. Is Obama the candidate that can walk that tightrope? Fuck no. We're gonna need a lot more than a career suck-up to fix the situation with Iran. Obama might be intelligent, but after eight years of The Yuck-Yuck Cowboy Show, we're gonna need a fucking GENIUS to sort this bullshit out.

Yes, Iran ignores UN resolutions and lies through their teeth to the European negotiators. Many countries blow off the UN. Saddam Hussein did it for many years.

I've heard the rumors about counter-revolution in Iran. Those rumors have been going on for years. Nothing has happened. It's not going to happen. Not in the foreseeable future.

One thing is certain, Iran cannot be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. Obama is NOT the man that can or will stop that from happening.

In fact, Obama's naive appeasement to the current fascists that run that country will embolden the current leaders of Iran. It will both ensure that they acquire their nuclear weapons and crush whatever internal enemies and counter revolutionaries are in Iran.

The people in Iran who desire freedom need an American leader who will stand up to Mahmoud Hitler and the mullahs. Not kiss their ass and make "nicey nice" as you claim. An American president who emboldens the current leadership doesn't help them one bit.

Obama is not a smart man. He talks like a naive child when foreign policy issues are put to him. He talks the talk of appeasement to dictators and their terrorist groups like Hezbollah. That doesn't help anyone in the Middle East other than the dictators and the terrorists.

NYMM,

You voted for Bush (assuming). And look at the mess we're in right now.

Ever wonder, maybe you were wrong?

Bush has made some mistakes, but it is too early to say he was wrong.

It's actually starting to work out in the other direction which seems to piss off you leftists.

Harry Truman was in a similar position and history proved him correct.

But then again you aren't interested in history. Or the future for that matter.

Madman, you haven't used the word "moonbat" in awhile... Come on, give us a good moonbat rant for old times sake. That always gives me a good hearty chuckle.

If you really think Bush could pull off a Truman 40 years from now, maybe YOU should put down the kool-aid.

By mentioning Truman, I meant that Truman was not a popular president at the end of his term. He was treated very shabbily.

It won't take 40 years for people to understand what Bush was trying to accomplish. A lot of what he is trying to accomplish is coming to fruition. It's a slow process, despite all the efforts of many in this country to undermine everything, but even he always said it was going to be a slow process.

Maybe many didn't understand that fact. We are afterall becoming a very childish, instant gratification type nation.

Back in 2003 when we invaded Iraq, I said right here on this message board that it was going to take at least 8 years to bring that country around. I was attacked for saying it. Maybe even by you, but I don't know. That prediction is looking like it will be close to being accurate.

Here is another prediction and you can this straight to the bank. In four years time, many people in this country are going to look back on George Bush's presidency far, far more favorably then the president in office four years from now. With what's coming down the road, these days are going to seem like the 'good old days'.

History will be kind to George Bush and I can guarantee you that it will happen a lot sooner than you think.

That's "change".

You're being facetious, but I gotta say, I like the word " moonbat" too. It has a certain ring to it.

I was planning on debuting a new word soon... "Obamunists".

I never claimed that anyone should kiss their asses. What I'd like to see is someone who doesn't pull a Nikita Kruschev slamming his shoe on the podium, sabre-rattling cowboy fuckhead Axis of Evil maneuver like President Howdy did. The last thing we should be doing is threatening Iranians with "1,000 cruise missiles" and total destruction. The idea that we are at their border on two sides with the intent of someday rolling in isn't making anyone in Iran comfortable, and instead of making us seem the reasonable ones, strengthens the mullahs' and military's bullshit Chicken Little Everybody Panic the Infidels Are Coming propaganda.

What mess Jorge? :rolleyes:

It took over 40 years to defeat Communism. You think defeating these muslim terrorists is going to occur in 7 years?

Mortgage crisis? Bush's fault right? Last time I checked he wasn't a mortgage writer....

What is actual Bush's fault (according to you)? He went with the intelligence reports provided to him and our Allies. He went with what the UN recommend after years of the UN Resolutions being ignored by Iraq. Was it all correct? Only time will tell.

You always criticize Bush. WHO would you have as President and WHAT would you propose they do and run the country??

S.

You seem to have a blurred recollection of recent history. President Howdy as you refer to him, didn't pull a Kruschev at the UN. He probably should have. You also seem to forget that the UN was up to it's eyeballs in corruption and illegal behavior with the massive Oil for Food scandal with Saddam Hussein. The UN is a massively corrupt organization and Saddam took huge advantage of that corruption. It was a large criminal enterprise until 2003.

Please tell me who is threatening the Iranians with a thousand cruise missiles? Maybe that is a headline running in your head, but it's not running in any newspaper.

The Iranians are the ones doing the threatening. Hardly any time goes by when Mahmoud Hitler isn't openly talking about destroying Israel. He did as recently as last week again.

We would not invade Iran. The terrain alone stops us from doing that. You know that.

Iran is already engaged in covert war with the United States. They are already responsible for killing American soldiers.

No one has ever talked about invading Iran. No one has any plans on engaging them militarily. The only thing it will come down to is someone will attack their nuclear weapons manufacturing facilities and reactor sites. That most likely will happen because the rest of the world is dragging their heels. Namely Russia and China.

Iran is not the same situation as Iraq. Also there are new leaders in some European countries who understand the danger of a nuclear Iran.

For your popular revolution in Iran, we should have figured out a way to hurt them on their subsidized domestic gasoline front. You already know that they supply extremely cheap subsidized gasoline to their population. When the price goes up, or the supply is rationed, the population is ready to riot... as almost happened a while back. That subsidized gas keeps the people somewhat placated. We should be finding a way to use that to our advantage.

The people in Iran know what is going on despite the government efforts to control information. That is why Iran is so scared of the internet.

Who knows what covert actions we are doing in Iran. I hope it is something. I hope we are in contact with some "friendly" generals in their high command. I hope we have that general that disappeared in Turkey a year or so ago.

There is hope. However there is no hope with the candidate that uses "hope" as a slogan.

Stone, You know who he wants as president.

Why does he want him? Because he's a black dude who has "hope" and "change" on his campaign placards.

Two years ago every leftist was claiming Hillary was the smartest women in the world. She was going to be the savior of the US and the Democrats.

Enter a radical leftist black dude with a Muslin name and ......... "Hillary who?".... "She's a bitch".... "I always hated her".... "forget what I said a year ago, I was on anti-Bush-anti-depressant meds then".

"Barack is diversity".... "He is our Magic Negro" ... "I saw the 'The Legend of Baggar Vance'".... "He makes me proud to be a guilty white liberal".... "I thought all black people who didn't go to Starbucks were like Al Sharpton.... until I saw Barack"

Did you ever talk to an Obama supporter? Once you get past them mentioning "hope" or "change", it comes down to nothing other than the fact that he is black.

Oh shit, you said magic negro again. Jorge will be all over you as a racist now because he probably still hasn't paid attention to what it means or where the term was coined.

Democrats. Short attention spans. They go hand in hand.

Communism has been defeated?? Guess you haven't heard that about 1/6 of the worlds population is still living under it. And we didn't defeat it. It was defeated by a number of people, including it's own leader, Gorby.

We took care of Germany AND Japan in less time than it's taking to defeat the terrorists. And both of those were FAR more formidable.



Not his fault at all. But bailing everyone out MAY be his fault.



He would have been in MUCH better shape had he stuck with Afghanistan. There was NO need to go into Iraq.

In 2000, I would have MUCH preferred McCain.

Are you seriously saying that we are using the same methods of waging WWII as we are in the GWOT? I haven't seen the carpet bombing of cities here lately. We don't search a building by first throwing in a grenade. Joe Terrorist isn't exactly running around in a uniform, being housed in barracks, and carrying their weapons in the open on the battlefield. A better analogy is why haven't we defeated the mafia? In reality, that's what we are fighting - organized crime, on steroids. If you think money has nothing to do with most of the attacks here, you're an idiot.

Let us lob a couple nukes in that part of the world and we'll put an end to these muslim assholes too. The tactics have changed. This and WWII - apples and oranges.

And yet conservatives have NO problem pulling out the D-Day argument when talking about troops killed.

Go figure. :rolleyes:

Tactically speaking, Apples and oranges. Troup levels again, apples and oranges, but numbers killed on both sides still relevant if we are going to obsess on the numbers and report every death as a national tradgedy to stime the cause or reason why they died. Not for oil as you believe but to remove the oppression and evil that controlled that country, that every Democrat was (before Bush) for getting rid of.

Every "Troop" as you put it, is held to the highest regard for thier and thier families sacrifice. War isn't pretty, nor should it be. It takes boots on the ground to secure your position, not Cruise missles at the touch of a button from thousands of miles away.

What a pitiful argument.

Remembering Memorial Day...

IN FLANDERS FIELDS the poppies blow
Between the crosses row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

--Lieutenant Colonel John McCrae, MD

-------------------

It was a time of great exulting and excitement. The country was up in arms, the war was on, in every breast burned the holy fire of patriotism; the drums were beating, the bands playing, the toy pistols popping, the bunched firecrackers hissing and sputtering; on every hand and far down the receding and fading spread of roofs and balconies a fluttering wilderness of flags flashed in the sun; daily the young volunteers marched down the wide avenue gay and fine in their new uniforms, the proud fathers and mothers and sisters and sweethearts cheering them with voices choked with happy emotion as they swung by; nightly the packed mass meetings listened, panting, to patriot oratory which stirred the deepest depths of their hearts, and which they interrupted at briefest intervals with cyclones of applause, the tears running down their cheeks the while; in the churches the pastors preached devotion to flag and country, and invoked the God of Battles, beseeching His aid in our good cause in outpourings of fervid eloquence which moved every listener. It was indeed a glad and gracious time, and the half dozen rash spirits that ventured to disapprove of the war and cast doubt upon its righteousness straight way got such a stern and angry warning that for their personal safety's sake they quickly shrank out of sight and offended no more in that way.

Sunday morning came – next day the battalions would leave for the front; the church was filled; the volunteers were there, their young faces alight with martial dreams – visions of the stern advance, the gathering momentum, the rushing charge, the flashing sabers, the flight of the foe, the tumult, the enveloping smoke, the fierce pursuit, the surrender! – then home from the war, bronzed heroes, welcomed, adored, submerged in golden seas of glory! With the volunteers sat their dear ones, proud, happy, and envied by the neighbors and friends who had no sons and brothers to send forth to the field of honor, there to win for the flag, or failing, die the noblest of noble deaths. The service proceeded; a war chapter from the Old Testament was read; the first prayer was said; it was followed by an organ burst that shook the building, and with one impulse the house rose, with glowing eyes and beating hearts, and poured out that tremendous invocation:

"God the all-terrible! Thou who ordainest, Thunder thy clarion and lightning thy sword!"

Then came the "long" prayer. None could remember the like of it for passionate pleading and moving and beautiful language. The burden of its supplication was, that an ever-merciful and benignant Father of us all would watch over our noble young soldiers, and aid, comfort, and encourage them in their patriotic work; bless them, shield them in the day of battle and the hour of peril, bear them in His mighty hand, make them strong and confident, invincible in the bloody onset; help them to crush the foe, grant to them and to their flag and country imperishable honor and glory – An aged stranger entered and moved with slow and noiseless step up the main aisle, his eyes fixed upon the minister, his long body clothed in a robe that reached to his feet, his head bare, his white hair descending in a frothy cataract to his shoulders, his seamy face unnaturally pale, pale even to ghastliness. With all eyes following and wondering, he made his silent way; without pausing, he ascended to the preacher's side and stood there, waiting. With shut lids the preacher, unconscious of his presence, continued his moving prayer, and at last finished it with the words, uttered in fervent appeal, "Bless our arms, grant us victory, O Lord our God, Father and Protector of our land and flag!"

The stranger touched his arm, motioned him to step aside – which the startled minister did – and took his place. During some moments he surveyed the spellbound audience with solemn eyes, in which burned an uncanny light; then in a deep voice he said:

"I come from the Throne – bearing a message from Almighty God!" The words smote the house with a shock; if the stranger perceived it he gave no attention. "He has heard the prayer of His servant your shepherd, and will grant it if such be your desire after I, His messenger, shall have explained to you its import – that is to say, its full import. For it is like unto many of the prayers of men, in that it asks for more than he who utters it is aware of – except he pause and think.

"God's servant and yours has prayed his prayer. Has he paused and taken thought? Is it one prayer? No, it is two – one uttered, the other not. Both have reached the ear of Him Who heareth all supplications, the spoken and the unspoken. Ponder this – keep it in mind. If you would beseech a blessing upon yourself, beware! lest without intent you invoke a curse upon a neighbor at the same time. If you pray for the blessing of rain upon your crop which needs it, by that act you are possibly praying for a curse upon some neighbor's crop which may not need rain and can be injured by it.

"You have heard your servant's prayer – the uttered part of it. I am commissioned of God to put into words the other part of it – that part which the pastor – and also you in your hearts – fervently prayed silently. And ignorantly and unthinkingly? God grant that it was so! You heard these words: 'Grant us victory, O Lord our God!' That is sufficient. The whole of the uttered prayer is compact into those pregnant words. Elaborations were not necessary. When you have prayed for victory you have prayed for many unmentioned results which follow victory – must follow it, cannot help but follow it. Upon the listening spirit of God the Father fell also the unspoken part of the prayer. He commandeth me to put it into words. Listen!

"O Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth to battle – be Thou near them! With them – in spirit – we also go forth from the sweet peace of our beloved firesides to smite the foe. O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with hurricanes of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with their little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it – for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet! We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is the ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen."

[After a pause.] "Ye have prayed it; if ye still desire it, speak! The messenger of the Most High waits."

It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said.

-- Mark Twain

That's as deep as it gets Steve. Thanks, Adam

Well, you are wrong on two counts here.

1. I don't believe it was for oil.

2. Every Democrat that was for getting rid of him did NOT share Bush's view. The legislation said that force was a LAST resort. Just because they said he could use it as a LAST RESORT doesn't mean they agree with him using it when he did.



As they should be.



Seems to me, those cruise missiles did quite a bit of the job the first time around. Yes, the troups came in...but that lasted what...four days? (And Iraq had actually agreed to a cease fire (that we rejected) two days BEFORE our ground troops went in).

What argument? I was pointing out the hypocrisy of conservatives saying you can't compare WWII, but then will say, "oh...we lost how many on D-Day?" when someone mentions how many have been killed in Iraq.

We won the war in a few weeks. We've been engaged in country building ever since.

There is a big difference between our war with the Germans and Japanese. They had the good sense after they were beaten to lay down arms and commence rebuilding their country rather than fight occupation. However, that occurred too; you just didn't have the level of media coverage (bias) back in the 40s as you do today. This nation's media will ensure every military engagement we ever participate in will be as immensely unpopular as the one that preceded it because the only side of the story you'll get is the sensationalist grisly details.

We're not fighting Iraqis anymore. We haven't been. We're fighting every nutjob from surrounding countries like Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. The collateral damage we inflict pales in comparison to the heavy casualties these grubby little muslim pricks are inflicting on the citizenry of the country.

Iraq can't oust them on their own. Not yet.

I have to agree with madman....I think 20 years from now this era will be looked upon much differently than it is today. Liberals in their instant gratification mindset don't have the stomach for a long term occupation, and long term occupation was inevitable from the start, and conservatives didn't lead anyone to believe otherwise.

Bush will be remembered in the history books as the president that took the fight to them and prevented further attack on our soil under his watch.

Obama should be so lucky to do the same if he gets elected, because his policies certainly won't emphasise national security and the safety of the populous like Bush.

It's funny too....so many of the things the democrats say Bush has done wrong, they were right there participating as well. Libs blame Bush for everything, even things that are not in a president's control, like the mortgage crisis, etc and the price of oil. The democrats have been right there along side Bush devaluing our currency by passing this stupid relief act where everyone got a check.

Then again, he also lowered taxes and increased tax revenue as a result.

Clinton will always be remembered by his cigars and banging an intern, and cheating on his wife in office. There's a helluva legacy.

These days are going to be referred to as "the good old days". It won't be 20 years either.

The destruction and damage coming down the road in the near future can barely be imagined right now.

Next month in June, the Democrats are going to try and ram through the largest tax increase in American history. They've been working on it since they took back control of Congress. If you have income, you're taxes are going up. For some waaayyy up. The death tax is going to be huge. They claim they are eliminating the AMT but it won't make a difference anyway. Your taxes are going up and some people will be paying federal taxes of close to 45% if it goes through.

George Bush will veto the bill, but if a Democrat is elected, it will be passed next year.

Along with the plethora of other damaging and costly legislation they have been openly discussing -- so this is not coming as any secret to people who have been paying attention --- everyone is going to be much, much poorer in a few years. That's the people who still have jobs and survive the coming job loses due to regulation and more jobs going overseas because of costly global warming legislation that is coming in 2009.

Yes... in four years time, these will be the "good old days".

That's "change".

There is always the Filibuster, if the Republicans can find the fortitude to do it. Force every vote to be a 2/3rds majority and see how the Dems like it. Tie every spending/appropriations bill into oblivion and every Appointee doesn't get a hearing.

Should be interesting.

I think however, that we will find our sense of purpose and our ability to rally the base once there is a Definite candidate to run against. 527's will use the fodder they through upon each other to their advantage. They'll be "Swiftboating" them from all sides.

My only hope is that McCain's past doesn't come back to haunt him and if it does, he'll have enough ability to slam it down before the MSM has the chance to damage him and anyone associated with him. Being my Senator, I know the MSM is holding back some big time stories they'll use against him in the General. IE. AZSCAM, Border, S & L Debacle, etc. Not to mention the unmentionable about his wife, who isn't running, but that won't stop the 527's or the MSM from using innuendo or insinuation.

Moby, I guess we're both going to have to be wrong then, as I know you won't tell us what you really believe, You'll just say I'm wrong. That's fine with me.

Cheers, have a great weekend everyone.

Dubya has done a horrible job on so many levels; his successes have been either dubious or relatively minor. When he came into the office he said "I'm a uniter, not a divider". It's a shame so many folks believed him. No doubt most feel betrayed by him (..I don't because he never earned my vote). It is hard to imagine historians looking kindly upon him or his staff.

But regardless who are next president might be I fear the next 4 years will be turbulent at best. I worry most about the domestic economy and gov't excess, again regardless of which party is power. I wish Obama/Clinton/McCain had the chutzpah to kick ass and simply do the right thing. I fear they don't.

IMHO, the Republican party has largely imploded. Dubya (and company) are mostly to blame. Oh, undoubtedly there will be a resurgence. But I suspect it won't be for another 10-12 years. Yet when they do they might very well be a MUCH better party than they are now - for example, more libertarian and fiscally responsible.

_Lazza

Moby-

1) Ronald Reagan defeated Communism.

2) Cuba? Pffft... big Communism power there. China? Eh, because they have only 1 billion + people. Where are your Communist 1/6 that are a threat?

3) Are you seriously comparing Germany and Japan from WWII to terrorists of today? Last time I check Haji wasn't wearing a uniform from any recognized country.

4) "He would have been in MUCH better shape had he stuck with Afghanistan. There was NO need to go into Iraq." You know what they say about hindsight...... Only time will tell.

S.

umm... Reagon did not defeat communism. The soviet union broke apart, one of the biggest reason was that its economy crumbled, and the people got sick of it. So there was Coup d'état.

He went to war in Grenada, saying that communists were planning to take over, but that was a huge lie, Grenada was trying to get tourism on the island. The students on the island were safe, contrary to what Reagan said.

Yeah.. tell that the Marines as they were getting shot at.. one of them being my recruiter.

yea I'll tell them that. Ask him how the war was organized? The planning on the war was horrible, quite possibly worse than the bay of pigs

No he didn't.

China isn't a threat?



So wait...I can't compare the terrorists to Germany or Japan, but you CAN compare it to the Soviet Union? There's that double standard again.

Once again...

THIS RONALD DID NOT DEFEAT COMMUNISM.


THIS RONALD DID.

Awesome, Shahram!!!!

Nice! Shahram

Grenada was worse than the Bay of Pigs? Bwahhahahahhahahahahahahahah!

Wow...just speechless. Did you hear that through Russian media?

nope.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/history/2003/10grenada.htm

The Global Policy Forum?

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that a leftist would use a left wing organization like the Global Policy Forum for his propaganda and revisionist history.

What's the matter.... "Workers World" had nothing on the subject?

I can see you are another example of this country's mistake regarding allowing Russians to move here after the Cold War.

I can post up actual evidence, but no one here would be able to access it. but that is how the war went and everything up to the war. Please post up anything contradictory to what that said.

There is no doubt that there were many reasons for the invasion of Grenada. It was however the right thing to do for many reasons.

The fact that our troops fought Cuban troops in the invasion reveals that is was the right thing to do. The invasion also scared the shit out of many tin pot Caribbean leftists and Marxists. Also a good thing.

Any Marxist governments that may have cropped up close to the United States during the Cold War were a clear and present danger to the interests and security of the United States.

have any proof of that? if u link me, I might see where ur coming from.

Proof of what? That Marxist governments close to the United States were a clear and present danger to the security and interests of the United States?

You can start with Cuba and their activities with Soviet scum. But then again, you are, or were, and maybe still, Soviet scum.

give me a link that supports your argument. I have a hard time believing what your saying.

If you are to say that, then that Marxism is not a bad theory. with such a small island it can work. and that just because they have a different type of govt then they us, they are a threat prove me wrong. o wait u can't. u have ur opinion, and i have mine. we can keep exchanging these sentences for years and not get anywhere.

Why did we not do a full on attack on cuba then eh? too hard? they were a threat under ur arguement.

Maybe you grew up reading your Soviet text books and now you have brought your Soviet indoctrinated socialism with you to America.

Marxist governments in close proximity to the United States were very much a threat to the United States. Did you forget that Cuba allowed the Soviets to install nuclear warheads aimed at the US on their soil. Yes, your scum Soviet comrades.

Maybe the Cold War was some kind of blur for you. Maybe in your mind it didn't happen.

Marxist countries were and would have been a base of operations for the Soviets against the United States. That is why is was policy not to allow any Marxist countries to emerge within our hemisphere.

That was US government policy. What is so hard about that for you to understand?

I'll ignore your incoherent comment about Marxism supposedly not being a bad theory or something to that effect. Marxism is evil. The people that live under it suffer and have always suffered. There are no exceptions.

it's funny cause we're the only western country not to have socialized healthcare. for example. and and the rest of the western countries are doing pretty well healthwise. the poor in England live longer than the rich here in the states. so I have hard time believing your thought that Socialism is bad.

Back to the candidates and away from thread hijacking by Russian communists.........

......................................

Anyone check out this HUGE line of bullshit to come out of Obama's mouth this weekend.....

In a Memorial Day campaign speech, he claimed his uncle was one of the soldiers who liberated Auschwitz.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/05/26/obama_speaks_with_deep_humilit.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SV1sxq8mqvA

If Obama wasn't such an idiot and a liar, he would know that the Americans didn't liberate Auschwitz. Auschwitz is in Poland and was liberated by Stalin's troops.

The Washington Post, being the typical media outlet in the tank for Obama, didn't bother to catch his bullshit lie.

Is there even such an uncle? Maybe Obama had an uncle fighting in the Red Army.

how do u know that people in Sweden suffer? how do u know ppl in europe suffer? they don't. don't forget that Soviet Union was no communist. it was totalitarian authority. that's why they suffered. the government was the cause of it, not the structure of it.

He doesn't understand history at all, and keeps saying stupid shit. I am sure it will come back to haunt him in the general election. Maybe he is getting his facts from Yasha.

The present day socialist commie morons here in America are Leninist Marxists just like the Soviets were. They want to institute the exact same system, the exact same way. Their rhetoric is exactly the same is it was 80 years ago.

Communism is totalitarian by definition. It always will be, and has to be for it to exist. You can't have a commune if all the people are not forced to bend to it's will. It isn't freedom, and it is a completely sick and twisted ideology. If you like it so much maybe you should move to Cuba, or perhaps Venezuela.

Funny u think I am a communist. theoretical capitalism works, as does theoretical communism. In reality both don't work.

I'm not communist. I never said anything about that. I am not advocate a Leninist type of govt.
I am advocating a Canadian model. unlike a lot of ppl I'd rather have things organized for the people not for profit.

When did I ever say people in Sweden suffer? Don't put words in my mouth you Russian puke.

I said Marxism is evil and people who live under it's boot suffer. Sweden is not a Marxist country.

If you love Sweden so much, or any European country, what the fuck are you doing here? Why did you come here when the Iron Curtain came down? Go to fucking Europe if you think this country is so bad.

What a mistake this country made by bringing in all you Russians. American taxpayers paid all your healthcare, your living expenses in the form of welfare, and many other benefits that most American taxpayers aren't aware of. All for what? Most of you are either ingrate pieces of shit or outright criminals.

Cool, move to Canada then.

I was mainly referring to your defense of communism in what I quoted above.

Yasha, just curious, have you seen the Edukators?

German flick with English Subtitles; they (revolutionaries) go about to fluent peoples houses and rearrange their furniture and leave them notes that say you have too much money, etc.

After watching that, I can see why liberals, etc. buy into the Anti-Capitalism shtick.

The best part was listening to them (revolutionaries) argue against profit and for equal redistribution of wealth to the Guy they kidnapped because he caught them in his house. Ironically the revolutionaries own a vehicle, rent a villa, have ample funds for alcohol and cigarette consumption, yet don't give it all away and yearn for the day when they can afford better, jobs, villas, etc.

I'm so glad I'm not liberal anymore, however depressing it may be. IE. I can't just sit around on my duff waiting for the handout. If I want something I am solely responsible for making it happen.

Funny enough, even with subtitles it was a thousand times better than watching "New Jersey Drive" which sucked beyond belief with the ignorance it glorifies. I only could watch about a half hour before erasing it from the DVR.

Democrats, Pick One!

Maybe.... Just maybe .... the Michelle Obama "hate whitey" video may be out this week....

http://stonezone.com/



"I'm Gonna Git You Sucka"

I think the video is BS. I also don't buy that Hillary is working with Republican researchers. Why would they help her? If they had this evidence they would save it for the general election.

It's hard to tell if the story is bullshit. There are already some left wing bloggers out there who are claiming some type of tape does exist.

We won't know for sure until it comes out, if ever.

However, one thing that should be startling for the B. Hussein campaign is the fact that most people believe she is capable of a "hate whitey" rant.

In an interesting twist to the story, Democrat strategist Bob Beckel was on FoxNews this morning claiming there will be a "shoe drop" regarding Michelle Obama tomorrow......

http://www.redlasso.com/ClipPlayer.aspx?id=4129e9d3-586a-45dd-aeb9-294b819b7afa

He claims the Republicans are behind whatever is coming out. If the tape is that damaging I would say the Republicans would benefit more by releasing it two weeks before the November election. Not now.

If it comes out today or tomorrow, it can only benefit Hillary Clinton.

...and if it benefits Hillary, then it benefits the Republicans. They know they can't beat Obama, but they already have years of arguments against Hillary.

I mean, come on...who is going to vote for Hillary except for people like this lady:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KACQuZVAE3s

You're wrong Wilmac.

Hillary would be a stronger candidate for the Democrats in the fall.

Says a die hard Republican. :rolleyes:

Says a realist. I think Obama is going to be McGovern / Dukakis all over again.

Hillary would probably beat McCain.

Keep praying to your Rove-God.

I'm a diehard conservative, not a diehard Republican.

I don't see too much conservatism going on in the Republican Party these days.

Obama is unelectable. The media is in love with him and has disgustingly thrown away any semblance or claim of objectivity. He won't win if nominated.

Could Hillary beat McCain? I don't know. McCain is a huge asshole and almost every time he opens his mouth lately he loses votes from the right.

That depends - according to some of the polling data that I've seen (oddly enough, produced by Rove) it could be possible that she could be a tougher candidate due to her support in specific states. However, I'm not sure how that pans out in a general election after all the damage that she's managed to do to her position and what Obama's done.

I think Obama's a better overall candidate than Hillary, but I can't see voting for either.

Hillary is now saying that she would except a VP nomination on the ticket. My god, the woman is completely without dignity. If she runs as Obama's vp, they'll get creamed for sure. I know a lot of people who would vote Obama over McCain but not Obama/Clinton over McCain.

I want that women out of politics completely. Hopefully she'll loose her senate seat too....

She said would "consider" a VP slot when a reporter asked her the question. She didn't say she would "accept" the slot. What else is she supposed to say.

She's not going to be offered the VP slot and she knows it. The reporter who asked the question knows it.

This coronation of Obama is VERY premature. They are including superdelegates and their votes don't mean shit until the convention floor.

Clinton is stupid if she leaves the race. If Teddy Kennedy could take it all the way to the convention being 725 delegates behind Carter, there is no reason she can't take it to the convention.

A lot can happen from now until August.

She's not going to lose her senate seat. It's hers until 2012.

I'm no fan of Clinton, but she is far less of a lying, phony creep than Obama.

Hillary Clinton gave her speech. She did not concede.

She gave a few digs claiming that she is the better candidate and won more votes. They made sure there were some well placed black faces standing behind her in the crowd. She learned well from the Obama campaign ... "We need more white people over here".

The TV pundits seem to want Hillary as VP. I don't see it. Why would any other Democrat want that with Bill and Hillary in the back sharpening their knives.

Gina Gershon was no where to be seen in the audience.

..........................................

Barack Hussein is now speaking. He thanks his "brothers and sisters".

He thanks his grandmother... you know... that "typical white person". More mumbo jumbo. The Obamunists are ecstatic.

He's talking defeat in Iraq even though the situation in Iraq has been vastly improving.

He's talking an awful lot of fucking socialism. He's talking anti-business. Maybe this guy thinks the toothfairy employs people and gives them jobs.

He claims he helped curb the spread of nuclear weapons. WTF?? Where? From the Illinois State Senate? From the "hate whitey" church?

By listening to this creep you would think America has never done anything to help anyone in the past.

The Obamunists seem to eat this shit up. It's still the same old shit served on a different plate.

Gina Gershon would not make it 1/4 round my bed

She used to be a really sexy babe.... kind of in a tough girl kind of way. I don't know what she looks like these days.

I mentioned her because Vanity Fair magazine just recently ran a hit piece on Bill Clinton (because they are in the tank for Obama) implying that Bill has been banging Gina Gershon.

Best Bumpersticker ever:

Your Daughter is my Little Humidor"

I watched "PS I Love You" with my wife a couple weeks ago.

Gershon is just as luscious as ever. Drool.

After the "who would you want answering the "red phone" in the White House speech and all of her other nonsense this primary, I can't see her being offered or accepting the VP slot. She's basically come out and said that Obama is unqualified (pot:kettle;black) to be POTUS, so how she could support him now is an interesting thing.

Wonder if she'll get asked that question if Obama gets the Dem nod to run and doesn't ask her. Will she campaign for him? Will she tell her supporters to vote for him? And if so, how will she balance that against her earlier statements.

My guess? She'll shill for him, act like everything's hunky-dory, and then simply gloss over the questions.

what frightens me is the sheer number of people standing in line to vote for socialism. These idiots don't realize who provides the jobs in this country.

You are talking about Democrats after all.

Plus the media has been bashing people over the head with socialism.

Speaking of the media, CNN is selling Obama T-shirts now. So much for there being no media bias.

L ink...

That's thoroughly disgusting.

You must be unaware that they offer those t-shirts with headlines from many CNN stories. Just click the little shirt icon next to a story. Has nothing to do with Obama.

Yep.....any questions as to CNN's bias should be answered now. And therefore.....any credibility as to being a valid news source.....gone (if there was really any doubt).

"Has nothing to do with Obama?" Are you serious?......Really? Other than his name being one of the only three words in the message.

"Nothing to do with Obama."

Read my post again please. Madman's post implies they made the t-shirts because Obama won the nomination. Not true. They've been offering those t-shirts for all kinds of CNN stories for months now.

So before you laugh any more, go to cnn.com and look next to some of the stories. You'll see a little t-shirt icon. Click on it and you'll see a shirt with that story's headline.

Apparently CNN is also biased in favor of earthquakes, famines, and wars. :rolleyes:

What are you talking about?

I was just on CNN reading a story about a tornado. I didn't see any icon or link offering me to buy a T-shirt related to the story.

Your claim that CNN offers T-shirts on stories about things like natural disasters and death is a very morbid thing to do.

They offer shirts on many things.

http://www.cnn.com/tshirt/allshirts/

http://www.cnn.com/tshirt/archive/

They don't call it the Communist News Network for nothing....

Where is the "hate whitey" video?

Will CNN make a T-Shirt of that headline when it comes out?

This is the latest buzz about Obama's bitch wife and the "hate whitey" video.....

That must be the conference where this photo from Jet Magazine was taken...

Doesn't change the fact that the shirt DOES, in fact, have something to do with Obama.

I never said the t-shirt had nothing to do with Obama, I said the fact that CNN offered a t-shirt with that headline had nothing to do with Obama - and it doesn't, since they offer many such t-shirts. If you can't understand that, that's your problem.

Go meet Madman for a beer. You two will get along well.

I understand that clearly, but your use of (implied, as you did not even bother with this) a vague pronoun did not specify, initially what you were referring to, in terms of "Has nothing to do with Obama."

Likewise, if T-shirts are indeed universal in their availability for ALL stories on CNN (and not merely selected ones), then your argument has merit. Are the T-shirts available for EVERY story on CNN?

I think you're Madman with another screen name.

You didn't answer this question.

First, I never said they were available for all stories, I said 'many' stories. Second, I disagree that they'd have to be available for every story for my argument to have merit. They've sold some with McCain and Clinton stories and that's all that matters if the question is politics.