Wow.... You really have drank down the lefty koolaid. Maybe drank the bong water too.

If McCain claims that he would appoint people like John Roberts to the court, that is not something to look down upon. John Roberts is perhaps one of the best qualified Supreme Court nominees to be put up in a generation.

However, your complete lack of knowledge regarding McCain is showing itself very clearly. There is no reason to believe McCain would nominate jurists like John Roberts to the court. McCain was one of the leaders of the "Gang of 14" in the Senate who organized and conspired to undermine Bush administration judicial appointments. Many vacancies are unfilled to this day.

Obama has said he would nominate people like Ginsberg and Souter. Two people who are judicial activists and have absolutely no respect for the constitution. Just like Obama.

You are also wrong about presidents not being able to do much about the gun issue. An anti-gun president can do great damage to gun rights. A president has the bully pulpit and the power to frame the debate. An anti-gun president with a Democrat Congress can also greatly influence anti-gun legislation. A president is also in control of the Executive Branch and can set anti-gun policies through all law enforcement arms of the federal government.

You also forget that Bill Clinton used the power of the presidency for many anti-gun initiatives. He also signed the Brady Bill. Some of it was found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. With Obama Supreme Court justices, that would most likely not be the case.

The president also has the power to issue Executive Orders that could be anti-gun. Therefore bypassing the legislative process. Bill Clinton did just that on several occasions. The president also has the power to order federal agencies to issue grants to anti-gun organizations with that money to be used by those organizations to sue gun manufacturers and maybe even the government. That was also a familiar tactic in the Clinton Administration (used more widely with radical environmental groups to get what they wanted through the courts and bypassing the legislative process).

The gun rights that Americans enjoy can also be undermined through a backdoor process of international treaties. An anti-gun president with a Democrat Congress and with a couple of judicial activists on the Supreme Court can do great damage on this front. The international community and the United Nations despises the second amendment to the US Constitution. Just like many Democrats and Obama.

That's "change".

Last I checked Bush isn't running for President, he is the President. What we have is someone who wants to give legitimacy to rouge nations and dictators by "Discussing" the issues with them instead of using the UN or NATO as an intermediary with sanctions as the enforcement. Not to mention A in Iran is continually calling for wiping another country off the face of the planet. He may get his chance too.

I'll not go as far as saying this approach is perfect, but it keeps things on the up and up (as much as can be expected through the UN).

Also I doubt China is the Worst, granted forced abortions, etc., but look at what the Junta are doing to thier people. They aren't letting enough aid to the Cyclone victims in. Where's the outrage there? I wish something could be done.

Good points MM. It is also important to remember that ultimately the 2A is what ensures that we are citizens and not serfs. I am not saying we are anywhere close to armed revolt, but if we were, and we were disarmed beforehand, we would be totally screwed. The plight of the people in Burma is a prime example of what can happen when a populous is disarmed.

I can also guaranty you that if this country became a true theocracy, many Christians would be next to you atheists or whatever to remove our government. State religion is not something that we desire anymore than you do.

Wow. Care to brush up on your Clinton history? He was selling us out to the Chinese long before GWB came along.

Barack Hussein Obama is already doing plenty of damage and emboldening Iran...

Link....

If this guy is already doing this much damage as a candidate.... just imagine how much damage he would do as president.

Wasn't talking about Clinton, was I?

I guess we could say that Nixon was doing it. Or Reagan. Or Carter. Or Bush I.

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.