Who is Obama

browndevil

Well-Known Member
Here's where mcCain :wheelchai stands:


mccain_bush_hug.jpg


I hope this clears things up....:puppet:
That is a great picture Diesel and pretty much sums it up. If you are happy with the last eight years and want to continue it then McCain is your man.
I will be watching next week's RNC



Obama Biden 2008:happy2:
 

UPS Lifer

Well-Known Member
Moreluck great post!!! - B O'bummer always seems to side step the issues.

Bush has taken a bad rap - he made a big mistake on Iraq. My personal opinion is he was trying to save face for his dad's inability to finish the job the first time. So we went into Iraq for all the wrong reasons. Be that as it may.... I thought he did all the right things when war was thrown upon us in 2001. I think people continue to forget that we are all safe and have been safe here at home for the last 8 years. Bush had everything to do with that.

As Nixon has said "Let there be no mistake" - WE ARE AT WAR - but we are safe in our own country!!! You are a fool if you believe we are not at war. Bush is a war-time president and our next president will be also!

BO needs to go back to Chicago and play in his sandbox with Rev Wrong. JMHO
 

UPS Lifer

Well-Known Member
We gave women the right to vote and now we are giving the country the rest away if a Black man wins office. I am not making this a racial debate but we might as well just give everything away now because that is what we will do! Not only is your wife the boss because of equal rights ammendment now you can answer to the Black community!

If you want to know why a Man has a hard time finding employment now look around you folks, women are taking mens jobs that once fed the family. It used to take man to support the household but now women HAVE to work to financially support a family and throw in honey due list and don't worry about sleep.

Now we will just give the rest of the jobs to the Black community or just move Africa here! We paid for there education and now we will work and answer to them! Good grief!


What will this country become? I say Close the borders........I feel sorry for the white Man that arrived here with Christopher Columbus!


I am not saying McCain is by any means the answer...

Is there any Independent runnings mates because I am not going to vote!

This is what I am talking about when I say that the country will become polarized!

I personally support Colin Powell for president but he feels he has done enough and is putting his family first. I openly respect that decision... which makes me want him even more!!! (Family values!!!)

But when I hear (every friggin day) that BOs candidacy is not about race I want to throw up! It is all about race to most (not all) African-Americans. This is another sore topic with me ... that we all have to define ourselves in some special way other than AMERICAN. We will not be a racially free country until all people look at themselves as AMERICAN first and foremost!!! Unfortunately, I do not see that day coming in my lifetime or anywhere in the near future.... very sad indeed.

We need to get past color - sex - religion and look at who will lead our country to a better place.

I just want to see the best person as president but some folks look through rose-colored glasses and see what they want to see and will justify it no matter what.

The democrats have decided using their rose-colored glasses who the best candidate is. Oh well! God help us all!
 

moreluck

golden ticket member
It's hard to see "American" first when people describe themselves as African-Americans, Italian-Americans, Irish-Americans, Jewish-Americans,
etc. etc. Everything is hyphenated with 'American' in second place.

If I was to pick a good black candidate who thinks the way I think, I would pick Michael Steele....a commentator on FOX. That guy is sharp!

I can't remember who said it, but someone said stuff about Bill Kristol's father because I had referenced a comment by Bill Kristol. I need to say that what your father was, doesn't necessarily mean you are the same.

My dad was a life-long Democrat and a life long union man who worked eventually for the URW (at that time it was just United Rubber Workers). And here I am a Republican! I know, what a disappoinment!!
 

browndevil

Well-Known Member
It's hard to see "American" first when people describe themselves as African-Americans, Italian-Americans, Irish-Americans, Jewish-Americans,
etc. etc. Everything is hyphenated with 'American' in second place.

If I was to pick a good black candidate who thinks the way I think, I would pick Michael Steele....a commentator on FOX. That guy is sharp!

I can't remember who said it, but someone said stuff about Bill Kristol's father because I had referenced a comment by Bill Kristol. I need to say that what your father was, doesn't necessarily mean you are the same.

My dad was a life-long Democrat and a life long union man who worked eventually for the URW (at that time it was just United Rubber Workers). And here I am a Republican! I know, what a disappoinment!!
Hey More I agree with your first paragragh, I just couldn't highlight that part of your post, anyway, I did an impromtu poll of 10 of my black co workers on how they want to be identified. Afterall I do work in the liberal Bay Area. They all agreed Black over african American. Because they said they were all born here.
 

tieguy

Banned
Badgered by critics whining about his unwillingness to take a clearly defined stance on issues, Barack Obama has released the following document, which explains his position on several important matters. We hope this clears things up.

Obama_Issues.jpg


thanks for clearing up where Obama stands on the issues. I wonder if he will have an ear piece during the debates so a campaign staffer can remind him as to where he stands on the issues.:happy-very:
 

tieguy

Banned
That is a great picture Diesel and pretty much sums it up. If you are happy with the last eight years and want to continue it then McCain is your man.
I will be watching next week's RNC



Obama Biden 2008:happy2:

you're absolutely right.

Clinton ignored the terrorist threat.
GW had to deal with 9/11 barely 8 months after being elected president.
Despite 9/11's heavy impact on the market and our feelings of being secure Bush was able to restore economic success and eliminate any further terrorist attacks on american soil. those two accomplishments alone will likely earn Bush top grades when the historians write his legacy.

meanwhile where was obama.......crickets chirping.......the sound of snoring erupts from a church pew deep in Dc.
 

browndevil

Well-Known Member
Considering the liberals love affair with the concept of gay sex that picture will actually help McCain.
Gay sex, what? I have read many of your posts and you seem to like to resort to namecalling, very childish IMHO, especially from someone of your stature, i.e a person in mgmt representing a large profitable, recognizable, repectable in good standing with the public company. You like to use a certain word that begins with an "friend" that refers to a homosexual man. Did you not negotiate you toddlehood? Leave it on the playground friend. Tie I am for everyone having equal protection under the law. Have a great Labor Day Weekend:happy2:
 

browndevil

Well-Known Member
you're absolutely right.

Clinton ignored the terrorist threat.
GW had to deal with 9/11 barely 8 months after being elected president.
Despite 9/11's heavy impact on the market and our feelings of being secure Bush was able to restore economic success and eliminate any further terrorist attacks on american soil. those two accomplishments alone will likely earn Bush top grades when the historians write his legacy.

meanwhile where was obama.......crickets chirping.......the sound of snoring erupts from a church pew deep in Dc.
And we attacked Iraq why? Obama was serving in the state senate
 

av8torntn

Well-Known Member
And we attacked Iraq why? Obama was serving in the state senate

I suppose you mean besides the fact that the vast majority in Congress voted to send our nation to war in Iraq. These are the words of the President from his 2003 state of the union address. So it really seems that Congress and the UN sent us to war in Iraq. Seems like valid reasons to go to war even our Constitution provides a means for the Federal Government to provide for the common defense of the Union.






"Our nation and the world must learn the lessons of the Korean Peninsula and not allow an even greater threat to rise up in Iraq. A brutal dictator, with a history of reckless aggression, with ties to terrorism, with great potential wealth, will not be permitted to dominate a vital region and threaten the United States. (Applause.)
Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction. For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, even while inspectors were in his country. Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons -- not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities.
Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead utter contempt for the United Nations, and for the opinion of the world. The 108 U.N. inspectors were sent to conduct -- were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq's regime is disarming. It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see, and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened.
The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.
The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.
Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.
U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.
From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.
The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. 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. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.
The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary; he is deceiving. From intelligence sources we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves. Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses.
Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations. Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview. Real scientists have been coached by Iraqi officials on what to say. Intelligence sources indicate that Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with U.N. inspectors in disarming Iraq will be killed, along with their families.
Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack.
With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.
Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes. (Applause.)
Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. (Applause.)
The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages -- leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained -- by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning. (Applause.)
And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country -- your enemy is ruling your country. (Applause.) And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. (Applause.)
The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country, and our friends and our allies. The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraqi's legal -- Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempt to hide those weapons from inspectors, and its links to terrorist groups.
We will consult. But let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him. (Applause.)
Tonight I have a message for the men and women who will keep the peace, members of the American Armed Forces: Many of you are assembling in or near the Middle East, and some crucial hours may lay ahead. In those hours, the success of our cause will depend on you. Your training has prepared you. Your honor will guide you. You believe in America, and America believes in you. (Applause.)
Sending Americans into battle is the most profound decision a President can make. The technologies of war have changed; the risks and suffering of war have not. For the brave Americans who bear the risk, no victory is free from sorrow. This nation fights reluctantly, because we know the cost and we dread the days of mourning that always come.
We seek peace. We strive for peace. And sometimes peace must be defended. A future lived at the mercy of terrible threats is no peace at all. If war is forced upon us, we will fight in a just cause and by just means -- sparing, in every way we can, the innocent. And if war is forced upon us, we will fight with the full force and might of the United States military -- and we will prevail. (Applause.)
And as we and our coalition partners are doing in Afghanistan, we will bring to the Iraqi people food and medicines and supplies -- and freedom. (Applause.) Many challenges, abroad and at home, have arrived in a single season. In two years, America has gone from a sense of invulnerability to an awareness of peril; from bitter division in small matters to calm unity in great causes. And we go forward with confidence, because this call of history has come to the right country. "
 

tieguy

Banned
You like to use a certain word that begins with an "friend" that refers to a homosexual man.

Do I ? Your statement alleges the use of that term multiple times. Use multi quote and show me.


 

tieguy

Banned
And we attacked Iraq why? Obama was serving in the state senate

probably sleeping soundly .

We seem to forget the arguments that lead to our entering Iraq. We seem to forget that your democratic representatives in congress had their own unfettered sources to raw intelligence and came to the same conclusions that Bush did. We seem to forget their support of the decision to go into Iraq. Now all the democrats try to pretend that Bush did it without their help.
 

browndevil

Well-Known Member
probably sleeping soundly .

We seem to forget the arguments that lead to our entering Iraq. We seem to forget that your democratic representatives in congress had their own unfettered sources to raw intelligence and came to the same conclusions that Bush did. We seem to forget their support of the decision to go into Iraq. Now all the democrats try to pretend that Bush did it without their help.
No I am not saying that, I am saying that blood is on all our hands. I am one who believes we did not concentrate on Afghanistan long enough. Maybe the consenus was Iraq would be a winable war. Go in kick some ass and get out. Well that was 5 1/2 years ago. After the September 11 attacks our country was gung ho on getting Osama bin laden, since he was responsible, but we deterred and went to Iraq. Yes, 77 Senators voted to go
 

browndevil

Well-Known Member
You like to use a certain word that begins with an "friend" that refers to a homosexual man.

Do I ? Your statement alleges the use of that term multiple times. Use multi quote and show me.
Are you saying you have not used that slur? You have over 7000 posts in over 8 years. I just expect better from you
 

moreluck

golden ticket member
B.O. uses the term "economic justice"....sounds good, but....

"Economic justice" simply means punishing the successful and redistributing their wealth by government fiat. It's a euphemism for socialism.
 

Jones

fILE A GRIEVE!
Staff member
B.O. uses the term "economic justice"....sounds good, but....

"Economic justice" simply means punishing the successful and redistributing their wealth by government fiat. It's a euphemism for socialism.
That might be your definition, I don't think it's Obama's though.

I found this with a quick search, I'm guessing it's closer to what most people have in mind when they advocate economic justice:
Defining Economic Justice
Economic justice, which touches the individual person as well as the social order, encompasses the moral principles which guide us in designing our economic institutions. These institutions determine how each person earns a living, enters into contracts, exchanges goods and services with others and otherwise produces an independent material foundation for his or her economic sustenance. The ultimate purpose of economic justice is to free each person to engage creatively in the unlimited work beyond economics, that of the mind and the spirit.

The Three Principles of Economic Justice

  • Like every system, economic justice involves input, output, and feedback for restoring harmony or balance between input and output. Within the system of economic justice as defined by Louis Kelso and Mortimer Adler, there are three essential and interdependent principles:The Principle of Participation, The Principle of Distribution, The Principle of Harmony. Like the legs of a three-legged stool, if any of these principles is weakened or missing, the system of economic justice will collapse.
  • The Three Principles of the Kelso-Adler Theory of Economic Justice
  • The Principle of Participation

  • The principle of participation describes how one makes "input" to the economic process in order to make a living. It requires equal opportunity in gaining access to private property in productive assets as well as equality of opportunity to engage in productive work. The principle of participation does not guarantee equal results, but requires that every person be guaranteed by society's institutions the equal human right to make a productive contribution to the economy, both through one's labor (as a worker) and through one's productive capital (as an owner). Thus, this principle rejects monopolies, special privileges, and other exclusionary social barriers to economic self-reliance.
  • The Principle of Distribution
  • The principle of distribution defines the "output" or "out-take" rights of an economic system matched to each person's labor and capital inputs. Through the distributional features of private property within a free and open marketplace, distributive justice becomes automatically linked to participative justice, and incomes become linked to productive contributions. The principle of distributive justice involves the sanctity of property and contracts. It turns to the free and open marketplace, not government, as the most objective and democratic means for determining the just price, the just wage, and the just profit.
  • Many confuse the distributive principles of justice with those of charity. Charity involves the concept "to each according to his needs," whereas "distributive justice" is based on the idea "to each according to his contribution." Confusing these principles leads to endless conflict and scarcity, forcing government to intervene excessively to maintain social order.
  • Distributive justice follows participative justice and breaks down when all persons are not given equal opportunity to acquire and enjoy the fruits of income-producing property.
  • The Principle of Harmony

The principle of harmony encompasses the "feedback" or balancing principles required to detect distortions of either the input or output principles and to make whatever corrections are needed to restore a just and balanced economic order for all. This principle is violated by unjust barriers to participation, by monopolies or by some using their property to harm or exploit others.
  • "Economic harmonies" is defined in The Oxford English Dictionary as "Laws of social adjustment under which the self-interest of one man or group of men, if given free play, will produce results offering the maximum advantage to other men and the community as a whole." This principle offers guidelines for controlling monopolies, building checks-and-balances within social institutions, and re-synchronizing distribution (outtake) with participation (input). The first two principles of economic justice flow from the eternal human search for justice in general, which automatically requires a balance between input and outtake, i.e., "to each according to what he is due." The principle of harmony, on the other hand, reflects the human quest for other absolute values, including Truth, Love and Beauty.
    It should be noted that Kelso and Adler referred to the third principle as "the principle of limitation" as a restraint on human tendencies toward greed and monopoly that lead to exclusion and exploitation of others. Given the potential synergies inherent in economic justice in today's high technology world, CESJ feels that the concept of "harmony" is more appropriate and more-encompassing than the term "limitation" in describing the third component of economic justice. Furthermore, "harmony" is more consistent with the truism that a society that seeks peace must first work for justice.
 

diesel96

Well-Known Member
Considering the liberals love affair with the concept of gay sex that picture will actually help McCain.

It's about civil issues Tie....not what happens in the republican senate restrooms

probably sleeping soundly .

We seem to forget the arguments that lead to our entering Iraq. We seem to forget that your democratic representatives in congress had their own unfettered sources to raw intelligence and came to the same conclusions that Bush did. We seem to forget their support of the decision to go into Iraq. Now all the democrats try to pretend that Bush did it without their help.

Like the senate has better intel than the commander-in-chief:rofl:
Even Bush's press secretary was instructed to lie to the american public. It was Bush's neo-con staff that was entrusted to act with integrity and give truthful intel to congress. Obviously that was not the case.

B.O. uses the term "economic justice"....sounds good, but....

"Economic justice" simply means punishing the successful and redistributing their wealth by government fiat. It's a euphemism for socialism.

Haven't we covered this topic recently already.
 

av8torntn

Well-Known Member
I found this with a quick search, I'm guessing it's closer to what most people have in mind when they advocate economic justice:

Please explain how you think this was what B. Hussein believes. I found this line the most interesting.



"It turns to the free and open marketplace, not government, as the most objective and democratic means for determining the just price, the just wage, and the just profit."


If you ignore all the statements from B. Hussein that would suggest that he does not believe this what actions in the Senate lead you to suggest that these are his beliefs?

Here is another statement that in his acceptance speech he suggested that he did not believe in this principal either.

"The principle of participation does not guarantee equal results, but requires that every person be guaranteed by society's institutions the equal human right to make a productive contribution to the economy, both through one's labor (as a worker) and through one's productive capital (as an owner). Thus, this principle rejects monopolies, special privileges, and other exclusionary social barriers to economic self-reliance."



I think moreluck is right and B. Hussein thinks that economic justice is the forced redistribution of wealth by the government. Not only have his statements suggested such the programs he has proposed also suggest this. Here is a relevant link to some of the issues you may want to check.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Jobs.htm


From farm subsidies to minimum wage to the extension of unemployment benifits to tax increases this site covers some of his votes and his stand on these issues.
 
Top