Another endorsement for Obama... Castro

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by tourists24, May 29, 2008.

  1. tourists24

    tourists24 Well-Known Member

    First it was Hamas,,, then Al Jazeera,,,, now you can add Castro to the growing list of stellar endorsements. Now Im sure Obama will reject this endorsement also, but why is it these groups are hoping for an Obama victory?
  2. Griff

    Griff Active Member

    Probably because he is in reality the devil and he is coming directly for you and your children and their children as well. This is the truth, Fox News has told me so.
  3. diesel96

    diesel96 New Member

    Thats great......I guess that means I'll be able to get my Monte Cristo's and Romeo Juliets legally. :cigarsmoker:
  4. brett636

    brett636 Well-Known Member

    Your almost right, but its not Obama who we have to worry about so much as the people he will appease allowing organizations like Al Quaeda the time they need to plan their next attack on our soil. After he castrates the military we won't even have the means to fight back after such an event.
  5. Griff

    Griff Active Member

    Better start building an underground bunker and getting your tinfoil hat ready.
  6. Jones

    Jones fILE A GRIEVE! Staff Member

    You mean we won't be able to invade and occupy another random country that had nothing to with the terrorist attack? That thought is just too terrible to contemplate. Hopefully the American people will come to their senses by election time...
  7. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    I found your comment here of interest after reading an op-ed by Micheal Scheuer who worked for the CIA for 22 years and many of those years was focused on Al-Qaeda and Bin Laben. His op-ed was entitled "Why Doesn't Al-Qaeda Attack the US?" and it is an interesting question on many levels to ponder. And he answers the question of many levels but he made one statement that when I read your words above came right back to my mind and here they are.

    The charge of appeasement towards Obama is not so much my issue that I take if you will but rather this. If appeasement allows the enemy to grow and become more powerful and a large threat, then how is that any different than the current course and policy of the current adminstration who has allowed this threat and enemy to take santuary in the region mentioned above where they remain out of harms way and a growing potential for further damage? The fact is, the current policy seems to be working almost to a tee as to Osama Bin Laden has desired and reminds me of Krushev's shoe pounding of where he uttered, "we will bury you from within!" Sure we survived but are we the same United States today as we were when he uttered those words? Are we as free, are we lesser saddled with gov't (much a knee jerk fear reaction from an almost fictional communist conspiracy and I speak as a former 10 year (circa 1970's) member of the John Birch Society) how many dead lay in the fields and jungles of Korea and Vietnam (McNamara has even admitted the Vietnam war was started over a lie) over this alledged threat? How many lay dead in Europe and Asia over this entire "cold war"? What happened to the vast domino theory? According to theory in 75' when Vietnam fell, the entire region should have followed behind the bamboo curtain but in fact that never happened.

    Turns out the so-called international communist conspiracy at least from the USSR and especially from China's perspective never materialized. If there seems a desire of international control and conquest it appears more from a former Trotskite faction who've rebranded themselves and operate under an Anglo-American alliance. But that's higher math so let's keep it simple! :wink2:

    Pat Buchanan is really starting to ask some very pentrating questions along this line in his latest book entitled, "Churchill, Hilter and the Unnecessary War" The facts of history really do throw a lot of cold water of Bush's recent charge aimed at Obama as he (Bush) spoke to the Israeli's. Pat has now taken aim at the myth of Churchill and it's a welcomed view among the cries and howls of "Historical revisionism" from the purveyors of NationState that exist in both parties.

    I'll no more vote Obama than I would McCain but I will tell you this, if I was forced to pick between the 2 it would be Obama not because I think he's better (he's not) but rather it's a message to the republicans for their betrayal to the conservative cause. For promising to cut gov't, cut spending and cut taxes when in fact in all 3 they did the opposite. But I find it funny that you republicans have such a weak candidate on conservative principles that instead of focusing on real issues and showing us a track record in the Senate of true conservative values and beliefs, instead we get Rev. Wright, Endorsed by Hamas and Hezzbollah and now the latest charge that he will disarm America. It's so much out of the Hillary Clinton playbook that I expect any day now to hear her announce she's dropping her campaign and going to work for the republicans as a poltical consultant!:happy-very: I can hear her now before the RNC Convention, "Luke, I am your father! Join me on the darkside and we will rule the empire!"
    :surprise::nonono:< Republicans

    :rofl: < me

    What's even more interesting in that the "Progressives" out there in commie land as you would say are talking a whole other line about Obama. They fear Obama doing just the opposite of what you claim and give case in point reasons as to why. Here's just one recent example among many.

    We might laugh that (to use a line from one of my favorite movies Coolhand Luke) "WHAT!, we have here is a failure to hide a split personality!" :happy-very: May be a good example of the old truism of when do you know a politcian is lying! Which Obama do we have here but then you can ask the same question of McCain who for example led the charge for campaign reform and decried campaign abuse but now we learn he had 527 folks on his staff. There comes those words again, "What we have here.....!" Even the late Barry Goldwater who without him there is no Reagan, no conserative revolution, came to quickly regret his backing and approval of McCain once he hit the halls of Washington and began his betrayal of what he proported to be.

    Brett, the video you posted (Obama DisArms America) has merit and purpose to some degree but not in the way you might desire. If you take the time, yep in your case you may have to hold your nose but go out and read what the so-called "other side" (I mean the progressive, libs, commies or whatever your favorite tag is) are saying about their candidate, then you'll at least come to realize that Obama's biggest crime if you will is that of a fraud and a scheming political machine on the same order as Hillary but has been able to hide and mask himself from the public. Rev. Wright is one person who now knows what Obama is and he has the tire tracks from the bus on his back to prove it. Some Progressives are starting to realize this as well and are voicing concern.

    Have a good weekend!
  8. brett636

    brett636 Well-Known Member

    They take down two of our buildings, we take down two of their countries. Its only fair. :wink2:
  9. av8torntn

    av8torntn Well-Known Member

    Just a different view of Al Queada.

    U.S. Cites Big Gains Against Al-Qaeda
    Group Is Facing Setbacks Globally, CIA Chief Says
  10. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member


    You must have been busy yesterday as I kept wondering how long it would take for you to post Hayden's comments. And yeah, I had also read the piece myself before I posted Scheuer's as it was a lead on Drudge for example. It also was making the rounds on many antiwar websites as well.

    Hayden does portray a positive picture and even Scheuer in his op-ed that I linked said there were truths of positive news to be found but taking Hayden's comments, I'd like to focus on one statement he made from the piece. He said:

    of course he went on to portray a positive picture and let me say I hope he's 110% right that Al Qaeda threat potential is growing smaller but his comments in the Post piece have me a bit puzzled. On March 30th he appeared with Tim Russert on Meet the Press (we're talking 2 months ago to the day) and the picture he painted then was not nearly as rosy. The discussion on Al Qaeda and Osama begin on page 3 of the program transcript.

    Seems to me he was telling a different story somewhat to Russert and now 2 months later an "ALMOST" ompletely different tune. Could we have been that successful over the last 2 months to have such a dramatic change? Oh sure, absolutely and I'd welcome the day and be the first one up to wave the pom-poms for our team on that day.

    Hayden made another interesting point in the Post piece yesterday in which was said:

    I highlighted several points that were of interest to me. Obviously a study on summer of 07' bares importance and the reorganizing Hayden confirms on March 30th. But he talks about successes in the lawless regions but obviously no timeframe reference and in the case of all 3 comments above I have no doubt that they all have merit. I also understand that missions work in many different ways and like chess, it takes many moves to gain an obvious advantage and those moves take time. Sometimes even when you have an advantage, it's still important to make the opponent not realize what you know as fact. Keep him looking one place while you exploit weakness elsewhere.

    But on March 30th, using the January quote as a time marker, this was over a 2 month period before the Meet the Press appearance, so why the gloom and doom so to speak from Hayden? I completely understand the need for hush! hush! on operations and even the Post piece yesterday Hayden maintained that stance, but that said, looking back over the last 2 months literally to the day since March 30th which now makes a nearly 6 month peirod since January, what dramatic news or reports have we gotten to suggest such a dramatic shift in the balance of power so to speak? For that matter, what's happened in the last 2 months?

    OK, maybe I missed it but I'm pretty good about checking the news of not only international sources but I pretty much everyday hit FoxNews, Drudge, WorldNet Daily, etc. so if something that dramatic took place, I saw nothing in even so-called conservative press to suggest such a happening. This area of the press has been a constaint source feed for the adminstration to the public at large and I've not seen a story or even series of stories to suggest such a shift in balance.

    I even go out to the ThinkTanks like Heritage, AEI, Rand Corp. and even the Council on Foreign Relations (BTW Rand and CFR are very good sources for Data mining as it pertains to gov't policy) and again, I've seen nothing to indicate a major change or shift. So that said, what major event has taken place recently where such news would be a major welcome and aid to the current strategy and policy of the current adminstration? What has happened in recent weeks or even days that would IMO make Hayden change his story (March 30th) or the need to change from one of a worrisome problem with a large potential security concern to the US to one now (May 30th) of Al Qaeda being a vastly deminished and shrinking threat? What would cause such an example of the art of Clintonian Spin if you will?

    Also if you look at my quote of Hayden above (the 1st one) from the May 30th Post piece, those words are what in the legal field they call a "qualifier" or what others might call a disclaimer. In other words, "in case I'm wrong, I still told you they are the same threat as I said they were on March 30th!" Why would Hayden or what would cause Hayden to come out yesterday and issue such a statement about Al Qaeda's threat and then in effect backtrack to cover himself? Does he have reason to fear that what he is saying is not completely true and that what he is saying may prove to not be accurate at some point?

    Why would whoever in th gov't feel the need for Hayden or to have Hayden seem to contradict himself on the issue of Al Qaeda and Bin Laden? Geez, I can't believe I missed this. What could have happened that I missed? I know I'm getting old so maybe it's a good thing retirement is just around the corner for me!


    I think I'll devote my retirement to fishing and BAITING A HOOK!
  11. av8torntn

    av8torntn Well-Known Member

    Yep no real time here to jump all the way into the debate with you. I do think Hayden like most general officers is a politician. If I were President on Sept. 12 I would have rode to the pentagon ,thanked everyone for their service in leading a peace time military, then replaced them with leaders for wartime service. Just think of the crying some of you would be doing now. Anyway I'll throw some bait in the water for ya.

    "Today, al Qaeda has been shattered, with most of its leadership and foot soldiers dead, captured or moved from Iraq. As a result, al Qaeda attacks have declined more than 90 percent."

    The U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, who has been guarded in making proclamations of success, said last week that al-Qaida in Iraq has “never been closer to defeat than they are now.”

    "It was widely known that the Iraqi army and police were defeating al Qaeda, and a few hold-out Sunni Arab militias."

    Sorry I can't put more time into it for you.

    But for all you B. Hussein Obama supporters I thought you may want to talk to this guy for stealing his catch phrase. Yes I know this has nothing to do here but was funny to me anyhow.

    "If we were asked to use just one word to describe the situation in Iraq today, I would choose the word 'hope,'
  12. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    Do you have to keep bringing up kennedy and johnson getting us in vietnam.
  13. scratch

    scratch Least Best Moderator Staff Member

    Its amazing how some people forget. And the President who pulled the US out of there belonged to which party?
  14. diesel96

    diesel96 New Member

    I agree Scratch and's ashamed Bush didn't surround himself with "Traditional Republicans" instead he has entrenched himself with the neo-conservative and evangelical movements his Dad and Reagon welcomed. The inability to exercise fiscal restraint, evidenced in his failure to dig the American government out of trillions of dollars of debt and deficit. GW Bush’s interventionism, social intolerance and fiscal irresponsibility are not Republican values. The evangelical and neo-conservative movements have so relentlessly maimed traditional Republicanism that the Republican Party of today is unrecognizable.

    Historically the republican Party contained three fundemental principles: limited gov't, fiscal conservatism, and in some sense an islationist foriegn policy. Today however, the neo-conservatism and evengelical movements have dramatically reversed Republican idealogy.This perversion of moral standards have corroded the foundations of the Republican Party, casting a dark cloud over the parties future political prospects.
    Obama's campaign has been about change...however, maybe your side needs to hijack that slogan out of neccessity. It seems the right needs more change than anybody.:peaceful:
  15. Jones

    Jones fILE A GRIEVE! Staff Member

    Good points about our disastrous involvement in Vietnam, it makes you wonder if we have to relearn that lesson every 25 years or so.

    And this is definitely not your dad's republican party. The libertarian wing has been completely marginalized. What was once the party of big business, privacy, and foreign policy pragmatism has become the party of god, war, and warrantless wiretaps. Bad combination.
  16. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    Well said D and Jones!

    D, your 2nd paragraph in your last post was an excellent point but sadly those principles are completely lost IMO on those who called themselves "conservative" as they've come to be driven by fear ie a democrat gets elected over the importance of maintaining principle first. I'm amazed at even how not that long ago, McCain within conservative circles was the republican equal of Kennedy but today he's the 21st century Reagan and Goldwater combined if you listen ot some. I'm sure by the time the vote takes place in Nov. that many here will have convinced themselves of that in order to sanctify their vote.

    Friday, on my way into work, the radio on the FM side was boring (no good metal or jazz) so I flipped to the AM and started surfing and just in pure chance I happened across Limbaugh's show as a 15 year old called in. Regardless of his politics, I just enjoyed his rebellious spirit of going against the grain of his High School. I like it anytime someone in a minority forces the issue with any majority because it's so easy for a majority to move itself from what is truth and right to instead what it desires. Besides, if any majority has truth, it should welcome any opportunity to prove that truth.

    Anyhow, in light of you 2nd paragraph above, take a few moments to read the transcript and then look at the response that Limbaugh gave to this kid. This is the guy whole told the world on his show after it became clear that McCain had it locked up, that he was not a republican but rather conservative first and would adhere to those principles going forward. But before this conversation between Rush and this 15 year, consider Rush on McCain back in Jan. and Feb.

    Example of the great one speaking on McCain in Feb.

    or this transcript from Rush's show a meer few weeks before the above video above was made of Rush on his show.

    This 15 year old and his friends are starting to figure this thing out but Rush does the kneejerk and all he can to reel him back onto the reservation when the dreaded "3rd" party gets mentioned.

    Sounds to me like Rush did a nice job of being a good example of holding principles in front of this kid! Rush said nothing wrong about the chances of any 3rd party and for the most part he is right but if there is no 3rd party option, where is he really steering this kid? Right back in the loving arms of the evil Rockerfeller Republicans he just bad mouthed to the kid.
    :happy-very: It comes down to the meaning of stupidity being that you do the same failing thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Why should the "Rockerfeller" republicans change their ways so to speak when so many goes to the polls and perform as expected.

    And Jones, like you, I also enjoy Greenwald from Salon and I saw this earlier this week and in light of McClellan's comments in his book toward the press, I enjoyed Greenwald's piece. In case you missed it I wanted to pass it on.

    When you have a free hour (more like 57 minutes) watch the video link at the "SPIN" thread. Even though 15 plus years old, it's very revealing about the so-called "free press" and maybe a bit of our belief in that the press and gov't are seperate entities!
  17. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    Whats amazing to is that bush was able to accomplish all this without the support of the democratic leadership...oh thats right they did support it didn't they...never mind.
  18. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    remember when those were the principles of the democrats. Now we have democrats fighting for gay marriages and Obama sitting in the congressional pews enacting legislation to recognize some ambigous african leadership. Should be an interesting country if he becomes president.