Democrats Today Will Kill Any & All Chance to Impeach Bush

[wkmac]

What it truly says about you is we can disagree with this spineless congress on FISA on this important issue, but IMO, not dealbuster issue to jump the fence and radically change your whole political profile. My opinion is that Barack has a constitutional law degree background as does Greenwald, and Obama could be much more influenced by disenchanted democrats to regress his position and stick to his bread and butter "the constitution" rather than to change a brick wall in McCain. What it truly says about Independents/libertarians is that you know you don't have a prayer with any candidate you put on a pedalstal this election cycle, so why damage the possibility of toppling the Neo-Con power structure? I guess you rather have them in power for another 8 years. Maybe it's part of your over all scheme to watch this country go to the toilet so a Libertarian or 3rd party candidate has a legitimate chance.

Pretty sad that is all you can say to defend the liar and theives you put your faith in when unike the barking dog republicons here, I posts real hard facts to challenge your precious beliefs in the demonrat party!

You also dare not mention the suppression of opposing ideas by the 2 parties forces the views outside to begin with. Hey I've not heard you challenge the fact that the debate committee is co-chaired by a demonrat and republicon so just how fair you think they are gonna be to opposing ideas even within the 2 parties? Look at Ron Paul for that example and Kuccinich got sent home from the campaign trial when he mentioned impeachment. Pelosi and friends made a midnight visit to tell him to either shut up or he'd lose his Congresional seat to which he withdrew from the WH race to go home to secure his seat in Congress. That's the only reson he was able to come back for the hearings for all that ended up being worth.

Full, fair and open debate in neither wanted nor tolerated by either party and say otherwise and I'll call you a liar!

We're way beyond Rev. Wright and flag pins here now.

Look at the sham of a hearing the democrat Congress gave Kuccinich and his Impeachment call and Chairman Conyers who'd been barking all up that tree when the time came he curled up under the porch and refused to run with the big dogs because Pelosi, Reed and the DNC told him they'd have his nuts cut off if he did otherwise. The demonrats couldn't allow it to go forward because of their own complicity and they knew it would come out in the wash.

You guys scream your guts out about Bush and Iraq but here is the aweful truth. Bush may have ordered the march in but it was previous democrat adminstrations who set the table which gave Bush the power to order it all in the first place. 1998' and the Iraq Liberation Act which is clear precise language called for regime change, thank you Bill Clinton. And who was first to crow about WMD in Iraq? Bill and Al who? But the real kickoff was in 1980' in the State of the Union address where Jimmy Carter "A DEMOCRAT" made the following statement,

"Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force."

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter%27s_Third_State_of_the_Union_Address see about the 27th paragraph and there in lay the last 30 years of Middle East interventionism but then it's just lots easier to blame Bush is it not? I told you and others before, the next Presidency uses the previous adminstration as a floor not a ceiling and there are some red staters here who will one day find their own words coming back to haunt them via a demonrat President. As Alice Cooper would say, "Welcome to My Nightmare!"

Your party sold it's soul on FISA after funding the war at every turn and let's not forget all the other legislation Bush wanted that the democrats like good lemming went along with. Oh, that's right, here comes the "Bush lied to us" excuse again. Sorry pal, they're already on record for backing regime change so Bush was in effect just making a courtesy call. You guys had bent us over and the only choice Bush had to make was whether or not he was gonna use lube or do it dry!

Now you think once elected they and Obama will backtrack. Are you kidding me? Even the so-called liberal Amy Goodman of Democracy Now exposed the store bought demonrats by AT&T at the DNC in Denver. http://www.democracynow.org/2008/8/25/at_t_throws_party_to_support and Glenn Greenwald although claims to be neither a liberal or conservative,(and I would concur) one might suggest that he vectors more towards your side of the political fence so in some sense, like Amy Goodman, it's very close to one of your own calling you guys out. You guys use to get it fairly right on civil liberties but that's out the window now.

The truth is, you aren't loyal to any principle, you are loyal to party and no better than the very red staters you constantly degrade. Your like a cheap whore complaining about the competition and all the while trying to spin it all like some rightous cause for virginity, Truth, justice and the American way. Give me an Ffing break!

And then you want to tell me your boyz will turn around and bite the hand that fed them once they get elected and all this other stuff was just show! And you call the Red Staters dumb!

As for the country going into the toilet, it is at the hands of the republicons and the demonrats so if a 3rd party or some libertarian does by miracle of the parting of the Red/Blue Sea get elected, it will be because you 2 nitwit political parties handed it to them by how friend-ked up you made the country in the first place!



Love hurts don't it!


Now I see Uncle Sammy is stepping in to fund AIG out of trouble and we dare not call that Socialism.

Seriously D, 1976' this Reagan guy showed up and said all the Ron Paulian things and it was pure heaven but then in 1980' that paleo-tone changed a bit but we were told it was "just to get elected." Then he picked this shadow character named George Bush for VP and we thought we'd been double crossed but again, "be cool, it's just for the looks to get elected." So we stayed cool and then he got elected. But then reality started slamming doors in our faces and the big double cross was the 1982' TEFRA Tax Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TEFRA and it was obvious then we'd been stabbed in the back.

If Obama gets elected, I hope I'm completely wrong but I'm telling you that you are gonna get stabbed in the back! More war and more State power and less civil liberties. Mark it down dude!

Hate to be the cynical ba$tard to bring the bad news but I don't lie to my friends either!

 

[av8torntn]

But the real kickoff was in 1980' in the State of the Union address where Jimmy Carter "A DEMOCRAT" made the following statement,

Come on now, nobody ever really listened to him anyhow.

 

[wkmac]

Come on now, nobody ever really listened to him anyhow.

Really? You really believe that myth? You need to have a serious talk then with your current Secretary of Defense Robert Gates who served on the National Security Council during the Carter adminstration and in his book states that this line in Carter's 1980' State of the Union speech was in fact a major factor and launch point for current US Middle East policy. The book is entitled,
From the Shadows: The Ultimate Insider's Story of Five Presidents and How They Won the Cold War. Simon & Schuster 1997 and is availble at Amazon, Barnes and Noble, etc.

What did Gates say about Jimmy Carter? In 2005' former Carter Ambassador to Italy, Richard Gardner gave a Q&A to the Council on Foreign Relations entitled "Winning the Cold War, Jimmy Carter's forgotten role and during this Q&A, Gates own words were quoted:

Final question to you -
GARDNER: Well, can I just comment on that?
BRINKLEY: Okay.
GARDNER: No, that’s—I should have said, the other thing that made a different in bringing an end to the Soviet Union was the Carter human rights policy, which encouraged the dissidents in the Soviet Union itself, in Central Europe and, of course, encouraged people all over the world in Latin America.
And you—I have to quote you. Can I quote you? You’re always quoting me. (Laughter.) You quoted Robert Gates—who is not a Democrat; I believe he’s a Republican—CIA director under President Bush senior, who said—and you quoted him in your wonderful book—quote, “I believe historians and political observers alike have failed to appreciate the importance of Jimmy Carter’s contributions to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War.” That’s a CIA director—and he had in mind the human rights policy as well as the missiles.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9009/winning_the_cold_war_jimmy_carters_forgotten_role_rush_transcript_federal_news_service.html

In his book, Gates devotes much, much more including the importance of Jimmy Carter's 1980' speech in realtion to policy towards the Middle East and especially the Persian Gulf region. If you read Gates and others on historical policy, you could well say that your serving in Iraq came about by the policy of Jimmy Carter and that you owe him a debt of gratitude. Carter having made th region a spearpoint set the table for suceeding adminstrations to carry forward to where we now find ourselves today. Amazing how that all works out but don't feel to disgusted, I'm sure D and others here of the demonrat flavor are as repulsed as you to think it was one of their own who greenlighted Reagan, Bush 1 and of course Bush 2 in the region!

Now for the case of Gates, that's one of your own boys there so you need to get ya'lls story straight!

Gates names Carter as one of the 5 Presidents who gets credit for winning the ColdWar and notice again the title of the book, The Ultimate Insider's Story of Five Presidents and How They Won the Cold War . Kinda hard to argue Carter was the great idiot when one of your own was there and is saying otherwise! Let's see, Gates is Sec. of Defense and republicon to boot so in effect ain't he your boss? And you are a good little soldier and folllow orders without question so there you go! Again

BTW: It's come as accepted truth that Gates, a loyal republicon all these years was the leak to the Reagan/Bush campaign about the Carter deal to supply arms to Iran for release of the hostages. It's also believed he was the source of the leak to the media as well. He also had to withdraw his name from nomination in 1987' to head the CIA because of connections to Iran/Contra. I guess your loss was ultimately Texas A&M's gain. LOL!

Just as a side note, Carter gets lots of blame for the economy of the late 70's and no doubt he made his mistakes but history paints a different picture when you consider Nixon killing Bretton-Woods in 71' and closing thr gold window for good and then instituting wage and price controls thereby freezing them in place. These socialistic actions create ripple and downstream effects that take time to roll out through the economic process and unfortunately Jimmy Carter got elected at a time when those waves finally came crashing onto the shore.

I didn't vote for Jimmy either in 76' or 80' and the man's name is on my first driver's license so I got no dog in this fight but I don't believe it's truthful either to lay all blame on him when history clearly shows many manifestations during his watch on the economic side were not completely of his own doing. He made his mistakes but both republicons and demonrats can take credit there.

Another interesting side note about Gates beyond his long gov't career with the CIA and his Presidency at Texas A&M, Gates has also served on the board of numerous companies including of interest, Parker Drilling, a global oil drilling company out of Houston Texas and Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC). It works exclusively with such gov't agencies as DOD, Homeland Security, Intelligence Community including the NSA and along with Gates were the following other board members at various times for SAIC. Melvin Laird, Defense Sec. for Nixon, William Perry, Clinton's Defense Sec. and John Deutsch, Clinton's CIA director, Admiral Bobby Inman and David Kay, UN WMD inspector after Gulf War and Iraq 2003'. Another interesting note is that SAIC was the 9th largest gov't contractor in 2003' so take that for what it's worth.

If anyone is unfamilar with the name SAIC then maybe this 2004' story from the Washington Post linked on (dare I say it) MSNBC about them will shed a bit of light on just what they do overall in their bidness.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4192760/from/RL.1#storyContinued

Geez D, 2 Clinton boys. I thought your party was one of purity!

 

[tieguy]

_In his book, Gates devotes much, much more including the importance of Jimmy Carter's 1980' speech in realtion to policy towards the Middle East and especially the Persian Gulf region. If you read Gates and others on historical policy, you could well say that your serving in Iraq came about by the policy of Jimmy Carter and that you owe him a debt of gratitude. Carter having made th region a spearpoint set the table for suceeding adminstrations to carry forward to where we now find ourselves today. Amazing how that all works out but don't feel to disgusted, I'm sure D and others here of the demonrat flavor are as repulsed as you to think it was one of their own who greenlighted Reagan, Bush 1 and of course Bush 2 in the region!

Now for the case of Gates, that's one of your own boys there so you need to get ya'lls story straight!

I don't put a whole lot of credence in these post career books. I believe their integrity goes out the window when it comes time to sell those books.

 

[over9five]

I don't put a whole lot of credence in these post career books. I believe their integrity goes out the window when it comes time to sell those books.

Me too. Let's face it, the author is writing it to make money for himself. A boring book won't sell, so let's embellish those "facts" just a lil'.....

 

[av8torntn]

"I believe historians and political observers alike have failed to appreciate the importance of Jimmy Carter’s contributions to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War.”


Looks like an admission nobody really listened to him.

 

[wkmac]

OK, time to play with D and the demonrats again!

Alrighty Boys, you ever spent a moment or 2 looking at Obama's close advisors who will shape policy? No! I can believe that.

For schitts and giggles:
From March 2008'

https://web.archive.org/web/20130419153401/http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/080331nj1.htm

From June 2008'

http://www.newsweek.com/id/139894


Let's look at link #1

D tells us Obama will bring back jobs and stop the bleeding and destruction of the American Middle Class. What sayeth ye Obama? About his close economic advisor:

Austan Goolsbee
The University of Chicago economist, who by most accounts is playing a dominant role in vetting Obama's policy proposals on a wide range of issues, had managed to keep his name out of the press -- until three weeks ago. That's when news leaked of a meeting that Goolsbee held with Canadian officials to explain his candidate's call to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement. After Canadian officials said that the economist had dismissed the tough rhetoric as political posturing, the Clinton campaign used their account to argue that Obama was insincere or a secret advocate of free trade. Obama's team tried to counter by insisting that Goolsbee has played only a minor, unpaid role in the campaign, but this was disputed by other Democrats with knowledge of his influence.

The call to renegotiate NAFTA was nothing but political posturing! Is that like saying what you need to get elected but then doing something else once elected? So D, when did you become an advocate for NAFTA? Does your union know this? OPPPPS! I forgot, they endorsed him too. Wait a minute. Is the union really secretly for NAFTA too? Maybe I actually know something you don't.

To quote further of Goolsbee,

Goolsbee himself certainly believes in free trade.

As do I but I don't believe in a stacked market where certain corp. business interests gets special treatment buried inside little read treadties all at the expense of the American taxpayer and/or American consumer. Geez D, I thought you looked out for the little guy?

On the National Security side we find one John Brennan. Who is John Brennan?

John Brennan
Brennan, the president and chief executive officer of the Analysis Corp., an intelligence contractor in McLean, Va., began advising the Obama campaign on intelligence and counter-terrorism at Tony Lake's request. A 25-year CIA veteran, Brennan became the first director of the National Counterterrorism Center in 2004, and he now chairs the Intelligence and National Security Alliance, a professional association. He first traveled to the Middle East in the 1970s, studying in Egypt, and he has spent a good portion of his career on regional issues. He ran the CIA's terrorism analysis during the Persian Gulf War and then became the daily intelligence briefer at the White House. From 1996 to 1999, he served in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, as the CIA's chief of station.

CEO of Analysis Corp. and who are they?
https://web.archive.org/web/20090508031058/http://www.theanalysiscorp.com/about.html

Is another defense/security contractor in the mix to repalce SAIC or for that fact Halliburton or KBR? Geez D, I thought the corp. influence and abuse was only on the republicon side!

And Anthony Lake who has an interesting backgorund himself but one of most interest is his having to withdraw from nominaion as head of CIA during the Clinton years. According to reports, this came about because Lake at the last minute withdrew support for an Iraqi coup to overthrow Saddam. Now you dems would laud this as proof of anti-war/anti-intervention stand but the truth is, the coup was entertained in the first place and someone got coldfeet for whatever reason. The simple fact is, US involvement in foreign coups is not an "off the table" subject with these folks so how is this different from what we have in the republicons?

Susan Rice rocketed to glam and fame after even impressing the hardcore Jesse Helms in senate confirmation hearings and Jesse is far from being a Dove or anti-intervention. Rice worked for Global Management Co. McKinsey & Company who specialize in contracting with gov't on management solutions concerns. Do I hear the ching/ching of profit margins in the background? Who else might have Obama's ear because of Rice's McKinsey and Co. connection?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_McKinsey_%26_Company_people

Anybody's anthena going up at this point or are we still hung up on flag pins and preachers?

The 2nd link was compiled by the Council on Foreign Relations and posted at Newsweek.

D, I'm seeing a lot of Clinton holdovers and these are the folks who gave us NAFTA and other international treaties that made America worse, not better and I see nothing that would suggest anything different and this from the candidate who claims to be about change. You guys may actual have Hillary after all without the pants suit!

I know McCain is really Bush 3 but your guy is at the end of the day not different at all. You're selling smoke and mirrors eacept the smoke is a big fart and the mirrors are clear glass. It doesn't take a rocket scienctist to see and smell what your side is really all about!

Love ya long time!

 

[av8torntn]

Now for the case of Gates, that's one of your own boys there so you need to get ya'lls story straight!

This could be slightly interesting. I cannot help but wonder how Gates is one of my boys so I looked up his bio. Texas A&M nope. Young Republicans nope. CIA nope. Air Force posting please but nope. Eagle scout nope. So please share.

 

[wkmac]

"I believe historians and political observers alike have failed to appreciate the importance of Jimmy Carter’s contributions to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War.”


Looks like an admission nobody really listened to him.

Ah but he didn't say policy makers and at the end of the day that's what counts there hotrod!

Tie and Over,

I dare say Robert Gates is not some past tense policy wonk but currently serves as Sec. of Defense and your glorious leader of the infamous Iraq surge!

But you're right, what the h3ll does he know, Obama and the democrats are socialist right? You mean like the kind of people that would nationalize the mortgage industry? I know what ya mean!


I love watching when one socialist calls another socialist a socialist!

 

[wkmac]

This could be slightly interesting. I cannot help but wonder how Gates is one of my boys so I looked up his bio. Texas A&M nope. Young Republicans nope. CIA nope. Air Force posting please but nope. Eagle scout nope. So please share.

Loyal Republicon and defender of the empire faith

 

[av8torntn]

Loyal Republicon and defender of the empire faith

Oh yes, I almost forgot I'm a neo con and you are a liberal dimocrat.

 

[av8torntn]

Just as a side note, Carter gets lots of blame for the economy of the late 70's and no doubt he made his mistakes but history paints a different picture when you consider Nixon killing Bretton-Woods in 71' and closing thr gold window for good and then instituting wage and price controls thereby freezing them in place. These socialistic actions create ripple and downstream effects that take time to roll out through the economic process and unfortunately Jimmy Carter got elected at a time when those waves finally came crashing onto the shore.

I didn't vote for Jimmy either in 76' or 80' and the man's name is on my first driver's license so I got no dog in this fight but I don't believe it's truthful either to lay all blame on him when history clearly shows many manifestations during his watch on the economic side were not completely of his own doing. He made his mistakes but both republicons and demonrats can take credit there.

Now I will go with the party line here. The Fed was already in place. That really cannot be the excuse as there was no real movement to get rid of it then. So here we have you liberal dimocrats thinking it is the role of the Government to stabilize the economy and what do you do? You restrict the supply of money during a down cycle. Yes I think we can blame the Carter government for this. Let's increase the tax and regulatory burden and restrict the supply of money. Not even B. Hussein can agree with this approach now.

 

[wkmac]

Oh yes, I almost forgot I'm a neo con and you are a liberal dimocrat.

Well at least I'm not a socialist unlike others here who constantly advocate empire and military interventionism, market interventionsim and promote the continunce of the welfare state by justifying it's one side of the same face in corp. welfare. This also means these folks are not believers in the 18th century classical "liberal" ideals of private property and that the fruits of one's labor are in truth property but instead are for the pulbic trough and for the pulbic good to be allocated for that pulbic good and in this case corp. welfare. All at the hands of an interventionist government they support modeled on hybrids of govt's from old world Fuedalism to 20th century Trotskite and Mussolini ideals after trampling under foot the classical ideals that created this great nation to begin with.

So whatever you wanna call me to make you feel better is OK by me. Making you feel better would be a nice act of charity on my part today so there you go!

Besides, it'll never changes what we both know you really are now does it?


LMAO!!!!!!

You like having others run your life don't you.

 

[diesel96]

OK, time to play with D and the demonrats again!

Alrighty Boys, you ever spent a moment or 2 looking at Obama's close advisors who will shape policy? No! I can believe that.

Wasn't the Iraq war the crowning example of bipartisanship during the Bush era? And we know how well that bipartisanship worked out. A lot of people are dead because of the bipartisanship.

Sure, if only Denny Hastert and Nancy Pelosi had had a few dinners together, we might not be in a disastrous war, or we wouldn't have the FISA continuance, No Child Left Behind, or a prescription drug program that doesn't allow the government to negotiate with drug companies to reduce prices. Oh wait, those were all bipartisan bills.

So I understand why your getting your panties in a wad so tight I call it a letter in your mailbox.

Thankfully, Democrats seem to be coming to their senses -- finally -- and rejecting the notion that joining hands with Republicans and racing to what the Right wants us all to believe is the middle is sound political strategy. The problem with Washington hasn't been gridlock, it's been Democrats' willingness to buy into the conventional wisdom and cave in on issue after issue in the name of bipartisan comity.

The road to victory in 2008 doesn't run through a mythical middle that has been dragged far to the right over the past 7-plus years; it runs through the actual mainstream -- the place the majority of Americans inhabit. The center that opposes the war, favors economic fairness, knows that climate change is real and a crisis, wants to take care of our veterans, and believes in the right to universal health care.

Yeah there's no perfect canidate to suit our every need or has said things and associated with those who ruffle our feathers, but show me a canidate who scores a 10.

Pssst.....I got a secret for ya.....
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post_group/ObamaHQ/Cg8l

 

[wkmac]

Wasn't the Iraq war the crowning example of bipartisanship during the Bush era?

If you asked Saddam Hussein, he would surely agree with that statement!
This would be funny if not for the 2nd sentence you posted.

And we know how well that bipartisanship worked out. A lot of people are dead because of the bipartisanship.

It's how many died as a result that strips all potential humor out of it.

Sure, if only Denny Hastert and Nancy Pelosi had had a few dinners together, we might not be in a disastrous war, or we wouldn't have the FISA continuance, No Child Left Behind, or a prescription drug program that doesn't allow the government to negotiate with drug companies to reduce prices. Oh wait, those were all bipartisan bills.

So I understand why your getting your panties in a wad so tight I call it a letter in your mailbox.

Thankfully, Democrats seem to be coming to their senses -- finally -- and rejecting the notion that joining hands with Republicans and racing to what the Right wants us all to believe is the middle is sound political strategy. The problem with Washington hasn't been gridlock, it's been Democrats' willingness to buy into the conventional wisdom and cave in on issue after issue in the name of bipartisan comity.

The road to victory in 2008 doesn't run through a mythical middle that has been dragged far to the right over the past 7-plus years; it runs through the actual mainstream -- the place the majority of Americans inhabit. The center that opposes the war, favors economic fairness, knows that climate change is real and a crisis, wants to take care of our veterans, and believes in the right to universal health care.

Yeah there's no perfect canidate to suit our every need or has said things and associated with those who ruffle our feathers, but show me a canidate who scores a 10.

There is no perfect 10, you are correct there. Clear thinking probably never had a chance because in those first few years after 9/11, people wanted blood and revenge. I think it was Andrew Bacevich I heard probably say it best when asked who is to blame for all of this when he said, "We all are to one degree or another' and at the end of the day, he's probably right. The real question now is which way forward.

In less than 7 weeks, either Obama or McCain is going to declare victory (God I hope you guys in Florida have your together! LOL!) but either way, in a couple of years some voters are going to have buyers remorse. The only question now is which side.

On a side note, I watched Situation Room on CNN and Jack McCafferty talked about the impact of Palin which you could tell he wasn't excited about. Anyway what made it even worse in his eyes was the fact at a major net blog site on one page alone he read Palin's name 24 times, Biden's twice, McCain's once and Obama's none and that bothered him and he wondered why.

Geez Jack, are you that blind. Like her or hate her, she's the only one out there that really is change and middle America are fed up with the same ole/same ole tripe the 2 parties keep rolling out. Now we have a ranking member of the DNC platform committee jumping ship from Obama and has announced her backing of McCain. To my own shock I've spoken with several lifelong democrat women who are voting McCain and I wasn't surprised thinking McCain that different but the fact McCain and Obama really aren't that far apart. What now rings enlightenment is I didn't understand these women's reason until I heard Lynn de Rothschild talk about Obama's elitist attitude and then I realize they were trying to tell me the same thing but I didn't get it.

It will be interesting over the next week to see what happens in the polling data.

I hope you slugs are having fun at work because I'm enjoying goofing off!



This ain't vacation, this is on the job retirement training!
LOL!

 

[wkmac]

Also D, it doesn't help matters to have Dick Cheney lying to the Congressional leadership of his own party in the likes of Dick Armey.

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Author_Cheney_has_been_first_deputy_0916.html

Take Dick Cheney and some of his cronies out of power and the Bush Presidency ends in a few months in a very different way and most likely considered more successful. I'd even venture to suggest the economic havoc and high gas prices might even be a thing of fantasy.

JMO anyway.

 

[tieguy]

In less than 7 weeks, either Obama or McCain is going to declare victory (God I hope you guys in Florida have your together! LOL!) but either way, in a couple of years some voters are going to have buyers remorse. The only question now is which side.

Sounds like you won't be taking a side?

 

[diesel96]

What now rings enlightenment is I didn't understand these women's reason until I heard Lynn de Rothschild talk about Obama's elitist attitude and then I realize they were trying to tell me the same thing but I didn't get it.

Am I accidentally reading this incorrectly?
Listening to yourself (and Lifer mention this in another thread) is mindboggling. Here you have kid growing up with a single mom on food stamps periodically, excelling in school, completing Harvard on student loans and just recently paying them off, giving up six figure salary to work in South Chicago as a community organizer, working hard to become a state rep and eventually a senator from Chicago and your gonna give props and credentials to a mega-rich Rothchild who married into more fortunes to judge who is elistists and who is not.......

 

[wkmac]

D,

I can't speak for Lifer but in my case over the last several weeks I've heard 3 seperate women who have been life long democrats say they will vote for McCain. Of course I asked why and they gave their explainations and etc. etc. and these were serious Hillary supporters.

HOWEVER, it wasn't until I heard Lynn de Rothschild yesterday on CNN say that Obama is an elitest that I realized these other women were saying the same thing but not as direct as Lynn did. At the time they said it, I didn't get it but it's was Lynn's words that made the lightbulb go off. I even called one of them on the phone last night and asked point blank and her having saw Lynn as well, she told me Lynn hit it dead on.

Now whether you like that or not or whether you don't really like the fact that I talked about it and in some way you draw some conclusion from it, that's on you dude but the simple fact is I heard 3 other women who were traditional longtime democrats who said the same thing and it was Lynn who made me finally get it as to what they were really saying.

If you don't like the logic of Lynn and these other ladies then all I can say is these are 4 democrats and how they feel so you know far better how a democrat thinks so you figure it out and make sense of it.

Tie,

If you mean am I picking sides in relationship to picking Obama over McCain or McCain over Obama? No, I'm not picking sides. I'm not voting for either because I think for all practical purpose they are not that different. Politics at that level is all about getting the right face before the public and then the political party drives the agenda behind the face based on what persons hold postiions of advisors, etc. to the President. The office of President is so massive and so complicated that no one person, no matter who they are could know everything and make the right call all by themselves. Presidents rely on an army of advisors and cabinet level secretaries to not only take public policy down into the bureacracy but more importantly feed info up so the President can make the most informed and right decision he can on the issue of public policy.

This is also another reason IMO that candidates say and promise many things on the campaign trail but once in office do very different things. Obviously, scenarios change that effect promises (Bush 1 "Read My Lips" being a most infamous promise gone bad) but the real movers and shakers are the men and women behind the President and not the President specifically. You'll hear conservatives complain about Bush's spending policies while you'll hear liberals complain about Clinton's embrace in international economics such as NAFTA and WTO and we're talking loyal voters who voted for these guys. The problem was they listened to the stump speeches and bought every word instead of looking behind the candidate and once elected at those advisors and management appointees. Had they done so, the voter could then make a much more informed choice and when the acts differs from the stump speech, that voter will know why.

Since you are a Bush kinda guy, the argue is 9/11 changed everything so Bush had to change. I don't buy that. Obviously 9/11 forced a change in direction and focus he'd not expected (sorry, I don't buy the 9/11 conspiracy stuff) but had Cheney and many others of his ilk not been there, it's possible we might not be in as bad of shape as we are now and that other courses might have been chosen. I'd even be willing to agree Osama bin Laden would be dead now. Imagine Osama dead and most of the recent federal debt never having been borrowed, how would things look across the board now?

Even the Reagan/Bush 1 era guys were against Cheney and co.'s mad rush to Baghdad but history is what it is and we have to deal with it. But the lesson learned is to know the people that surrounds the Presidential candidate that you want to vote for. In the end, it will be they who shape policy more than any other thing. The Bush era should have taught us that most valuable lesson.

Looking behind Obama and McCain, I'm not buying today. Your vote is like money you are about to invest in the market. Depending on your investment strategy, there are times to buy certain stocks, time to buy bonds, time to buy CD's and time to shall we say, buy gold. As it pertains to American politics, I'm only buying gold these days.

 

[wkmac]

http://www.washtimes.com/news/2008/sep/23/impeachable-offenses/

&


http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20814.htm