Obama stance on terrorism....
Posted By: sam on 2008-07-30
In Reply to:
This latest quote of his just says to me he doesn't get it, especially where Muslim extremists are concerned:
At a fundraising luncheon, he said he told Gilani "the only way we're going to be successful in the long term in defeating extremists ... is if we are giving people opportunities. If people have a chance for a better life, then they are not as likely to turn to the ideologies of violence and despair."
What kind of opportunities is he talking about giving them? And it does not matter what you give them...it is not about despair. I guess he did not see the poll done recently of Muslim students in London...way over half polled said it was okay to kill in the name of Islam, in fact it should be done; and way more than half thought Sharia law should be part of English law and supercede it in most cases. These Muslims are not in despair. Obama does not get it, he does not understand it, and that makes him plenty dangerous. Just like he says we cannot drill our way out of the energy crunch (and I disagree with that...might not drill our way out completely but certainly could take a bite out of our foreign oil dependance while working on those alternative forms of energy, which I do support...but there are no immediate answers there either)...we cannot talk Muslim "extremists" out of their extremism. And to think we can is naive at best and that is the nicest way I can put it.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Terrorism?
Terrorism? Me? Protests, you bet..American grew up on protests and I wil defend protests until the day I die..Terrorism, however, is a Bush creation..and Bush is the number one terrorist, IMHO..
War on terrorism.
We have been snubbed by other countries in our war on terrorism. The French turn their noises up at us, yet it was the United States who "butted in" and came to their aid....without which they would probably be speaking German instead of French. Terrorism isn't just a problem that the United States has to deal with. Every country is at risk of terrorist acts because we are infidels. Anyone who doesn't believe the way the terrorists do are infidels and should be put to death, according to them. So why are other countries to quick to judge us in our war on terrorism. Don't they realize that the terrorists could just as easily be blowing up their buildings and may move onto them in the future and then who will they ask to stand up with them......the United States of course.
SP's war on terrorism crash course
Unbelievable that someone who aspires to US VP displays such "kitchen table" understanding of the war on terror. Islamic terrorists do not attack the US because "they don't like" our democracy and freedom. Bin Laden was very clear on his reason for 911 attack/act of war in his letter to the US. Agree or not, in his view and that of his followers, these are his expressed reasons attacking US:
1. You attacked us.
2. You attacked us in Palestine.
3. The occupation of Palestine.
4. America's support of Israel.
5. The creation if Israel is a crime.
6. You believe the Jews have a Biblical right to Palestine.
7. His eye for eye perception of revenge for Palestine.
8. You attacked us in Somalia.
9. You supported Russians in Chechnya.
10. You supported India's aggression in Kashmir.
11. You attack us on a daily basis and war against Sharia law.
12. Governments of our countries act as your agents. They steal the Muslim community's wealth and sell it to you for paltry price. They support Israel.
13. Your military forces occupy our countries. They corrupt ouf lands and pillage our treasures.
14. You kill the children of Iraq.
15. You support the Jews in their efforts to establish capitol in Jerusalem. The would destroy Islam's most sacred Al-Aqsa Mosque.
16. Your oppression is aggressive.
17. You kill civilians and charge them with crimes they did not commit.
18. Your claims that American is the land of freedom are hypocrisy.
19. American people support US policies in Palestine.
20. American people's taxes fund planes that bomb Afghanistan.
21. Americans do not understand the language of manners and principles. They understand war, so we address them in these terms.
What are his demands?
1. We call you to know the meaning of Islam.
2. We call you to stop your oppression.
3. He goes on to list the ways America's government is not in compliance with Islam and with Sharia law.
4. Your law is the law of the rich and wealthy.
5. Your freedoms and democracy are for yourselves only and only for whites.
6. You do not respect international law.
7. You create a court for war criminals and then declare yourselves immune.
8. You torture at Guantanamo.
9. Abandon support for Israel.
Definition of terrorism.
Perhaps I can speak to this as someone who is both trained and educated in the subject.
The FBI, State Department, DHS, United Nations and numerous other agencies and experts have defined terrorism in somewhat different ways, but most definitions agree on some common elements with respect to terrorism:
1. Instilling fear...
2. ...in a civilian population...
3. ...by violence or threat of violence...
4. ...to advance social, political or religious objectives...
5. ...outside the context of lawful means of change or the conduct of war.
Although it is frequently said (usually in the popular press) that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter", implying that the term is entirely subjective, this is only true when one of the "men" in question is intellectually dishonest. Terrorism has been defined with sufficient clarity that we can say with a high degree of specificity what is, and what is not, terrorism and who are, and who are not, terrorists.
When people seek to strike a moral equivalency between actions that are fundamentally terrorist and those that merely share certain common elements (for instance, both terrorists and nations at war use bombs), they are confusing superficial similarity with equivalency. This inevitably leads them into errors in thinking and the consequences of such errors - bad judgments, bad decisions, and wrong actions.
You might find a mouse in your cookie jar, but that doesn't make it a cookie.
Do you have a problem with fighting terrorism?
You only care that Bush possibly lied in regards to intelligence gathering. You seem to have no clue that good intelligence means you don't spout all your secrets to the American public and sometimes *gasp* to the congress. The congress does not specialize in intelligence gathering much less what to do with it once they have it. There are reasons there are different levels of access within the CIA and FBI. There is a need for covert operations. Read some John Grisham novels or better than fiction based on real events read some books about what the CIA actually does. You might be shocked to find out that they keep things top secret and may lie to people at times for the good of this country.
Economy 1st issue, Terrorism last sm
What is wrong with this country? What good will money do us when our country is attacked? There is nothing like one who has walked the walk to guide us. I am thinking of my family first, it won't matter how well off we are if we are not a "free" nation. McCain knows what evil is, he lived it.
Actually, even though Ayers' terrorism was that long
ago, he was quoted on 9/11/01 in the NYT as saying he feels "we didn't do enough."
See link below for the article.
Let bygones be bygones? NOT. He is only out free because of a legal technicality.
Christian Fundamentalist Terrorism
It's shocking to write. But it's time to start calling it what it is.
When Jim D. Adkisson walked into the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church with 76 rounds and a shot-gun, he killed 2 people and was charged with murder. His motive was "he hated the liberal movement" and was upset with "liberals in general as well as gays." He should have been charged with terrorism.
Sunday George Tiller, a Wichita doctor, was killed INSIDE the lobby of his Wichita church. Reformation Lutheran Church became a crime scene; fundamentalist terrorism.
The right wing media hacks make targets of the left. The fundamentalist reverends blather their intolerance of other Americans. Their marriages are in jeopardy if the GLBT community can walk down an aisle. Their children are going to be molested if you have to rent to a same sex couple. Fear...fear...fear the queer.
Bill O'Reilly's hit piece on Dr. Tiller is a training tape for Christian Fundamentalist Terrorists. Never did he ask the woman interviewed how she, as a 13 year old, got pregnant, who was the father, or where her parents were when she underwent an abortion at Dr. Tiller's clinic. I'm sure O'Reilly's drivel will insist on personal accountability for the murderer. I'm sure he won't be in line for any "accountability" for calling the doctor "Tiller the baby-killer" or his clinic a "death mill."
Are anti-choice groups celebrating today? An abortion doctor is dead so women won't have unwanted pregnancies!
The "war on terror" needs to include domestic religious, fundamentalist terrorists.
Halliburton=Cheney=benefiting from war/terrorism
Check it out, lots and lots and lots written about it. Draw your own conclusions.
Well, here is my stance on the subjects.
1. Homosexual marriage: For it. If homosexual couples are afforded other freedoms, I am for this one too. If they are allowed to adopt children, they should be allowed to get legally married in the eyes of the state.
2. Welfare: Not for it. I do, however, believe in subsidies to provide help for those in need. Welfare needs an upgrade.
3. Abortion: I am for the right of choice and the right to privacy on these matters.
Hope your poll helps clarifies things for you.
Here is my stance and my reasoning
for what I said above. Government shouldn't have 80% of AIG. They should have let AIG fall on its face. They shouldn't have given them money in the first place.
Here is a little blurp I've copied: I will provide the link below.
On March 5, New York Fed officials forwarded to the Treasury Department a summary of AIG’s bonus and retention payment issues, including details of the retention program for officials of the Financial Products. This information included that $165 million in payments were expected that very month, as well as the fact that the contracts were in place in the first quarter of 2008, and so not covered by the limitations in the stimulus bill as articulated by an amendment to the stimulus bill offered by Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn.
As ABC News' Capitol Hill Correspondent Jonathan Karl reported, in February, the Senate unanimously approved an amendment restricting bonuses over $100,000 at any company receiving federal bailout funds, but during the closed-door House and Senate negotiations the provision was stripped out and replaced with a measure by Dodd exempting bonuses agreed to prior to the passage of the stimulus bill on February 11, 2009.
You can read the whole article at this link: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/03/obama-adminis-1.html
So this basically shows that these bonuses were pushed through by Dodd and so the government had its hand in giving out these bonuses and now they are going to turn around and take that away. It is a contract. I understand that AIG got butt loads of money from the government.....which was wrong in the first place.....but don't you see how scary it is for our government to have this kind of control and power. To give and take away at the drop of a hat. To null and void a contract that someone in government (Dodd) pushed through to make happen and then they turn around and want to tax it to death or just take it from them.
Why in the he!! did Dodd get this slipped in there in the first place? that is the real question. This wouldn't even be an issue. Dodd slips this in because he received the highest amount of money from AIG. So of course he wanted to pay back the hand that fed him...so to speak. And guess who had the second highest amount of contributions from AIG.....Barrack Obama..... So Dodd slips this through and allows a loophole for the AIG execs to get their big ars bonuses and now that it has gone public and people are furious......now government wants to take control and make them give the money back. Isn't it the governments fault in the first place....first for bailing them out and then for letting this loophole slip by to pay back AIG for contributions to campaigns.
This is why our government sucks. They don't care about Americans. All they care about is getting money back to the groups, etc. who contributed money to their campaign. That is why we can't get away from wasteful spending and earmarks.
Joy isn't happy unless it's HER stance
on politics. She forever tries to make a laughing stock out of everyone who doesn't share her views. I think she is ridiculous and I get a kick out of her when she cracks a "supposed funny" but no one laughs. She is he11 bent on views so much, she makes me sick. I don't see where or why she is part of that program. It's supposed to be open topics, but when someone she likes it on the program, she keeps her mouth shut. I just wish she would keep it shut more often.
WE KNOW Observer. You have made your stance
.
Here's one. Palins' stance on war and peace.
nm
How is posting his stance bashing?
People are not supposed to compare the two?
OMG! Check out O's stance on immigration
Please note, these are from 2008 before the election, but I think they still hold true.
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Immigration.htm
In fact, you can also check out Emanuel, Holder, McCain, Napolitano, Clinton, here:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Immigration.htm#Headlines
ok, here goes - I know I'll get flamed, but I am firm on my stance. SM
Well over 50% of the American population is either Hispanic or African American (I am being conservative because it is probably higher). This population IMO voted for Obama because of his skin color, without researching his view on major issues that revolve around being capable of tackling the presidency of the U.S. I think it is only a matter of time when this will come back and kick all who voted for him in the "you know what." It's not about our ethnicity or religion, but rather about a candidate who is experienced enough to tackle the job. I just cringe at the fact that someone as inexperienced as Obama is now running this country.
Since when does questioning a stance on a single issue
"changing his mind?" In fact, it is media's JOB to exercise both sides of an argument (in the same way that debaters are required to argue both sides of a premise). The mere fact that a reporter is doing just that during a broadcast does not necessarily say anything whatsoever about his personal beliefs.
It would be even funnier if it was written by the guy with the "wide stance"
what is it with those guys and airports? Larry Craig - what a twit! At least Spitzer likes women! In this economy, it's probably the only guaranteed job - and tax-free!
The no-political-stance rule applies both ways
this is not exclusive to just anti-war speakers. To remain non-profit pastors cannot endorse a political party or agenda, eventhough Reverends Jesse and Al do it all the time and they seem to get away with it. There is a church in my area who was threatened with having their non-profit status pulled due to the fact the pastor urged people to vote for Bush. Believe me this is not unilateral nor one sided.
Do you agree with this analysis of Jewish abortion stance? sm
Jewish beliefs and practice not neatly match either the "pro-life" nor the "pro-choice" points of view. The general principles of modern-day Judaism are that:
The fetus has great value because it is potentially a human life. It gains "full human status at birth only." 2
Abortions are not permitted on the grounds of genetic imperfections of the fetus.
Abortions are permitted to save the mother's life or health.
With the exception of some Orthodox authorities, Judaism supports abortion access for women.
"...each case must be decided individually by a rabbi well-versed in Jewish law." 5
Historical Christianity has considered "ensoulment," the point at which the soul enters the body) as the time when abortions should normally be prohibited. Belief about the timing of this event has varied from the instant of fertilization of the ovum, to 90 days after conception, or later. There has been no consensus among historical Jewish sources about when ensoulment happens. It is regarded as "one of the 'secrets of God' that will be revealed only when the Messiah comes."
I understand the moral stance, but feel the rhetoric is over-the-top.....sm
This man is NOT pro-abortion, as many of us are not. He is preserving the right of choice for ALL women, and does not believe that a poor woman who has undergone a rape, incest, domestic violince/intimidation situation, or even has just accidentally gotten pregnant with a child she cannot carry for medical, emotional, or financial reasons....I hate abortion also, but if Americans are to be equal, then a poor woman needs to have resources available to her which would be available to others, or you are damning her to the back-alley abortionists. That is reality. I, Myself, married 18 years, vigilantly spacing my children and on birth control, came up with an unexpected, very difficult pregnancy. Yes, we made the choice to love and take this baby into the world, but we also had SOME resources and family, some girls do not.
There are not many folk who are PRO ABORTION, but preserving the individual choice, though abhorrent to many of us, is part of true liberty. And God Himself will judge as appropriate.
And I do feel that those few who use abortion as a means of birth control, well there should be restrictions and a definite "no."
Senate Armed Services defies Bush; Passes its own terrorism tribunal bill.
Bush should be grateful for this (even though he will probably ignore it, as usual), as the day may come when HE faces charges as a war criminal, and he would demand and be entitled to the same due process under the law.
Senate Armed Services Committee defies Bush; Passes its own terrorism tribunal bill
09/14/2006 @ 3:41 pm
Filed by RAW STORY
The Senate Armed Services Committee defied President Bush today by passing its own terrorism tribunal bill to protect the rights of terror detainees.
Four of the 13 Republicans on the panel joined the 11 Democrats to pass their version of the measure, rejecting Bush's proposal to bar defendants from seeing classified evidence prosecutors may want to use in court, reports Bloomberg News.
The four Republicans acted against the White House today only a few hours after the president paid a rare visit to Capitol Hill in order to personally lobby House members to support his plan.
President Bush visited Capitol Hill Thursday where he conferred behind closed doors with House Republicans on legislation to give the government more power to spy on, imprison and interrogate terrorism suspects, reported the Associated Press earlier today.
Bush told reporters later at the White House that he would resist any bill that does not enable this program to go forward with legal clarity.
The bill passed by the Senate panel had been drafted by Republican Senators John McCain, Lindsey O. Graham, and Chairman John Warner. Senator Susan M. Collins was the fourth Republican to vote for the bill.
Voting 15-9, the Senate Armed Services Committee approved the bill they said would provide suspects more legal rights than Bush wanted and resisted his attempt to more narrowly define the Geneva Conventions' standards for humane treatment of prisoners, reports Reuters.
Earlier today, former Secretary of State Colin Powell wrote a letter to Republican Senator John McCain (video link), supporting his opposition to the president's plan which would redefine the legal definitions in Article 3 of the Geneva Convention.
The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism, Powell wrote McCain. To redefine Common Article 3 would add to those doubts. Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk.
REPUBLICANS
John Warner (Virginia) Chairman
John McCain (Arizona) James M. Inhofe (Oklahoma) Pat Roberts (Kansas) Jeff Sessions (Alabama) Susan M. Collins (Maine) John Ensign (Nevada) James M. Talent (Missouri) Saxby Chambliss (Georgia) Lindsey O. Graham (South Carolina) Elizabeth Dole (North Carolina) John Cornyn (Texas) John Thune (South Dakota)
DEMOCRATS
Carl Levin (Michigan) Ranking Member
Edward M. Kennedy (Massachusetts) Robert C. Byrd (West Virginia) Joseph I. Lieberman (Connecticut) Jack Reed (Rhode Island) Daniel K. Akaka (Hawaii) Bill Nelson (Florida) E. Benjamin Nelson (Nebraska) Mark Dayton (Minnesota) Evan Bayh (Indiana) Hillary Rodham Clinton (New York)
I think Larry Craig has the weird butt..he even has a wide stance! nm
x
This post really makes me WANT to vote for Obama. I am undecided, but this pushes me closer to Obama
...Thanks for the info!
Obama was cool, while grouchy man steamed. Obama!!!
I'm so happy. The dippy people on here who are haters and racists and mccain lovers must be so po'd today. HAHAHAHAHAHA
If Obama gets elected, then it was meant to be! Go, Obama!
nm
Go Obama/Biden! I don't like it and will VOTE OBAMA/BIDEN!
Obama has shown great judgment in the people who surround him. He picked a great VP choice, and his wife is impeccable as a helpmate and is a fantastic role model for the American children.
Obama
I believe Obama has an awesome political future. He sure is a bright light, and he would be someone I would seriously consider voting for.
Someone I like even better is Rep. Harold Ford from Tennessee. Every time I hear this man speak, I like him more and more and more.
I think there are lots of good candidates out there who don't fit the profiles you outlined, which I also believe to be true, and I think we're well overdue in considering those candidates because, in my opinion, what we've been offered in the last several elections -- on BOTH sides -- has been pretty pitiful. The "box" isn't working, and it's time to look outside of it.
Obama is the man!!!
I think he will make an excellent president some day. Maybe Hillary/Obama would be a good ticket choice.
obama
FYI - he never attended a midrasha. This was later corrected.
Obama 08...nm
Obama et. al.
If we get Obama or any of the other candidates we will get more of the same. War and taxes. Empire building. If you like that kind of stuff, vote for any of the candidates EXCEPT.......... RON PAUL. The only candidate for peace, limited government and minding our own business. 
Obama
As I posted on the other board, it is crazy that in one breath people are freaking out saying he is a Muslim, and in the next one, they are freaking out because of his stand on abortion. Being pro-choice really does not go with being a Muslim.
I like Obama, and I like his stance on choice. I really could care less if he is a Muslim. But, he belongs to a Christian church and has for over 20 years, before he had a political career.
People never cease to amaze me!
Obama
My husband just returned from Iraq, we support the war-- but if I had to vote democrat, definitely Obama, please!! But I vote republican, hee hee.
Go Obama!
What a great victory for Obama!
Did anyone see the Kennedy’s endorsement for Obama and his speech this morning? I have never been more excited and inspired in politics. In my life I’ve voted both sides (usually not voting for a candidate but rather voting for the other side as a vote against a candidate). I usually tune out in politics because of outright lies. Barack is the first candidate that I finally understand what he stands for, what his plans are, and he is someone who can connect with everyone in every walk of life. He is a trustworthy, inspiring, and humble person and his voting record and other aspects of his government life give me the confidence that he would be a great president. Listening to his speeches gives me hope for a better country/future for everyone.
I respect everyone’s choice for who they think would be a better president, but I’m sick to death of Clinton and what she stands for. All you have to do is read up on the history of her and what she did when she resided in Oakland California (who her mentors/ colleagues were and what her motives/plans are). She claims to have all this “experience” but doesn’t have it. She takes what her husband accomplished and if it was something good she claims credit to it and if it was bad she had nothing to do with it. Meanwhile her husband is so consumed/greedy (not sure which word best suits him – maybe consumed with greed) to get back into the white house that he is purposely destroying the opponents (even Ted Kennedy had to call and admonish him), but that is the Clinton legacy, destroying other people’s lives. Then when someone does call him on something he will point his finger at them in a threatening way and plays the victim role. It makes me ill just thinking of having someone as corrupt as both of them back in the white house.
If Bill was such a great president they should bring up all the great things that happened under his presidency, but we are not hearing any of it, why? Because there is none. In my opinion he was one of the worst presidents in history. Not one thing he did was for the good of the country. And if anyone believes that she was such a “good wife” while he was out messing around with other women think again. She had her mind set on being president a long time ago. She just uses him to get what she wants. Everything she does has always been calculated.
As for his presidency, I think people are forgetting….he lied under oath and he was impeached for it. Which brings me to another question…why does anyone believe anything he has to say now? Remember the phrase “that all depends on what the meaning of is, is”. Then there was Waco Texas – people were burned alive. But they called them members of a cult, so I guess that made it okay. Then let’s see…Somalia, Bosnia, Monica (and no it wasn’t just about having an affair with her or all the other women), receiving illegal contributions, Vince Foster, and the list goes on and on and on.
An article I just read said it better than I can….
“The problem for Hillary Clinton is that, as usual, she wants it both ways. She wants to be judged on her own merits and not be treated as Bill's Mini-Me. But she also wants to reap the benefits of Bill's popularity, and offers voters the reassuring suggestion that if there's a crisis while she's in the White House, there will be someone around who really does have executive branch experience - namely, Bill - to lend a hand. But the Clintons are playing a dangerous game. The more they remind us of what we liked about Act I of the Bill and Hillary Show, the more they also remind us of what we hated.
If you are interested in reading the whole article this is the link…
http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/op_ed/hc-brooks0128.artjan28,0,7018385.story
Obama
He would be better than the one that has been there for 8 years. No matter who is elected, it will take a long time to fix what Bush as screwed up!
<3 Obama too!!
:)
Obama
If she keeps lying from today until November she might actually catch up with Obama!
Go Obama
Haven't seen any posts here for awhile. Very excited about the outcome of tonight's election. I am so glad to see that people are not buying the "gimmicks" Hillary proposed. Gas tax holiday?...give me a break! Someone needed to ask her, "So what happens when the holiday is over", you charge back up the gas price!
The big joke is that Bill Clinton raised the gas tax in his first year in office. It was included in a package of tax increases that amounted to the biggest tax increase in history. It was raised by 4.3 cents. Not only did he raise the gas tax, but he wanted to raise it even higher.
So you should all get this straight...Hillary is "claiming" she would give drivers 3 whole months (wow - imagine that) 18 cent a gallon cut after her husband forced drivers to pay an extra 5 cents for 15 years.
Unfortunately there were some people who bought into her pandering (which by the way is another word for lying), but thank goodness enough people with an education and most important most of the with common sense could see right through her lies.
Way to go North Carolina - I'm so pleased. And Indiana too. It was a close race thank goodness.
Now she needs to step down. Why? Because its the right thing to do. Do the numbers. There is no way she can win and anyone who believes so needs to wake up. What we need is for her to support Barack Obama (that is if she's telling the truth about the most important thing is nominating a democrat for president). Somehow though I do not believe she has the best interest of the party or the american people in mind. Her goal is to serve herself. She needs to graciously bow out and put all her efforts into getting a democrat in the office.
P.S. - Note to the "ditto heads". Maybe we should rename Limbaugh followers "dumbo heads". Not only did your little plan fail Mr. Limbo, but it failed badly. In a poll taken (and yes I know polls can be misleading), but not only did the republicans change parties to vote for a democrat but the majority of them voted for Obama. Then on top of that over 75% of republicans that voted as democrats said that Obama could be McCain (or as I am hearing him being referred to as McBush), but only around 25% said they believed Hillary could win. So not only does Hillary need to do the math, so does Mr. Limbo.
Obama
Is Barack Hussein Obama the Antichrist?
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=94d_1202965504
I am for Obama because...
My point in fact is agreeing with the republicans in that Obama does not have a lot of experience - I think not having a lot of experience is a good thing because it means he is not "hand-in-hand" with all the people that have been in charge for so long - he can form his own opinions, make his own decisions, and not go with somebody just because they did this or that for somebody or they contributed this or that to somebody...
No, Obama gets it better than many do
Check out this award-winning article written by Fareed Zakaria, a foreign policy expert, right after 9/11 called "Why They Hate Us" - http://www.fareedzakaria.com/ARTICLES/newsweek/101501_why.html
Most people at that time (myself included) said that question was irrelavant, but understanding why they some have those attitudes helps us understand better what the U.S. can do to help change it. The fringe extremists will never go away, but their support by the general Muslim community as a whole will diminish (and already is). Free markets and capitalism would go a long way toward this goal and I think Obama gets that.
obama wants to be GOD
He wants to change the structure of the U.S. and he wants to bargain with and change the structure of Europe.. He is a destroyer.
obama
Muslims are dedicated to destroying the US from within. Obama is Muslim.
Obama..........
I think the pictures speak for themselves....although there will be plenty of Obama lovers who will sing his praises and find excuse after excuse why the flat is no longer on the plane. He could have just as easily left the flag and put his little slogan on there with it, but chose to remove the flag altogether. Speaks volumes!!!!
Obama is Muslim, will always be Muslim, and it is very disturbing to me that anyone would want a Muslim president. No Muslims have ever spoken out about 9/11 which also speaks volumes!! He has learned his Muslim faith from a young child, and the little boys are taught to hate the US and anyone who isn't them...he is no different. There are too may who sing his praises but refuse to state the obvious. Just because they hate republicans sure doesn't mean you put the fox in charge of the hen house. At no time during his speeches have I ever heard him speak of his love for the United States. He just repeats over and over where he came from, who raised him, and what their faiths were, and folks better open their ears and listen up.
No candidate for President of this country would so boldy make a point of getting rid of the very thing that is such a strong symbol of this country. Try doing that in another country and you will be hauled off to jail....the end!!
And, I don't want to hear about this is a free country and he can do what he wants. The whole point of this "free" country is to support the US and our beliefs, not Muslim beliefs which are definitely that of hate. A lot of feathers will be ruffled with this comment, but I really don't care to sugar coat the facts just because some hate republicans or other parties to the point they will accept anything in the white house....a wolf in sheep's clothing, and there will be MANY because of their hatred for the other candidate, who will be sucked into his beliefs as well.
Obama
You know, there is not a nickel's worth of difference between any of them. They all have ghosts in their closets. They just hope we do not find out about them. Bush Sr. had a girlfriend while he was in service. Eisenhower did, LBJ was a womanizer. Jimmy Carter is a good human, still working for Habitat and the poor people. Bush Jr. used cocaine while he was at Camp David about 10 years or so ago. Not that long ago. Let's not forget John Edwards. Like I said there are no clean cut guys or ladies. We do not know that much about OBama yet. I have my doubts about him. He came out of nowhere, too strong and the younger population fell for whatever he has said.
EVERYTHING YOU SAY ABOUT HER CAN BE SAID ABOUT OBAMA!
I can see your problem with McCain but every bash you make about her is the same about Obama. No experience for either of them, at least she's got EXECUTIVE experience. Tell me, what kind of foreign policy knowledge does Obama have again? Oh wait, that's why he chose Biden as his running mate. No matter what you people say, I believe it was a good choice, because she represents something new and exciting, just like Obama himself!
Obama
It is interesting that she would use his whole name..kind of makes you wonder..I noticed that she does NOT use the whole names of the other candidates but several times I have seen postings on this board..so what if he has a middle name that is Arabic..
Obama
He's just a talking head, somebody's puppet, aint nothing without his teleprompter and written speeches...gimme a break!
Right, Obama has run nothing!
nm
|
