You just proved my point. Still nothing positive to say about Obama.

• so many attack - no real reason AND no positive info on Obama - Kaydie
  • Very well said. I agree. You and Sam bring a breath of fresh air to this board. sm - MT and worn out
    • Thanks, MT....I am glad if I have helped you in any way.... - sam
  • Thanks, kaydie. Good post. nm - sam
    • Thx - the attacks are really getting out of hand - Kaydie
      • So is all the one-way republican B.S. - !
        • You just proved my point. Still nothing positive to say about Obama. - Kaydie
          • "There you go." A Reagan-esque pearl of wisdom. - Try saying something original.
            • Thank you. - Kaydie
              • No that was original. - nm
                • What are you talking about?? - Kaydie
                  • Okay. On his worst day, Obama is 10 times the - leader McCain ever was on his best day. -sm
                    • Obama is a smooth talker, not a leader. - with many questionable associations.nm
                    • Don't agree. His economic plan will... - sam
                      • Wanna' buy the Oakland-Bay Bridge? I'll sell it - cheap, they're gettin' ready to dismantle it
                      • I agree with you too - okay I'm soooooo confused - Kaydie
                        • I understand your confusion. I would suggest that you look at both candidates.... - sam
                          • Thanks - Kaydie
                            • Yep. there are two sides to every story.... - sam
                    • I respect your opinion - see inside - Kaydie
                      • He plans to give the middle class (that would be US) - a break when it comes to taxes. - sm
                        • Tell me, where is Obama going to get the money for - all his programs. TAXES. He has no answers.nm
                          • Yes, he is going to send "checks" to people who - pay no taxes. will even worsen the economy.nm
                            • And so how exactly does McCain plan to fix - the economy? I suppose there IS a way:
                        • I respect you even more - your the first.... - Kaydie
                          • More about taxes... - (sm)
                  • Just ignore them, and hopefully they will go away...sm - ms
                    • I TRIED ignoring them, but my taxes won't go away! - :(

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

While I don't agree with your opinion 100 percent at least you can talk to us without making anything we say personal, A.W. and Carla cannot.

I'll agree that some had a visceral hatred of Clinton.  I never did personally.  I didn't vote for him, did not think he was a good president, but I didn't walk around everyday blaming everything bad in my life on him either.  I disliked by his personal example that he lowered the morality level in our country several notches, and yes, I do think that he should have been thrown out of office for #1) having sexual favors performed just outside the oval office by someone other than his wife, and #2) then looking in the face of every American and lying about it (#2 being the damning impeachable offense).

At this point I haven't seen proof that Bush has done anything impeachable.  I think Bush has done some good things while in office and has also done some things I don't agree with.  However, if I support the president in any way then I'm accused of bowing down and worshipping at his feet by A.W. and Carla, and let's not forget the late-to-this-board gt.  Their reactions are way beyond the rational although it is understandable why Carla may have these strong feelings given what she's gone through this year.  I think she may be misdirecting some of her anger though.

You're reaching out to a person whose views you respect and are looking for an intelligent, adult conversation to take place.  About 95% on this board are more comfortable playing the playground bully and calling names.  Unfortunately, there's just no value to be found in their form of communication.

Now you and I have given them the "gift" of having two more people to attack on this board.  Anyone else want to be bullied and treated badly?  Just say something even remotely nice to JTBB, and you'll be ready for the he!l they inhabit now.  It's really sad that such "Americanism" exists out there.

The more McCain/Palin's ratings are going up, the more the democrats are panicking, and the attacks about Palin are becoming more vicious - AND nobody is posting anything positive about Obama, like "I'm really excited about his health care plan or his energy plan or his housing fix plan or 100 other reasons we should be voting for someone.  No, nothing positive about him...AND I'm not even hearing anything negative against McCain's plan.  It's just vicious rumors, lies, and conjectures about Sarah Palin.  Let's see.  I've heard she hunts, she's for killing innocent soldiers and civilians in Iraq, she has a tanning bed, her daughter's pregnant, she didn't answer questions the way you would answer them (which in all fairness to her the interview was a bait & trap situation - especially when half the country was asking "what part is he asking her about?").  So for all those who say she didn't get it, neither did half the country (but those must be the people who cling to their guns and religion).  Let's see...what else.  She's selling her baby on e-bay, the father of her daughter's baby is skum, she believes in God, etc, etc.  Oh yes, the best one was someone didn't like her because she is pretty and was in a beauty pagent (although I can't decide whether that is the best or that someone believes she was selling her baby on e-bay).  Yet you refuse to list any of her good qualities like she cut out pork spending, she balanced the budget, she stands up to the big guy, she gave refunds to all Alaskan citizens who paid too much in money to the oil executives, she's smart about energy and she's for drilling here in the states (which will cut our gas and oil prices in half), and the numerous other good things she has done.  I've heard she's not experienced (but you won't admit that neither is Obama). Then of course when someone posts something positive about her you jump down their backs and are just really nasty.  And then what kind of comments do I hear about McCain?  He doesn't use the computer (someone was actually complaining about him not sending out emails himself on September 11th), and someone else was making fun of him because he doesn't comb his hair.  I hear that and think that there are people who have small minds.  He can't do either because he was beaten without mercy and he can't lift his arms up to do these activities (and you have the audacity to make fun of him for that?)  But you know what?  At least he can still put his hand over his heart when the pledge of allegience is being said and the national anthem is being played. 

You know, if your going to say something negative about someone at least have a comeback with something negative that is halfway intelligent and counter it with something positive from the candidate you support.

And for petes sake, use John McCain's real name, not the phony acronyms you like to use.  He was in a POW camp for five years beaten til near death every day.  He's earned the respect to at least call him by his real name.  Whether or not you hate him so much, he is not Bush and he is not more of the same.  His policies and voting record proves differently.  You can't say he voted the same as Bush because Bush doesn't vote.  Anything that's been voted on that you want to blame Bush for you need to take a look at the democrat congress.  Their the ones voting, and its the democrats who have stopped the impeachment hearing for Bush.  Why????  McCain's policies, health care plan, his reform plan, his economy plan, and everything else about what he will do when he becomes president is different than what Bush has done.  Bush is Bush, McCain is McCain.  If anyone is to be compared to Bush it would be Obama because the people who are directing Bush are also the same group that is directing Obama.

So, can we please be civilized adults, and come up with hard facts before accusing one candidate of something that is obviously false.  Stick to issues and no rumors.

By Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, November 30, 2008; A01

Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, went unarmed into his first meeting with the new commander in chief -- no aides, no PowerPoint presentation, no briefing books. Summoned nine days ago to President-elect Barack Obama's Chicago transition office, Mullen showed up with just a pad, a pen and a desire to take the measure of his incoming boss.

There was little talk of exiting Iraq or beefing up the U.S. force in Afghanistan; the one-on-one, 45-minute conversation ranged from the personal to the philosophical. Mullen came away with what he wanted: a view of the next president as a non-ideological pragmatist who was willing to both listen and lead. After the meeting, the chairman "felt very good, very positive," according to Mullen spokesman Capt. John Kirby.

As Obama prepares to announce his national security team tomorrow, he faces a military that has long mistrusted Democrats and is particularly wary of a young, intellectual leader with no experience in uniform, who once called Iraq a "dumb" war. Military leaders have all heard his pledge to withdraw most combat forces from Iraq within 16 months -- sooner than commanders on the ground have recommended -- and his implied criticism of the Afghanistan war effort during the Bush administration.

But so far, Obama appears to be going out of his way to reassure them that he will do nothing rash and will seek their advice, even while making clear that he may not always take it. He has demonstrated an ability to speak the lingo, talk about "mission plans" and "tasking," and to differentiate between strategy and tactics, a distinction Republican nominee John McCain accused him of misunderstanding during the campaign.

Obama has been careful to separate his criticism of Bush policy from his praise of the military's valor and performance, while Michelle Obama's public expressions of concern for military families have gone over well. But most important, according to several senior officers and civilian Pentagon officials who would speak about their incoming leader only on the condition of anonymity, is the expectation of renewed respect for the chain of command and greater realism about U.S. military goals and capabilities, which many found lacking during the Bush years.

"Open and serious debate versus ideological certitude will be a great relief to the military leaders," said retired Maj. Gen. William L. Nash of the Council on Foreign Relations. Senior officers are aware that few in their ranks voiced misgivings over the Iraq war, but they counter that they were not encouraged to do so by the Bush White House or the Pentagon under Donald H. Rumsfeld.

"The joke was that when you leave a meeting, everybody is supposed to drink the Kool-Aid," Nash said. "In the Bush administration, you had to drink the Kool-Aid before you got to go to the meeting."

Obama's expected retention of Robert M. Gates as defense secretary and expected appointment of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as secretary of state and retired Marine Gen. James L. Jones as national security adviser have been greeted with relief at the Pentagon.

Clinton is respected at the Pentagon and is considered a defense moderate, at times bordering on hawkish. Through her membership on the Senate Armed Services Committee -- sought early in her congressional career to add gravitas to her presidential aspirations -- she has developed close ties with senior military figures.

Some in the military are suspicious of "flagpole" officers such as Jones, whose assignments included Supreme Allied Commander at NATO, Marine commandant and other headquarters service, and who grew up in France and is a graduate of Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service. But Jones also saw combat in Vietnam and served in Bosnia.

"His reputation is pretty good," one Pentagon official said. "He's savvy about Washington, worked the Hill," and at a lean 6-foot-4, the former Georgetown basketball player "looks great in a suit."

Although Jones occasionally and privately briefed candidate Obama on foreign policy matters -- on Afghanistan, in particular, as did current deputy NATO commander Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry -- he is not considered an intimate of the president-elect.

But as Obama's closest national security adviser, or at least the one who will spend the most time with him, Jones is expected to follow the pattern of two military predecessors in the job, Brent Scowcroft and Colin L. Powell, who injected order and discipline to a National Security Council full of strong personalities with independent power bases.

Although exit polls did not break out active-duty voters, it is virtually certain that McCain won the military vote.

In an October survey by the Military Times, nearly 70 percent of more than 4,000 officers and enlisted respondents said they favored McCain, while about 23 percent preferred Obama. Only African American service members gave Obama a majority.

In exit polls, those who said they had "ever served in the U.S. military" made up 15 percent of voters and broke 54 percent for McCain to 44 percent for Obama. "As a culture, we are more conservative and Republican," a senior officer said.

Obama has said he will meet with the chairman of the Joint Chiefs as well as the service chiefs during his first week in office. At the top of his agenda for that meeting will be what he has called the military's "new mission" of planning the 16-month withdrawal timeline for Iraq. Senior officers have publicly grumbled about the risk involved.

"Moving forward in a measured way, tied to conditions as they continue to evolve, over time, is important," Mullen said at a media briefing four days before his Nov. 21 meeting with Obama. "I'm certainly aware of what has been said" prior to the election, he said.

The last Democratic president, Bill Clinton, clashed with the chiefs during his first sit-down with them when they opposed his campaign pledge to end the ban on gays in the military. The chiefs, some of whom held the commander in chief in thinly veiled contempt as a supposed Vietnam draft dodger, won the battle, and Clinton spent much of his two terms seen as an adversary.

But Mullen came away from the Chicago talk reassured that Obama will engage in a discussion with them, balancing risks and "asking tough questions . . . but not in a combative, finger-pointing way," one official said.

The president-elect's invitation to Mullen, whom Obama previously had met only in passing on Capitol Hill and whose first two-year term as chairman does not expire until the end of September, was seen as an attempt to establish a relationship and avoid early conflict. While some Pentagon officials believe an Iraq withdrawal order could become Obama's equivalent of the Clinton controversy over gays, several senior Defense Department sources said that Gates, Mullen and Gen. David H. Petraeus, head of the military's Central Command, are untroubled by the 16-month plan and feel it can be accomplished with a month or two of wiggle room.

These sources noted that Obama himself has said he would not be "careless" about withdrawal and would retain a "residual" force of unspecified size to fight terrorists and protect U.S. diplomats and civilians. The officer most concerned about untimely withdrawal, sources said, is the Iraq commander, Gen. Ray Odierno.

Even as the Iraq war continues, defense officials are far more worried about Afghanistan, where they see policy drift and an unfocused mission. With strategy reviews now being completed at the White House and by the chairman's office, an internal Pentagon debate is well underway over whether goals should be lowered.

Although Gen. David McKiernan, the U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, has requested four more U.S. combat brigades, some Pentagon strategists believe a smaller presence of Special Forces and trainers for Afghan forces -- and more attention to Pakistan -- is advisable.

Bush's ideological objective of a modern Afghan democracy, several officials said, is unattainable with current U.S. resources, and there is optimism that Obama will have a more realistic view.

A number of senior officers also look with favor on Obama's call for talks with Iran over Iraq and Afghanistan, separating those issues from U.S. demands over Tehran's nuclear program.

One of the biggest long-term military issues on Obama's plate will be the defense budget, currently topping 4.3 percent of gross domestic product once war expenditures are included.

Obama has said he will increase the size of the Army and the Marine Corps, finding savings in the Iraq drawdown and in new scrutiny of spending, including on contractors, weapons programs and missile defense.

"They know the money is coming down," a Pentagon official said of the uniformed services, and many welcome increased discipline.

But it's neither the military's nature nor its role to volunteer the cuts, the official said. "It's for Congress and the administration to say 'Stop it.' "

Polling analyst Jennifer Agiesta and research Editor Alice Crites contributed to this report.

For the last EIGHT LONG YEARS, all I've heard is, "It's CLINTON'S fault."  Now all I'm hearing, BEFORE THE MAN IS EVEN INAUGURATED, "It's OBAMA'S fault."

If/when Obama does something to deserve "fault," you can bet I'll be one of the first to say it.  However, the man hasn't even taken his oath of office, and all the soothsayers on this board have already judged his presidency to be a failure.

All the anti-Obama rhetoric is quickly getting old, again, BEFORE the man has even taken his oath of office.

The people have spoken, and the majority of them voted for Obama.  Please...get used to it and at least TRY to inspire some good feelings and hope instead of whining all the time.

This board has become a very toxic place to visit. 

Unless you're talking about preacher Wright?  I am beginning to wonder why that is not an issue since John Mccain is so righteous.

the middle class person's best friend!  Funny how now he wants to help us, when each time he had the opportunity to, he voted against it. 

Your point is??  Bush is the one who waged this immoral illegal wrong war, not all the democrats you have posted quotes on.  It is BUSH, the chimp boy, who waged the war and used every kind of excuse possible, flip flopping back and forth over the reasons.  Now that we know there are no WMD and we have gotten Saddam, what is the excuse for being there and not setting a time plan to leave??  Of course the reason has always been the murderous foreign policy of the US, to have its bloody hands in every country it possibly can.  They are just salivating in DC over the fact that we will have control over the Middle East and OIL.  Bush and his group are war criminals, just as bad as Saddam.

 While there were quite a few issues in this article that were noteworthy, to me at least, the main point was that the Bush/war supporters are going to have a chance to participate in the war that they love. Since we broke Iraq we have to fix it and we can't afford to and the military can't do it so, in its infinite wisdom, the administration has come up with a "Peace Corps" type scenario where professionals of all vein VOLUNTEER to go to Iraq and work, for free. This is just too good. How many of those on the conservative board do you think will volunteer to go, or their husbands, sons, relatives? And like he said, if you voted for Bush put your money where your magnet is, smack dab in the middle of the Sunni triangle.

We have and have had for a long time alternatives energy resources. You can destroy the Gulf of Mexico, Alaska and wherever else you want but in a few years we will be right back here. The oil supply is finite. Get used to it. Time to switch gears and explore the alternatives. But again, I can't wait to see who signs up for volunteer duty...next stop is Vietnam (Oh, I mean Iran, no I mean Iraq...).