Obama General Discussion... (Part 2)

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Many of the people that voted for Dingell, the longest serving member in the House with a lot of power and seniority, who enjoys support from the NRA and many in big business

probably did not vote for or like Obama and his policies, they believe he wants to take their guns away and is not friendly to big business.

It is not a stretch at all that one could be pro Dingell and anti Obama.
 
I now expect all of you to assume that it very well might be a Democrat in disguise whenever you see someone holding an offensive anti-Obama poster, and to not assume it's a conservative until you have been given proven, undeniable evidence.

Well before we do that we're gonna need more evidence than the typical "My best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with a girl who saw a black dude hold up an Adolf Obama sign and then he later passed out some Dingell pamphlets.

It's pretty serious."
 
My point is that it is now known that there are Obama supporters out there posing as conservatives to make them look bad. And the media will film them and run with it, and say "Hey, look at the conservatives comparing Obama to Hitler."

wow,

are you suggesting Sarah Palin is a plant?
 
I'm not getting your point. Aren't you trying to have it both ways? Think about how you feel about all these protesters you're seeing on TV. Now, do you feel that exact same way- if not worse- about the people in that article? If not, that's unfair.
.

Dude, I'm not trying to have it any way at all!

I just wanted to be clear as to whether you agree or disagree with the protesters.

(I can tell you I disagreed witht leftwing loonies who believed, say, that Bush masterminded 9/11 so he could attack Iraq. I happened to agree with them that he was a bad president, but I'd in now way take it as far as they did).
 
Her?

I literally laughed out loud at work when I came across this. I love it so much:
cantbe4.jpg
 
Anybody remember the media making a big deal of these 2002 protests, or implying that they represent the whole Democratic Party? I didn't think so...

Analysis: Press Largely Ignored Incendiary Rhetoric at Bush Protest - Political News - FOXNews.com


When Bush visited Portland, Ore., for a fundraiser, protesters stalked his motorcade, assailed his limousine and stoned a car containing his advisers. Chanting "Bush is a terrorist!",

A fourth declared: "CHRISTIAN FASCISM," with a swastika in place of the letter S in each word.

"BUSH: BASTARD CHILD OF THE SUPREME COURT." One sign read: "IMPEACH THE COURT-APPOINTED JUNTA AND THE FASCIST, EGOMANIACAL, BLOOD-SWILLING BEAST!"

Well, that's not very civil at all, now, is it? :tsk:


So, where are these extreme statements you keep banging on about? :hmm:

But in any case, your entire argument is so incredibly weak. You're basically saying that Republicans shouldn't trouble to hold back from calling Obama a Nazi cause the other side did it to Bush. So your standard of behaviour is actually guided by the left wing of the Democratic party, people that you hate.

In other news, Bush applauded at UN for 'not killing as many as Hitler...'
 
Many of the people that voted for Dingell, the longest serving member in the House with a lot of power and seniority, who enjoys support from the NRA and many in big business

probably did not vote for or like Obama and his policies, they believe he wants to take their guns away and is not friendly to big business.

It is not a stretch at all that one could be pro Dingell and anti Obama.

Dingell was my representative when I lived in Michigan. He has so much seniority that voting for him is now an afterthought, and he hasn't faced anything more than token opposition for at least as long as I've been alive (and there have been a few elections where he didn't face any opponent at all). I don't think you can really draw any kind of meaningful statistics about the attitudes of those who voted for Dingell and their attitudes toward Obama.
 
Is it unreasonable to suggest that someone could be a supporter of Dingell and avid opponent of Obama?

If you're looking for a broader trend, I don't think you can draw that conclusion. Dingell's district also generally votes overwhelmingly Democratic in presidential elections--including the one in 2008.
 
I am not looking for a broader trend at all.

Only at the couple in question, they showed up with anti-Obama signs.

1. they don't support the President or want him to succeed.

2. then after the rally they passed out pro Dingell literature.

like many in the area they may have a long term history with overall favorable view of the pork he is able to bring home. :shrug:
 
I am not looking for a broader trend at all.

Only the couple in question, they showed up with anti-Obama signs.

1. they don't support the President or want him to succeed.

2. then after the rally they passed out pro Dingell literature.

like many in the area they may have a long term history with overall favorable view of the pork he is able to bring home. :shrug:

Well, I think that one observation can be made about heavily pro-union regions. They can be incredibly socially conservative, so I do think that there is a minority that could be pro-Dingell and anti-Obama. I also think it's quite feasible to have voted for both and to still be against substantive change of any kind.
 
You seem to be overlooking the fact that we were all told, including Bill Clinton and Mickey Mouse, that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and was ready to annihilate the western world. They swore to this fact up and down, claiming that they had visual proof and that they knew in which area these weapons of mass destruction were being held.

The truth, and it still is the truth 6 years later, is that these weapons never existed. That part, that monumental part, the reason why we were told we needed to send over our troops was the biggest lie of this century. We had no reason to go into Iraq. Bush's administration promised to hunt down those responsible for 9/11. Where is he? Where is Osama bin Laden? Saddam Hussein was not responsible for 9/11. I'm sure he wasn't crushed about it.
He was an asshole. But the world is filled with assholes.

Say what you will about GDP and deficits and profits, but this is the defining part of Bush's legacy. No one remembers Lincoln for... I don't know, animal welfare.

If you look at UN Security Council Resolution 1441, the primary document that authorized the invasion of Iraq, it states that Saddam was not in compliance with his obligations to the international community in verifiably disarming of all Weapons Of Mass Destruction. It also said recalling resolution 678, that members states were authorized use all means necessary to enforce the resolutions.

There is not a single official who stated that the reason the coalition went into Iraq was because "Saddam was ready to annihilate the western world". But please, if those exact words exist somewhere, and were spoken by Bush or his cabinet, dig them up.

The intelligence strongly indicated that Saddam still had banned weapons, and was even manufacturing new ones. That is what the intelligence community said, not just the Bush administration.

But the ultimate issue is Saddam's failure to comply with the resolutions, and verifiably disarm of all WMD. Saddam NEVER verifiably disarmed of all WMD. To this day, UN inspectors know of thousands of WMD stocks that are unaccounted for.

In addition, WMD related productions facilities were found, that were in violation of UN Security Council resolutions after Saddam was removed!

No one will ever know for sure what Saddam did or did not have in the winter of 2003 in terms of actual WMD weapons since such weapons can easily be dismantled and hidden. The volume that several thousands of stocks of WMD would occupy is no bigger than a two car garage. But the main point again is Saddam's compliance and cooperation with the UN, that and that alone justified the invasion.




The truth, and it still is the truth 6 years later, is that these weapons never existed.

According to the UN weapons inspectors that is FALSE. Saddam manufactered thousands of stocks of various types of WMD during the 24 years that he was in power, and used WMD more times against foreign countries and on his own people than any leader since World War I. Today, there are still thousands of unaccounted for stocks of WMD based on UN records. Some claim these stocks were dismantled in the desert many years ago, others think they were hidden, but what factually happen to them and where and in what state or condition they are today is unknown.

That part, that monumental part, the reason why we were told we needed to send over our troops was the biggest lie of this century. We had no reason to go into Iraq.

I got news for ya, there have been US and coalition troops near and sometimes in Iraq since 1991! The United States has bombed Iraq nearly every year since 1991, and years before Bush ever entered office!

He was an asshole. But the world is filled with assholes.

Can you name another leader besides Saddam in modern times that has launched 4 different invasions and unprovoked attacks on 4 different countries, threatened the planets main energy supplies with siezure and sabotoge, officially annexed one of his neighboring countries, used WMD more times than any leader since World War I, murdered through his wars and rule of Iraq nearly 1.7 million people, continue to remain in direct defiance of 17 UN Security Council Resolutions passed under chapter VII rules of the United Nations, while keeping a military of half a million troops, thousands of tanks and armored personal carries, thousands of Artillery pieces, hundreds of combat aircraft and potentially thousands of stocks of WMD, plus short range Ballistic Missiles?


Here is what Bill Clinton had to say about the threat Saddam posed in December 1998:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENAV_UoIfgc



The hard fact is, that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat, once and for all, is with a new Iraqi government. A government ready to live in peace with its neighbors. A government that respects the rights of its people.

Bill Clinton December 16, 1998



As time goes by, the number of people willing to defend Saddam will continue to decline, and the number of people who will acknowledge that Bush did the right thing will continue to rise.
 
yes

oh yeah Iraq is a reeeal threat to the US. what, did it take us all of like 4 months to beat them in the Gulf War? we lost like 100 troops, they lost something around 50,000.



no, but we didnt go into Iraq in '03 because they invaded Kuwait did we?

The threat is not defined by lopsided casualty levels of a particular military action, but the potential ability of Saddams regime to threaten his neighboring countries who have energy supplies that is vital to the global economy.

The coaltion went into Iraq in 03 because of Saddam's failure to comply with UN security Council resolutions placed on Iraq as a RESULT of his invasion of Kuwait as well as violating the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire Agreement.
 
Now that's just silly. What's to stop us from invading Russia because there's some report out there that says Putin wants to destroy Michigan? Better to be safe than sorry!
We were all well aware of what happened on that Tuesday. Some of us kept it in mind so much that we weren't willing to sacrifice more American lives in a fruitless search that would further drive a wedge between us and the Middle East.

Putin's Russia does not have, and is not violating any UN Security Council resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules of the UN requiring him to verifiably disarm of all WMD as a result of an unprovoked invasion that threatened the planets energy supply.

There is much more cooperation today between the United States and people in the Middle East than there was before the Coalition invaded Iraq.
 
None of this, I mean none of this is reason for war. What happened in NY had nothing to do with Iraq, do you still think it does? You don't invade based on "better safe than sorry", or these people will be happy...

Well, the United Nations did not think so, which is why it passed strict resolutions against Saddam, after his unprovoked invasion of Kuwait, requiring that he verifiably disarm of all WMD or face military action to enforce that requirment.
 
He didn't say that. He, and Rumsfeld, and Condi, and yes, even Powell got on our televisions and said that these WMDs were an imminent threat. This was not the truth.

Not the truth. Not the truth. Not the truth. Not the truth. Not the truth. Repeat that over and over please.

The truth is that Saddam failed to verifiably disarm of all WMD as required by the UN resolutions, and that alone, made military action a necessity. Intelligence was wrong about Saddam's WMD capability in 1991 as well, he actually had more then than we thought, this time the investigations after the invasion failed to turn up banned WMD. But that does not mean such stocks did not exist, or could not later be manufactured.

Because of Saddam's behavior and failure to comply, the only reliable way to insure that Saddam would not have banned weapons now or in the future was to remove him from power. The United States and the international community tried multiple other means of of insuring that Saddam was verifiably disarmed for 12 years after the first Gulf War and they all failed. The only thing that succeeded finally was the invasion and removal of Saddam's regime.
 
Well, the United Nations did not think so, which is why it passed strict resolutions against Saddam, after his unprovoked invasion of Kuwait, requiring that he verifiably disarm of all WMD or face military action to enforce that requirment.

It's funny how this had absolutely ZERO to do with my post and the context for which it was made, but any reason to mention the resolutions :lol:
 
By BEN EVANS, Associated Press Writer Tue Aug 11, 4:45 pm ET

WASHINGTON – A swastika was found Tuesday painted on a sign outside Rep. David Scott's district office, an act the Georgia Democrat said reflects an increasingly hateful and racist debate over health care and should serve as a reminder for people to tone down their rhetoric.

Scott's staff arrived at his Smyrna, Ga., office Tuesday morning to find the Nazi graffiti emblazoned on a sign bearing the lawmaker's name. The vandalism occurred roughly a week after Scott was involved in a contentious argument over health care at a community meeting.

Scott, who is black, said he also has received mail in recent days that used N-word references to him, and that characterized President Barack Obama as a Marxist.

"We have got to make sure that the symbol of the swastika does not win, that the racial hatred that's bubbling up does not win this debate," Scott said in a telephone interview. "There's so much hatred out there for President (Barack) Obama."

A moderate Democrat who represents a majority-white district near Atlanta, Scott said he thinks the racism is isolated but can't be ignored. He said the swastika probably was intended as a warning. He hopes it instead persuades reasonable people to maintain a more substantive debate over health care changes.

"We must not allow it to intimidate us," he said.

Scott said his office immediately notified authorities, including the U.S. Capitol Police, who have warned lawmakers about potential threats stemming from the increasingly emotional debate over health care reform. An FBI spokesman said the bureau is investigating along with Capitol Police and the Smyrna Police Department.

Scott's Smyrna office is located in a bank building, so the congressman said he was optimistic that surveillance cameras captured the vandalism.

At an Aug. 1 community meeting in Douglasville, Ga., Scott angrily yelled at protesters who peppered him with questions and complaints about Democratic health care proposals. He has said he was upset that they interrupted a meeting that was supposed to be about plans for a new highway in the area.
 
It's funny how this had absolutely ZERO to do with my post and the context for which it was made, but any reason to mention the resolutions :lol:

Just don't engage with it. If we don't engage with it hopefully the spambot will go away and find another forum to spam.
 
I'm going to address like three points because I really don't have the time or the "facts" sitting in a file ready to be copied and pasted.

Putin's Russia does not have, and is not violating any UN Security Council resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules of the UN requiring him to verifiably disarm of all WMD as a result of an unprovoked invasion that threatened the planets energy supply.

Way to miss my point completely.

There is much more cooperation today between the United States and people in the Middle East than there was before the Coalition invaded Iraq.

Maybe on a governmental level, since we've put in two leaders to our liking, but with the people... not so much. Not to say they hate us for our freedoms, but they don't want us there. We've created more problems than there originally were. Probably because of the leaders we put in that were to our liking.

Can you name another leader besides Saddam in modern times that has launched 4 different invasions and unprovoked attacks on 4 different countries, threatened the planets main energy supplies with siezure and sabotoge, officially annexed one of his neighboring countries, used WMD more times than any leader since World War I, murdered through his wars and rule of Iraq nearly 1.7 million people, continue to remain in direct defiance of 17 UN Security Council Resolutions passed under chapter VII rules of the United Nations, while keeping a military of half a million troops, thousands of tanks and armored personal carries, thousands of Artillery pieces, hundreds of combat aircraft and potentially thousands of stocks of WMD, plus short range Ballistic Missiles?

No cause that's incredibly specific to Saddam. :huh: I can name you an Asian type leader of a small island in the pacific who has a lil' nickname and tested some short range missiles over some ocean on or around the July 4th holiday. Said individual is communist and really doesn't like the Japanese either. :shh:

Can you name me any other individuals who fit this description PRECISELY besides the Lil' Kim of North Korea?????

BTW, I love how you snuck the "potential" in there. Nice touch.
 
I'm going to address like three points because I really don't have the time or the "facts" sitting in a file ready to be copied and pasted.



Way to miss my point completely.



Maybe on a governmental level, since we've put in two leaders to our liking, but with the people... not so much. Not to say they hate us for our freedoms, but they don't want us there. We've created more problems than there originally were. Probably because of the leaders we put in that were to our liking.



No cause that's incredibly specific to Saddam. :huh: I can name you an Asian type leader of a small island in the pacific who has a lil' nickname and tested some short range missiles over some ocean on or around the July 4th holiday. Said individual is communist and really doesn't like the Japanese either. :shh:

Can you name me any other individuals who fit this description PRECISELY besides the Lil' Kim of North Korea?????

BTW, I love how you snuck the "potential" in there. Nice touch.

Tiger's Edge you have no idea what you're doing! Just ignore him. Trust me on this. . .it's a losing battle.
 
So I guess the spambot comment was in earnest. :lol:

It's okay, I spent a total of three minutes typing up a response. I'll make those minutes up somehow.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom