Obama WILL be the next president

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

WTF are you talking about? The last 7 years have been completely republican dominated politics with minimal checks and balances, despite democratic efforts. The current administration scoffs at the notion of checks and balances and/or oversight, and now that they're on their way out the door you wanna talk about it as if it is important to you? what a fucking joke. Your camp had its turn for 6 years and only succeeded in waging an unnecessary war,

Hold up there....not unnecessary, but wrong location. More below...

ruining the economy,

Oh...i did not realize that the Republicans blew up the leading WORLD economic center with airplanes. Our bad!

destroying our reputation, disobeying the Geneva convention and international law,

won't argue much on this one...I could even add a few things we have screwed up

ignoring the plight of our fellow citizens during time of catastrophe,

huh? You mean the retards that refused to leave when a hurricane was blowing through their under sea level heaven? You can't help the stupid.

illegally invading the privacy of American citizens, increasing corporate influence in government, propagating some of the biggest and most outlandish lies to the American people, and politicizing justice! They failed to prevent 9-11, ignoring a document entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack within the United States".

Yea....you can blame your Deocrats and Slick Willy for that one pal. That asshole had a chance to take Bin Laden down YEARS ago. The entire planning of this attack was done under Democratic terms in the White Hosue and was then carried out a few months into Bush's first term.

They failed to capture the culprit after the most heinous act of terrorism in human history.

And to capture this shithead terrorist, we would have ot go to war with Pakistan. It is no great fucking secret that he is in the goddamn mountains there, but we have 2 choices....A) we sit on our thumbs and play along with us giving the illusion of doing something by mucking around in Afghanistan or B) we blow the fuck out of Pakistan if they do nto provide him within a time frame. Which would you propose? Either more war which you are agaisnt, or do nothing.

They failed to unite the American people and the world at a time when we most desperately needed it. And now.... now that it's coming to bear, now that finally we can rid ourselves of this unapologetic, fractious, divisive, corrupt, joke of an administration who trampled on the highest laws, ignored our most basic principles, and never yielded to anything remotely resembling oversight or checks and balances, you want to bring up the fucking constitution????

FUCK YOU. You deserve no such thing. We need control of the two elected branches just to bring some god damned semblance of reality, responsibility, accountability and moral fortitude to this beloved country. And if your (and my) taxes need to be raised to accomplish it, then so be it. You fucking earned it.

Despite what you believe, money is not more sacred than integrity.

Quite frankly there is more fat that could be cut from our entire bloated governing system where taxes could be lowered AND we could increase our spending on social programs. This will never happen because everyone in this country believes that money appears out of thin fucking air.

[Siji]

Wow you're a stupid sumbitch.

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

I guess if by stupid you mean stating facts, then I am a stupid motherfucker

[Aslanna]

It looks to me like you're more stating your opinions. Which may or may not be based on facts.

[Boogahz]

It looks to me like you're more stating your opinions. Which may or may not be based on facts.

OMG, just like everyone else!

[Aslanna]

It looks to me like you're more stating your opinions. Which may or may not be based on facts.

OMG, just like everyone else!

Your point being? My point being is he said he's "stating facts". Which he most certainly isn't.

[Boogahz]

It looks to me like you're more stating your opinions. Which may or may not be based on facts.

OMG, just like everyone else!

Your point being? My point being is he said he's "stating facts". Which he most certainly isn't.

I am agreeing with you!

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

Which part exactly are you debating the truthfullness of? If you have something to say then borrow someone's balls and state an opinion instead of chiming in with worthless drivel constantly.

[Funkmasterr]

Which part exactly are you debating the truthfullness of? If you have something to say then borrow someone's balls and state an opinion instead of chiming in with worthless drivel constantly.

i think youre asking a liiiiiiiiiiiitle too much there.

[Boogahz]

Which part exactly are you debating the truthfullness of? If you have something to say then borrow someone's balls and state an opinion instead of chiming in with worthless drivel constantly.

I agree with most of your post, but I can also see where much of it is opinion, as the facts point multiple directions. I am sure that none of us have access to even 30% of the "facts." So, while you could say that your post is based on facts, what facts are they? Are they the like the "fact" that Bush said there were WMD's in Iraq, when he got that intel from Clinton-era and bad Euro intel? Also, a lot of it will be based on how the changes (economy, privacy, etc.) have affected you and those around you. "Facts" about changes which you witness may not match the "facts" that anyone else sees.

I personally find it funny when people try to say that you're making shit up, when the same shit they spout as fact was made up by someone else

[Chidoro]

ruining the economy,

Oh...i did not realize that the Republicans blew up the leading WORLD economic center with airplanes. Our bad!

There's a lot more behind the economic difficulties than the WTC disaster. We would still be in the mess we are in now whether 9/11 happened or not.

[Boogahz]

ruining the economy,

Oh...i did not realize that the Republicans blew up the leading WORLD economic center with airplanes. Our bad!

There's a lot more behind the economic difficulties than the WTC disaster. We would still be in the mess we are in now whether 9/11 happened or not.

I could see the mortgage crisis coming back in 1998-99 while handling foreclosures on bad paper, which was well before 9/11.

[Daboohk]

And to capture this shithead terrorist, we would have ot go to war with Pakistan. It is no great fucking secret that he is in the goddamn mountains there, but we have 2 choices....A) we sit on our thumbs and play along with us giving the illusion of doing something by mucking around in Afghanistan or B) we blow the fuck out of Pakistan if they do nto provide him within a time frame. Which would you propose? Either more war which you are agaisnt, or do nothing.

I'm pretty certain he is speaking of the times the Bush Administration has failed to catch or kill Osama when given the opportunity. I know there was a point where CIA/Rumsfeld cockfencing fumbled an opportunity at the beginning of the war with Afghanistan. Frontline did a pretty good job of documenting the events. You can watch the special here:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/cron/

[Daboohk]

In addition to my last post, I don't see how you can reasonably lambast Bill Clinton for failing to capture Osama when Bush has done the same thing countless times. I implore you to look at FactCheck.org's analysis of Bill Clinton's claims during his interview with Wallace in '06.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2006 ... st_to.html

[Aslanna]

Which part exactly are you debating the truthfullness of? If you have something to say then borrow someone's balls and state an opinion instead of chiming in with worthless drivel constantly.

As I said.. I'm not saying they are or are not based on facts. But to say you're "stating facts" when you're obviously spouting opinions (which I have no problem with), is simply ridiculous.

But thanks for the pointers I will take it under advisement poopyhead.

[Aslanna]

Which part exactly are you debating the truthfullness of? If you have something to say then borrow someone's balls and state an opinion instead of chiming in with worthless drivel constantly.

i think youre asking a liiiiiiiiiiiitle too much there.

Ooo sick burn!

Don't you have someone you should be spitting on in the parking lot, white trash?

Haha ZING@!

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

ok...lets break it down



Statement 1) Hold up there....not unnecessary, but wrong location

True or False : Osama bin laden is in Iraq

Statement 2) Oh...i did not realize that the Republicans blew up the leading WORLD economic center with airplanes. Our bad!

True or False : One of the leading economic centers in the world was blown up with airplanes 8 months after Bush took office.

True or False : The U.S. took a major economic hit from the destruction of the world trade centers and the collapse of major financial companies that were misreporting their bottom lines (which actually took place under democrat in the WH)

Statement 3) huh? You mean the retards that refused to leave when a hurricane was blowing through their under sea level heaven? You can't help the stupid

True or False : residents of New Orleans stayed while a Category 5 hurricane was blowing into the city, which happens to be under sea level

Statement 4) Yea....you can blame your Deocrats and Slick Willy for that one pal. That asshole had a chance to take Bin Laden down YEARS ago. The entire planning of this attack was done under Democratic terms in the White Hosue and was then carried out a few months into Bush's first term.

True or False : the planning of the operations to attack the WTC was hatched and planned during the reign of Blow Job Bill

Statement 5) And to capture this shithead terrorist, we would have ot go to war with Pakistan. It is no great fucking secret that he is in the goddamn mountains there, but we have 2 choices....A) we sit on our thumbs and play along with us giving the illusion of doing something by mucking around in Afghanistan or B) we blow the fuck out of Pakistan if they do nto provide him within a time frame. Which would you propose? Either more war which you are agaisnt, or do nothing.

True or False : all intelligence reports show bin Laden is in the mountains of pakistan



I will actually concede the point that Statement 5 is purely conjecture on the part of every intelligence agency in the world, but lets see how truthfull you are on answering the other statements with a true or false.

[Aslanna]

I will actually concede the point that Statement 5 is purely conjecture on the part of every intelligence agency in the world, but lets see how truthfull you are on answering the other statements with a true or false.

Again, you're barking up the wrong tree. While I found your initial post a bit on the fanatical side I had no problem accepting it as the ravings of a lunatic so I didn't bother to respond. Basically the same reaction I have to just about any post made by Midntye. The only issue I had was with your followup post.

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

Ahhh....so you don't actually have anything to say. At least Midnyte and Funk have the balls to attach an opinion and will make statements to stand by (whether right or wrong). You have thousands of posts that I have yet to see with any content in them at all. You are basically Cartalas with more words per post.

[Funkmasterr]

And to capture this shithead terrorist, we would have ot go to war with Pakistan. It is no great fucking secret that he is in the goddamn mountains there, but we have 2 choices....A) we sit on our thumbs and play along with us giving the illusion of doing something by mucking around in Afghanistan or B) we blow the fuck out of Pakistan if they do nto provide him within a time frame. Which would you propose? Either more war which you are agaisnt, or do nothing.

I'm pretty certain he is speaking of the times the Bush Administration has failed to catch or kill Osama when given the opportunity. I know there was a point where CIA/Rumsfeld cockfencing fumbled an opportunity at the beginning of the war with Afghanistan. Frontline did a pretty good job of documenting the events. You can watch the special here:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/cron/

Don't forget that BJ billy had a golden opportunity to kill him too and decided not to.

[Funkmasterr]

Which part exactly are you debating the truthfullness of? If you have something to say then borrow someone's balls and state an opinion instead of chiming in with worthless drivel constantly.

i think youre asking a liiiiiiiiiiiitle too much there.

Ooo sick burn!

Don't you have someone you should be spitting on in the parking lot, white trash?

Haha ZING@!

call me crazy but i think ive heard that somewhere before

[Sylvus]

ok...lets break it down



Statement 1) Hold up there....not unnecessary, but wrong location

True or False : Osama bin laden is in Iraq

Osama bin laden is not in Iraq, most probably, so that probably gets a false. That would lead me to believe that yes, it's an unnecessary war in Iraq. Whether or not a different war in another location, namely Pakistan, is necessary is another conversation all together. I say we just send Dog the Bounty Hunter after him.

Statement 2) Oh...i did not realize that the Republicans blew up the leading WORLD economic center with airplanes. Our bad!

True or False : One of the leading economic centers in the world was blown up with airplanes 8 months after Bush took office.

True or False : The U.S. took a major economic hit from the destruction of the world trade centers and the collapse of major financial companies that were misreporting their bottom lines (which actually took place under democrat in the WH)

Those are somewhat true statements, but I disagree that they are the cause for the current recession that we are in/heading towards. I'll award you points for truthiness on your Statement 2, however.

Statement 3) huh? You mean the retards that refused to leave when a hurricane was blowing through their under sea level heaven? You can't help the stupid

True or False : residents of New Orleans stayed while a Category 5 hurricane was blowing into the city, which happens to be under sea level

True or False: some people didn't have an adequate means of getting out of the city, and the government did a pretty shitty job of helping people evacuate, and an even shittier job of taking care of those people who were stranded once the hurricane had already hit. I know that you'll argue that it isn't the government's job, or that it's stupid to live in New Orleans (which I don't disagree with), but a precedent has been set for our government helping out our countrymen after a natural disaster, and the current administration fucked that up worse than any other administration in recent memory.

Statement 4) Yea....you can blame your Deocrats and Slick Willy for that one pal. That asshole had a chance to take Bin Laden down YEARS ago. The entire planning of this attack was done under Democratic terms in the White Hosue and was then carried out a few months into Bush's first term.

True or False : the planning of the operations to attack the WTC was hatched and planned during the reign of Blow Job Bill

Well, the first time they attacked the WTC was planned when GHWB was president, so I wouldn't say it was brought about by any actions of Clinton. And then there was the intelligence report, probably based on information gathered while Clinton was in office, that said "hey guys, Bin Laden is about to attack" that was ignored by GWB. So yeah, blame that on a guy who enjoyed the occasional BJ while working at his desk. What do you have against blow jobs anyway???

Statement 5) And to capture this shithead terrorist, we would have ot go to war with Pakistan. It is no great fucking secret that he is in the goddamn mountains there, but we have 2 choices....A) we sit on our thumbs and play along with us giving the illusion of doing something by mucking around in Afghanistan or B) we blow the fuck out of Pakistan if they do nto provide him within a time frame. Which would you propose? Either more war which you are agaisnt, or do nothing.

True or False : all intelligence reports show bin Laden is in the mountains of pakistan

I think that's probably true.

So yeah, it's about half facts that don't have anything to do with the opinions you're trying to back up with those facts, and half opinion. And statement 5, which is quite likely true.

[Forthe]

Ahhh....so you don't actually have anything to say. At least Midnyte and Funk have the balls to attach an opinion and will make statements to stand by (whether right or wrong). You have thousands of posts that I have yet to see with any content in them at all. You are basically Cartalas with more words per post.

The fact that you hold Clinton more responsible for not preventing the planning of the attack than Bush for not preventing the attack itself is a bit odd.

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

Actually, if you had read this thread at all, you would see that my statements were made as a direct retort to Xyun's post. He made extreme statements which are factually incorrect and the ultra libs apparently will agree with anything that is anti-Bush. Hell...I am pretty down on some of the retarded shit Bush has pulled, but at least get the shit you are hammering him for correct.

There is just no way you can hang the economic bullshit on him when we were sliding into a recession before he took office and then have the events occur during his first year....just keeping us from hitting a major depression during the last 8 years has been a feat.

[Ashur]

I don't blame either president, I blame Bin Laden...

I was mad, sure, but hell, that's like getting mad at the President for the Japanese bombing Pearl Harbor. Direct the anger towards those who actually planned and committed the act (although I'm sure there's some of you that actually think the evil neocons blew up the WTC themselves).

[Funkmasterr]

Actually, if you had read this thread at all, you would see that my statements were made as a direct retort to Xyun's post. He made extreme statements which are factually incorrect and the ultra libs apparently will agree with anything that is anti-Bush. Hell...I am pretty down on some of the retarded shit Bush has pulled, but at least get the shit you are hammering him for correct.

There is just no way you can hang the economic bullshit on him when we were sliding into a recession before he took office and then have the events occur during his first year....just keeping us from hitting a major depression during the last 8 years has been a feat.

That's about it. I would like to see a solid fact-based argument against this.

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

Ahhh....so you don't actually have anything to say. At least Midnyte and Funk have the balls to attach an opinion and will make statements to stand by (whether right or wrong). You have thousands of posts that I have yet to see with any content in them at all. You are basically Cartalas with more words per post.

The fact that you hold Clinton more responsible for not preventing the planning of the attack than Bush for not preventing the attack itself is a bit odd.

Clinton had 8 years to hit Al Queida and launched one misslie attack that missed. Bush stepped in and the attacks that have been planned out for years prior to him taking office are executed. Now....how many attacks have taken place on US targets (outside of Iraq since that is of course a war zone) since 9/11? Bush took the fight to them and has (for now) given them military targets to hit instead of civilian.


Now if it were me, I would have sent in a SEAL team or something and killed Saddam with a nice sniper bullet or something and be putting massive pressure on Pakistan and the U.N. to get troops into those border mountains and get the fuckhead out of there. We all know that none of those middle eastern countries are going to cooperate though.

[Forthe]

There is just no way you can hang the economic bullshit on him when we were sliding into a recession before he took office and then have the events occur during his first year....just keeping us from hitting a major depression during the last 8 years has been a feat.

9/11 had a minor effect, it reinforced the governments reaction to the economic slowdown, making cash much too cheap. You recovered from one bubble by creating another bubble while at the same time drastically reducing the value of your currency.

[Forthe]

Now if it were me, I would have sent in a SEAL team or something and killed Saddam with a nice sniper bullet or something and be putting massive pressure on Pakistan and the U.N. to get troops into those border mountains and get the fuckhead out of there. We all know that none of those middle eastern countries are going to cooperate though.

You should have run for president.

[Noysyrump]

why are people blaming the gub'ment for failing during katrina? if it was any gub'ments responsibility, it was the state's. should mention that was also a dem state... teeheee.

sorry no caps, eating.

[Winnow]

What am I missing here? We don't want either rep or dem to control both houses and the presidency. We've seen it happen with the republicans. We certainly don't want the democrats in the same position.

Since it looks like the democrats will have the majority in both houses, we need a republican in the White House to avoid tax hell or big/humongous government.

[Aslanna]

Ahhh....so you don't actually have anything to say. At least Midnyte and Funk have the balls to attach an opinion and will make statements to stand by (whether right or wrong). You have thousands of posts that I have yet to see with any content in them at all. You are basically Cartalas with more words per post.

I already stated my opinion: It was that you saying you were "stating facts" was bullshit. That's pretty much my opinion being attached! I don't see why you have a hard time understanding that. But being a Cartalas supporter I have a pretty good idea why that might be.

[Daboohk]

And to capture this shithead terrorist, we would have ot go to war with Pakistan. It is no great fucking secret that he is in the goddamn mountains there, but we have 2 choices....A) we sit on our thumbs and play along with us giving the illusion of doing something by mucking around in Afghanistan or B) we blow the fuck out of Pakistan if they do nto provide him within a time frame. Which would you propose? Either more war which you are agaisnt, or do nothing.

I'm pretty certain he is speaking of the times the Bush Administration has failed to catch or kill Osama when given the opportunity. I know there was a point where CIA/Rumsfeld cockfencing fumbled an opportunity at the beginning of the war with Afghanistan. Frontline did a pretty good job of documenting the events. You can watch the special here:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/cron/

Don't forget that BJ billy had a golden opportunity to kill him too and decided not to.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/d ... nce_1.html

[Funkmasterr]

And to capture this shithead terrorist, we would have ot go to war with Pakistan. It is no great fucking secret that he is in the goddamn mountains there, but we have 2 choices....A) we sit on our thumbs and play along with us giving the illusion of doing something by mucking around in Afghanistan or B) we blow the fuck out of Pakistan if they do nto provide him within a time frame. Which would you propose? Either more war which you are agaisnt, or do nothing.

I'm pretty certain he is speaking of the times the Bush Administration has failed to catch or kill Osama when given the opportunity. I know there was a point where CIA/Rumsfeld cockfencing fumbled an opportunity at the beginning of the war with Afghanistan. Frontline did a pretty good job of documenting the events. You can watch the special here:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/cron/

Don't forget that BJ billy had a golden opportunity to kill him too and decided not to.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/d ... nce_1.html

That fails to prove the point you are trying to make, and whether or not he had harmed american citizens at that point, we knew he was dangerous and should be disposed of before he could do further damage. He would have been a much easier target then when he wasn't on the defensive like he is now.

[Daboohk]

[/quote]

And to capture this shithead terrorist, we would have ot go to war with Pakistan. It is no great fucking secret that he is in the goddamn mountains there, but we have 2 choices....A) we sit on our thumbs and play along with us giving the illusion of doing something by mucking around in Afghanistan or B) we blow the fuck out of Pakistan if they do nto provide him within a time frame. Which would you propose? Either more war which you are agaisnt, or do nothing.

I'm pretty certain he is speaking of the times the Bush Administration has failed to catch or kill Osama when given the opportunity. I know there was a point where CIA/Rumsfeld cockfencing fumbled an opportunity at the beginning of the war with Afghanistan. Frontline did a pretty good job of documenting the events. You can watch the special here:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/cron/

Don't forget that BJ billy had a golden opportunity to kill him too and decided not to.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/d ... nce_1.html

That fails to prove the point you are trying to make, and whether or not he had harmed american citizens at that point, we knew he was dangerous and should be disposed of before he could do further damage. He would have been a much easier target then when he wasn't on the defensive like he is now.

Erwa claims that he offered to hand bin Laden over to the United States. Key American players – President Bill Clinton, then-National Security Adviser Sandy Berger and Director of Counterterrorism Richard Clarke among them – have testified there were no "credible offers" to hand over bin Laden. The 9/11 Commission found "no credible evidence" that Erwa had ever made such an offer.

It has yet to be proven that Osama was ever offered to the United States. You can't use this is a premise for your argument that Bill had a golden opportunity to dispose of Bin Laden when there is not sufficient evidence to back up the claim.

Furthermore,

We have to be careful about engaging in what historians call "Whig history," which is the practice of assuming that historical figures value exactly the same things that we do today. It's a fancy term for those "why didn't someone just shoot Hitler in 1930?" questions that one hears in dorm-room bull sessions. The answer, of course, is that no one knew quite how bad Hitler was in 1930. The same is true of bin Laden in 1996.

[Funkmasterr]

And to capture this shithead terrorist, we would have ot go to war with Pakistan. It is no great fucking secret that he is in the goddamn mountains there, but we have 2 choices....A) we sit on our thumbs and play along with us giving the illusion of doing something by mucking around in Afghanistan or B) we blow the fuck out of Pakistan if they do nto provide him within a time frame. Which would you propose? Either more war which you are agaisnt, or do nothing.

I'm pretty certain he is speaking of the times the Bush Administration has failed to catch or kill Osama when given the opportunity. I know there was a point where CIA/Rumsfeld cockfencing fumbled an opportunity at the beginning of the war with Afghanistan. Frontline did a pretty good job of documenting the events. You can watch the special here:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/cron/

Don't forget that BJ billy had a golden opportunity to kill him too and decided not to.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/d ... nce_1.html

That fails to prove the point you are trying to make, and whether or not he had harmed american citizens at that point, we knew he was dangerous and should be disposed of before he could do further damage. He would have been a much easier target then when he wasn't on the defensive like he is now.

Erwa claims that he offered to hand bin Laden over to the United States. Key American players – President Bill Clinton, then-National Security Adviser Sandy Berger and Director of Counterterrorism Richard Clarke among them – have testified there were no "credible offers" to hand over bin Laden. The 9/11 Commission found "no credible evidence" that Erwa had ever made such an offer.

It has yet to be proven that Osama was ever offered to the United States. You can't use this is a premise for your argument that Bill had a golden opportunity to dispose of Bin Laden when there is not sufficient evidence to back up the claim.

Furthermore,

We have to be careful about engaging in what historians call "Whig history," which is the practice of assuming that historical figures value exactly the same things that we do today. It's a fancy term for those "why didn't someone just shoot Hitler in 1930?" questions that one hears in dorm-room bull sessions. The answer, of course, is that no one knew quite how bad Hitler was in 1930. The same is true of bin Laden in 1996.

[/quote]


Excuse me if I'm hesitant to believe this is true just because Clinton and friends deny this was the case - that tends to be what politicians do when they fuck up.


, we knew he was a murderer and a terrorist whose values would prevent him from ever being any different than he was, which is more than enough.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Oh man. What great TV this is. Barack just completely disowned Rev. Wright today in a press conference. America meet Obama, just another politician.

[Sylvus]

, we knew he was a murderer and a terrorist whose values would prevent him from ever being any different than he was, which is more than enough.

Actually, we just knew that he was a financier of terrorism, with no history of being a mastermind and no history of ever harming any Americans. With your usual stance of "let's ignore the rest of the world and not help anyone else out", I would think that Bill Clinton not wanting him would fall exactly in line with what you would choose to do if put in that position. No?

[Funkmasterr]

, we knew he was a murderer and a terrorist whose values would prevent him from ever being any different than he was, which is more than enough.

Actually, we just knew that he was a financier of terrorism, with no history of being a mastermind and no history of ever harming any Americans. With your usual stance of "let's ignore the rest of the world and not help anyone else out", I would think that Bill Clinton not wanting him would fall exactly in line with what you would choose to do if put in that position. No?

That's good enough.

And my stance has nothing to do with what Clinton should or should not have done. I am just pointing out that most people here (and not midnyte, myself, fash, or any of the usual poster children) have a severe case of tunnel vision.

edit for clarity: I don't believe people like Bin Laden have any rights as a human being. I believe he is scum of the fucking earth and should have been killed, with no trial or second chance, a long fucking time ago.

[Siji]

Because FOX tells him so..

[Metanis]

Oh man. What great TV this is. Barack just completely disowned Rev. Wright today in a press conference. America meet Obama, just another politician.

Didn't Obama say something to the effect that he could no more disown the Reverend Wright than he could disown Black America?

I still think it's just a big show of Wright falling on his sword to try and save Obama's candidacy.

[Daboohk]

Excuse me if I'm hesitant to believe this is true just because Clinton and friends deny this was the case - that tends to be what politicians do when they fuck up.

It states that it wasn't just Clinton's administration that denied it; the 9/11 Commission itself could not locate any evidence that Sudan offered Osama to the USA.

[Fash]

Excuse me if I'm hesitant to believe this is true just because Clinton and friends deny this was the case - that tends to be what politicians do when they fuck up.

It states that it wasn't just Clinton's administration that denied it; the 9/11 Commission itself could not locate any evidence that Sudan offered Osama to the USA.

... and the Warren Commission found the magic bullet.

[Daboohk]

Look, I'm not denying the possibility that Sudan offered Osama to Clinton. What I am saying is there is not sufficient evidence to state it as a fact. As always, people are free to believe whatever they want to believe. My goal was to not allow controversial statements appear to be completely factual. Two sides to every coin, etc., etc.

[Nick]

I guess if by stupid you mean stating facts, then I am a stupid motherfucker

I guess if by facts you mean retarded backwater hillbilly bullshit, then I guess you are indeed a stupid motherfucker.. Hell, you 're a stupid motherfucker anyway.

[Forthe]

Oh man. What great TV this is. Barack just completely disowned Rev. Wright today in a press conference. America meet Obama, just another politician.

Didn't Obama say something to the effect that he could no more disown the Reverend Wright than he could disown Black America?

I still think it's just a big show of Wright falling on his sword to try and save Obama's candidacy.

It is possible.

I thought they were doing a decent job undemonizing him Friday with the PBS interview and the NAACP speech Saturday and if it was successful it would have been much more effective. Some parts were rough and the "he is a politician" lines weren't good for Obama but he had a lot of people questioning if the media hacked the guy with sound bites.

The media was silent on the interview. The coverage of the speech was fairly low key. His speech yesterday before the QA session is of little note as well.

I think he got asked questions that pissed him off by the press he was already pissed off at and he lost his cool in front of a crowd that was cheering him on.

If the intention was to demonize himself to get Obama off the hook I would have expected the interview or speeches to be much worse than they were.

Maybe the plan was to undemonize him and then demonize him to make it less obvious but thats a bit of a stretch. The simplest answer is usually the correct answer

[Metanis]

The simplest answer is usually the correct answer

In that case, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright is just another stupid racist bigot. And Barack Obama spent 20 years kissing his ass. Obama either approved the racist Reverend's rants... or he was too stupid to see the light. Neither explanation portrays Mr. Obama in a positive light.

This is going to cost Obama significant support no matter how he spins it.

[Xyun]

The simplest answer is usually the correct answer

In that case, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright is just another stupid racist bigot. And Barack Obama spent 20 years kissing his ass. Obama either approved the racist Reverend's rants... or he was too stupid to see the light. Neither explanation portrays Mr. Obama in a positive light.

This is going to cost Obama significant support no matter how he spins it.

When Dubya was re-elected in 2004, I really did not understand how the fuck so many people could vote for him. I simply did not understand the nature of the way in which his base idolized him considering his extraordinary misgivings and plain idiocy. You are making the same mistake with the small difference that our concerns about Bush were valid because they were about him (Bush) while your concerns of Obama are about the people in his life (and him indirectly). I can understand how you can distrust Obama because of the way I distrust Bush for much more obvious reasons. However, in much the same way you can overlook the dramatic flaws in Bush's character, we can overlook the relatively minuscule flaws in Obama's.

[Nick]

It's pretty tragic that Democracy can be so easily manipulated by smear. It's even worse when people like Winnow, Midnyte and Metanic, who are capable of forming coherent sentences, can argue occasionally with even a semblance of elegance etc etc, are fundamentally incapable of discussing anything other than talking points put forth by GOP or Clinton smear campaigners. I think you've spent far too fucking long under a Bush and Clinton regime to have even the vaguest idea what issues matter, or what they even are, or where the candidates stand, and why you support one of them at this point.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

It's pretty tragic that Democracy can be so easily manipulated by smear. It's even worse when people like Winnow, Midnyte and Metanic, who are capable of forming coherent sentences, can argue occasionally with even a semblance of elegance etc etc, are fundamentally incapable of discussing anything other than talking points put forth by GOP or Clinton smear campaigners. I think you've spent far too fucking long under a Bush and Clinton regime to have even the vaguest idea what issues matter, or what they even are, or where the candidates stand, and why you support one of them at this point.

Again you focus on us, instead of saying something.....anything.

It is indeed a tragedy that our democracy can be so easily manipulated by smear. Our media has been smearing Bush since day one of his presidency. Not so surprising a large percentage of the lemmings think he a horrible president and a moron. You've been being told he is such for 8 years.