On Sep 30, 10:03*am, Charlie Self wrote:
Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 16:34:16 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

Jimbo wrote:
On Sep 29, 2:29 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Jimbo wrote:

SNIP

Comparing Obama to Carter doesn't really make a lot sense to me.
Maybe its an age thing
One is a Southern communist, the other one is an urban communist.

Anyway, you're comparing apples and oranges: Obama will be a beacon
for democracy (small d - not the party) in the US and the world. *His
You mean by meeting with Chavez, Ahmadinejad, Castro, Hezbolla,
and Hamas?

acceptance will be widespread and will include the disenfranchised..
Where "disenfranchised" = "everyone who wants something that does not
legitimately belong to them".

He will try to lower the ocean level by joining with the rest of the
developed world and trying to do something positive about climate
change.
I hope he starts - if elected - by walking everywhere and eschewing
the use of all technology that is supposedly causing this imaginary
bugaboo of yours.

This should actually bring the US to a leadership position in

R&D, manufacture and use of alternative energy sources. *He will heal
Yes, by passing laws to make the economy work better on the command
of congress, no doubt.

the sick by improving medicare. *You have so much to look forward to
over the next eight years. *It's going to be great.
I thought he was going to heal the sick via miracles as he walked on
water.

So now you're suggesting that climate change is an "imaginary
bugaboo"?

Oh, some level of warming is inarguably happening. *However,
claiming (without proof) it is: a) Manmade, b) Can be fixed by man, and c) Demonstrably bad for mankind is the bugaboo.

You might also mention that in the name of global warming remediation
the UN is promoting the largest global redistribution of wealth in the
history of mankind.

And what is wrong with meeting "Chavez, Ahmadinejad,
Castro, Hezbolla, and Hamas"? *Is that not a good thing?

They are evil despots and/or tin pot dictators. *The only
"meeting" with them should be, a) To warn them of what happens
if they don't knock of their vile behavior and b) A "meeting"
with out military as appropriate, and, finally, c) A meeting
to accept their absolute acquiescence to our terms.

Name me a
President or Presidential candidate who did not meet with questionable
people at some stage in their candidacy or term of office.

It is true that FDR met with Stalin .. then again FDR was a socialist
so far left that he had little to distinguish himself from full
blown communism.

You'll note that Truman didn't even show up to accept Japan's surrender
(or Germany's for that matter). *Kennedy never met with Castro as best
I can recall, and so forth.

Yes, there are counterexamples, and I stipulate that meeting with
the bad guys is sometimes (rarely) a good thing. *But Comrade Obama
has made it clear he'd meet with the aforementioned murderous slime
*without preconditions*. *Like I keep saying, he is the worst kind
of political vermin. *It is astonishing he has any traction at all
in this election let alone a credible chance of winning. *It demonstrates
what incredible short term vision and attention the voters have, nothing
more.

I thought we were dong pretty well at that ourselves, transferring
many, many, many bucks to the Middle East and most of the rest to
China so our pets, and many of their own people, can have enough
melamine to ingest.

We are in dire need of another Republican President. After all, the
country isn't QUITE bankrupt yet, though Bush has worked hard at it.

Bush is just trying to scare the US people into letting him raid the
coffers prior to his departure. Just one more favour for his big
business buddies.