Nate Nagel wrote in
:

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
Nate Nagel wrote:

Obama simply by being younger hasn't had the same opportunities as
McCain to go on record with one position and then eight years later
support another one. The sad thing is, I would have voted for the
Y2K McCain, before he was destroyed by the same Karl Rove who's
working for the 2008 McCain.

So inexperience at flip flopping is a reason to vote for someone?

It ain't exactly a ringing endorsement, but it's better than a long,
proven track record of it. Plus I was much more comfortable with
McCain's "flip" than I was his "flop."


I'll probably vote for Obama not because I want to but because I
feel that the current Republican administration is literally
dangerous to the American way of life and McCain has done little to
distance himself from their policies and actions, his protestations
of "I'm not George Bush" notwithstanding. The Republican party
needs to move away - no, that's not strong enough, try "make a clean
break" - from the neocons and religious right and back towards a
more Goldwater-esque philosophy before I can ever consider
supporting them.
I'd generally support you in the latter part. But McCain was
never
that answer.

In retrospect that seems to be true, although I didn't know it. I
recently picked up a book of Barry Goldwater's letters out of the
bargain bin at my local bookstore, and what he has to say about McCain
is enlightening. Apparently he was a weasel long before I ever
realized it.

I am not as sanguine that Obama is the answer to the
question of being literally dangerous..

It's not an answer, it's just the lesser of two weevils.

I would be sorely tempted to vote Libertarian just to make a point
if it weren't for the fact that the election is still close enough
that there's a danger that that would allow McCain to win. That
can't be allowed, period. I do live in one of those states that is
still "too close to call" so I really don't feel that I can vote how
I really want to, I need to cast the vote that will keep McCain and
Palin out.


As I with O and B.

That's your prerogative, but I have to say that while Obama merely
concerns me, McCain and especially Palin scare the **** out of me.
This from someone who tends to lean right of center.

Voting for McCain is sending the message to the Republican Party
Machine that things don't need to change, and they most certainly do
if they want to continue to exist as a viable political party.
Pandering to the religious right and gung-ho trailer park dwellers is
not the way to work.

nate


Obama is for the "Fairness Doctrine" which most people know is anything but
"fair".It will shut down Talk Radio,silincing Obama's biggest critic.
Obama has already tried to shut up critics using the power of government.
(along with his campaign organization)
Kiss the First Amendment bye-bye with Obama.

but that doesn't seem to bother Nate...

Then some of his DemocRAT buddies have already mentioned nationalizing
certain industries,Obama wants to create his own Brown Shirt org,his
civilian National Security Force(armed and trained as well as the US
Military).

but that doesn't seem to bother Nate...
(he's blind)

Obama;communist mentored(Frank Davis),communist trained(Alinsky),communist
to the core.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
Nate Nagel wrote:


We've already seen where Bush's lies have taken us. McCain simply will
tell you whatever you want to hear to get elected; I have no idea what
his true agenda is. Obama is simply a Democrat; that's bad, but that's
less bad than the devil I don't know.

Didn't you say a couple of posts ago that you were voting for Obama
(in part) because he was younger and had less of a track record in lying
to us? That would seem to be the devil you don't know.

I *do* know that Bush and McCain have PROVEN themselves to have no
integrity. What I *don't* know is what they are trying to accomplish.
(well, I suspect that Bush was influenced by the PNAC. I haven't a clue
what McCain wants, except to simply be President.)

Obama is trying to move policy in a leftwardly direction. We *know*
this. This is not completely bad; so long as the more reasonable
elements of Congress can at least get him to lower corporate tax rates,
there's really nothing wrong with, say, reasonable progressive personal
income taxes or health care reform.


The real problem is people like you who refuse to accept that you've
been lied to and manipulated.

Or people who say the above. Seems sanctimonious at best and
condescending at worst. Those who refuse to accept YOUR view of reality
are lied to and manipulated.

No, anyone who still thinks that Bush is a good President or McCain has
any integrity *has* been lied to and manipulated. If that sounds
condescending so be it, but the evidence is plain and readily available
to anyone who is willing to do more than simple watch Fox News.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
...
Kurt Ullman wrote in
:

In article ,
Nate Nagel wrote:

Which brings us full circle to my original point. McCain has no set
convictions (say what you will about Bush, he has those - he's almost
always wrong, but at least he has convictions) so it's impossible for
me to vote for him.

But then that would also make it impossible for vote for Obama,
too.


Worse;the convictions Obama HAS already evidenced are those of communism.
If Nate really fears for the Constitution,OBAMA is the one who will truly
tear it apart.The Second Amendment will be the first to go,followed
closely
by the First Amendment.


I've heard this before and I'm not getting it.

Has he done something to make gun lovers afraid? I'm sincerely curious. I
have no strong opinions on the 2nd Amendment other than I think it should be
enforced.

As far as the 1st Amendment I'm sure there are many more right-wing kooks
would like to wiggle around that one.

olddog

In article ,
Jim Yanik wrote:


Obama is for the "Fairness Doctrine" which most people know is anything but
"fair".It will shut down Talk Radio,silincing Obama's biggest critic.
Obama has already tried to shut up critics using the power of government.
(along with his campaign organization)
Kiss the First Amendment bye-bye with Obama.

And he is also on record as being against secret ballots at least as
they apply to union elections. He seems to think it will be okay to
supplant secret ballots with union organizers going to people's houses
and "asking" them to sign the card. Enough sign the card, then the union
is in. If management tried to do this, the Dems and Unions would be
screaming about how unfair it is.
Look at the Dixie Queen's eminent demise and note that the only time
in the last 41 years that the boat's exemption wasn't a formality is
when the Dems hold the chairmanship and the union was kicked out.
Coincidence? I think not.

In article ,
Nate Nagel wrote:


Obama is trying to move policy in a leftwardly direction. We *know*
this. This is not completely bad; so long as the more reasonable
elements of Congress can at least get him to lower corporate tax rates,
there's really nothing wrong with, say, reasonable progressive personal
income taxes or health care reform.

Good luck with the reasonable part. Don't even get me started on
either one's health care reform. It ain't remotely what is needed.


No, anyone who still thinks that Bush is a good President or McCain has
any integrity *has* been lied to and manipulated. If that sounds
condescending so be it, but the evidence is plain and readily available
to anyone who is willing to do more than simple watch Fox News.


Again, anyone who disagrees you with has been manipulated. The
Stepford Voter, so to speak. Real interesting in light of your response
to Jim a couple of posts ago.

In article ,
"retired54" wrote:

I've heard this before and I'm not getting it.

Has he done something to make gun lovers afraid? I'm sincerely curious. I
have no strong opinions on the 2nd Amendment other than I think it should be
enforced.
s a state legislator in Illinois, Obama supported banning the sale or
transfer of all forms of semi-automatic firearms, increasing state
restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
s state senator, he voted against a 2004 measure that allowed
self-defense as an affirmative defense for those charged with violating
local laws making it otherwise unlawful for such persons to possess
firearms. He also voted against allowing persons who had obtained
domestic violence protective orders to carry handguns for their
protection.


As far as the 1st Amendment I'm sure there are many more right-wing kooks
would like to wiggle around that one.

Nah both sides are more than happy to try to silence those who disagree.

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"retired54" wrote:

I've heard this before and I'm not getting it.

Has he done something to make gun lovers afraid? I'm sincerely curious. I
have no strong opinions on the 2nd Amendment other than I think it should
be
enforced.
s a state legislator in Illinois, Obama supported banning the sale or
transfer of all forms of semi-automatic firearms, increasing state
restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
s state senator, he voted against a 2004 measure that allowed
self-defense as an affirmative defense for those charged with violating
local laws making it otherwise unlawful for such persons to possess
firearms. He also voted against allowing persons who had obtained
domestic violence protective orders to carry handguns for their
protection.


As far as the 1st Amendment I'm sure there are many more right-wing kooks
would like to wiggle around that one.

Nah both sides are more than happy to try to silence those who disagree.

Thanks...Do you have any links to credible sources. I'd be interested in
hearing the full story and the circumstances.

As far as the 1st amendment goes I'm sure you're right but this current
president has done more damage to the Constitution than Nixon.

olddog

Nate Nagel wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
Nate Nagel wrote:
That was always a goal of the US;to withdraw.
"firm timetables" are just a gift to the terrorists.

So when are we going to withdraw? It's been going on six years,
what have we accomplished since the initial invasion and the
capture of Saddam? Are we significantly closer to being able to
execute a graceful withdrawal than we were five years ago? Why did
we even invade in the first place and take our eye off the ball in
Afghanistan? How would *you* feel if a foreign military had been
occupying your country for that long? (especially absent any
previous aggression)

I don't understand this preoccupation with "withdrawal." The United
States has a military presence ("Status of Forces" agreement) with
108 countries. That means we have military units/personnel in 108
countries - over and above token groups like embassy marine guards
or visiting warships. We have them there for our benefit.

Not long ago, the Democrats made a big deal out of McCain's guess
that we might be in Iraq for an extended period. Heck, we've had US
forces in Germany for sixty-three years, a like time for Japan,
Korea for over fifty years. We've had US forces in Cuba for 110
years!

Right, but in none of those places is there active fighting going on.
There haven't been shots fired in Korea or Germany for decades.

## Right. Does anyone wonder WHY no shots have been fired?



Having US forces scattered around the globe - some for many decades
- has been the policy of our government for a hundred years.

Look at the places where we did "withdraw:" Vietnam and Panama come
to mind. Hong Kong is another example

The "withdrawal" of the righteous yielded failure and disaster for
those left behind.

More like, we'd already failed before we withdrew. Just like today.

## Vietnam was not a failure at the time we withdrew. It became a failure
when the Democrats cut off funding for the South Vietnamese government a
year later.

## Panama was not a failure until a Democratic president decided to withdraw
from the Canal Zone.

## The British lease on Hong Kong's lease expired in 1998 after 99 years.
For all I know, Democrats controlled the British Parliment in 1898.


Why do you assume that everyone that disagrees with our current
pointless war is a Democrat?


I never said that everyone who disagrees with the war is a Democrat. The
Democrats certainly disagree and are doing all that they can to hasten our
withdrawl, but I freely admit there are some non-Democrats who want us out,
too:

Osama ben Laden and members of Al Quada,
Miscellaneous Extremist Mohammaden groups,
Other unaffiliated terrorists,
Domestic traitors and other wannabe terrorists, and
The French.

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
Nate Nagel wrote:

Obama is trying to move policy in a leftwardly direction. We *know*
this. This is not completely bad; so long as the more reasonable
elements of Congress can at least get him to lower corporate tax rates,
there's really nothing wrong with, say, reasonable progressive personal
income taxes or health care reform.

Good luck with the reasonable part. Don't even get me started on
either one's health care reform. It ain't remotely what is needed.

True dat... true dat.


No, anyone who still thinks that Bush is a good President or McCain has
any integrity *has* been lied to and manipulated. If that sounds
condescending so be it, but the evidence is plain and readily available
to anyone who is willing to do more than simple watch Fox News.


Again, anyone who disagrees you with has been manipulated. The
Stepford Voter, so to speak. Real interesting in light of your response
to Jim a couple of posts ago.

Do you deny that Bush/Cheney lied us into war or that McCain has
completely reversed his position on many issues since Y2K (or even more
recently, e.g. torture) most of them for the worse, in a clear attempt
to pander to the ignorant Bush core voter bloc?

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

retired54 wrote:
"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"retired54" wrote:

I've heard this before and I'm not getting it.

Has he done something to make gun lovers afraid? I'm sincerely curious. I
have no strong opinions on the 2nd Amendment other than I think it should
be
enforced.
s a state legislator in Illinois, Obama supported banning the sale or
transfer of all forms of semi-automatic firearms, increasing state
restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
s state senator, he voted against a 2004 measure that allowed
self-defense as an affirmative defense for those charged with violating
local laws making it otherwise unlawful for such persons to possess
firearms. He also voted against allowing persons who had obtained
domestic violence protective orders to carry handguns for their
protection.

As far as the 1st Amendment I'm sure there are many more right-wing kooks
would like to wiggle around that one.

Nah both sides are more than happy to try to silence those who disagree.

Thanks...Do you have any links to credible sources. I'd be interested in
hearing the full story and the circumstances.

As far as the 1st amendment goes I'm sure you're right but this current
president has done more damage to the Constitution than Nixon.

olddog



Including the 1st amendment - "free speech zones" anyone?

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Nate Nagel wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
Nate Nagel wrote:

Right, but in none of those places is there active fighting going
on. There haven't been shots fired in Korea or Germany for decades.

But in all of those places shot were being exchanged for much
longer than 5 years after we got there. This argument means nothing
until we get 10 or more years out.


I don't want to commit our young men and women for 10 years in Iraq
for no purpose.

It's yet to be explained to me why we're even in Iraq, save for the
lies of the Bush administration all proven to have been false.


[How can a lie be false? When it's the truth? But I know what you're trying
to say.]

Commit our young men and women? They are all volunteers. They joined up for
the chance to kill people and blow things up. 85% of Iraq and Afghanistan
veterans re-enlist. The remaining 15% retired, invalided out, went to work
for Blackwater, or have harridan spouses.

Our soldiers want to be there, they enjoy being there, they NEED to be
there! They fight for duty's sake, for honor's sake, for glory's sake.

Having our forces engaged in combat every decade or so is also to our
benefit. I saw a recent report stating that virtually every military
commander, from sergeant to general, has, by now, led men in combat. You
can't get that kind of experience off the shelf.

Leaving Iraq and Afghanistan out of the equation for a moment, of the 50-odd
remaining Muslim countries, only two are putative democracies (Turkey and
Malaysia). The rest are monarchies (Jordan, Saudi Arabia), theocracies
(Iran), oligarchies (Egypt), totalitarian (Lybia), or out-and-out anarchies
(Sudan, Somalia).

These 48 leaders have to worry about whether they'll be next.

With McCain, we have a clear chance to take out Iran. Following Iran, with
Palin as president, I don't know who would be next.

Which country has wolves?

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
tom wrote:
http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z...s/image002.jpg

I saw a similar:

"Colored & Dullard"

Oh..You're a racist Cowboy!

olddog

aemeijers wrote:

No, that is called stupidity. A true patriot, when the folks in charge
make a bonehead move, CALLS them on it, and insists on a different
course of action. The PTB work for us, not the other way around. The
rub comes when it is a situation where there are no good answers, just
choices among varying degrees of bad ones. The US knocked over the
bucket in SWA, so they are sort of obligated to help clean it up at
this point. Saddam was scum, and deserves to burn in hell. But why
exactly was he OUR problem to solve, again?

As the Color Sergeant in "Zulu" said: "Because we're here, lad. There's no
one else. Just us. Now face to the front, mark your target when he comes.
That's a good lad."

HeyBub wrote:
aemeijers wrote:
No, that is called stupidity. A true patriot, when the folks in charge
make a bonehead move, CALLS them on it, and insists on a different
course of action. The PTB work for us, not the other way around. The
rub comes when it is a situation where there are no good answers, just
choices among varying degrees of bad ones. The US knocked over the
bucket in SWA, so they are sort of obligated to help clean it up at
this point. Saddam was scum, and deserves to burn in hell. But why
exactly was he OUR problem to solve, again?

As the Color Sergeant in "Zulu" said: "Because we're here, lad. There's no
one else. Just us. Now face to the front, mark your target when he comes.
That's a good lad."



But we weren't there. We took ourselves there. The "why" has yet to be
explained to me.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

In article ,
"retired54" wrote:



Thanks...Do you have any links to credible sources. I'd be interested in
hearing the full story and the circumstances.

Define credible and which full stories are you interested? The stuff
on Obama's votes for gun-related issues are from the voting records of
the State Legislature or Senate, depending on where he was voting on
things.

retired54 wrote:
The Second Amendment will be the
first to go,followed closely
by the First Amendment.


I've heard this before and I'm not getting it.

Has he done something to make gun lovers afraid? I'm sincerely
curious. I have no strong opinions on the 2nd Amendment other than I
think it should be enforced.

## Oh boy, you've really opened a can of creepy things. Obama and the 2nd
Amendment?

* While in the Illinois Senate, he voted to ban several hundred common
firearms,
* He endorsed a ban on ALL handguns,
* As an Illinois senator, he voted to allow prosecution of homeowners
defending their homes with firearms,
* He voted to increase taxation of ammunition and firearms by 500%,
* As a US Senator, he voted to ban virtually all common rifle ammunition,
* He is on record as opposing all right-to-carry laws. (48 states have
right-to-carry laws)

However, in 2006, he voted in the U.S. Senate to prohibit gun confiscation
in an emergency (i.e., Katrina). This is his only known unequivocal pro-gun
position, vote, or utterance.

Here's what he recently said regarding the Heller decision:

"As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an
individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right
does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the
exercise of that right, in the same way that we have a right to private
property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that
determine how you can use it."

He's correct in that state and local government can constrain a
Constitutional right. But when they do, they must follow the "strict
scrutiny" standard. Government can prohibit yelling "fire" in a crowded
theatre or the use of a sound truck at midnight, but it can't curtail all
speech nor all political functions.

In the case to which he referred, D.C. vs. Heller, the District prohibited
ownership of ALL handguns. By no standard is this a 'reasonable
restriction,' and the United States Supreme Court said so.


As far as the 1st Amendment I'm sure there are many more right-wing
kooks would like to wiggle around that one.


As for the 1st Amendment, the leadership of the Congress is already making
noises about re-imposing the "fairness doctrine."

I don't think Obama has taken a position on that issue. We'll see.

What would you do with an Obama sign?

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
...

How BLIND you are;Obama has alrady reversed himself on many things.
(besides his voting "Present" 90% of the time)

And, what use would you have for that sign, after the election?

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
...
That's your prerogative, but I have to say that while Obama merely
concerns me, McCain and especially Palin scare the **** out of me.
This from someone who tends to lean right of center.

you must have a funny idea of "center".

And, what use would his signs be, after the election?

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Nate Nagel wrote:


We've already seen where Bush's lies have taken us. McCain simply will
tell you whatever you want to hear to get elected; I have no idea what
his true agenda is. Obama is simply a Democrat; that's bad, but that's
less bad than the devil I don't know.

Didn't you say a couple of posts ago that you were voting for Obama
(in part) because he was younger and had less of a track record in lying
to us? That would seem to be the devil you don't know.


The real problem is people like you who refuse to accept that you've
been lied to and manipulated.

Or people who say the above. Seems sanctimonious at best and
condescending at worst. Those who refuse to accept YOUR view of reality
are lied to and manipulated.

Are Bush Cheney signs useful for anything?

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Nate Nagel" wrote in message
...

Do you deny that Bush/Cheney lied us into war or that McCain has
completely reversed his position on many issues since Y2K (or even more
recently, e.g. torture) most of them for the worse, in a clear attempt
to pander to the ignorant Bush core voter bloc?

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

retired54 wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
retired54 wrote:

Where's the thousands? The tens of thousands? Unless someone can
provide some census, I'll have to conclude the statement that
"we've created more terrorists than we've killed" is some
throw-away line designed to end the discussion without a scintilla
of proof.
you're not gone yet cowboy?

Not yet.

Before I leave this mortal coil, I pray for the opportunity to kill
more enemies of this great republic.

When I've reached 100 confirmed dead goblins, I'll consider my work
here done. If everybody had a similar goal, the world would be the
right place to be.

Be sure to get the ones under your bed.

G'nite cowboy.

First place I looked. Then the rest of the house.

Right now, I'm casting a suspicious eye on my neighbor.

Look, I'm just trying to make this world a better place. Surely you can't
criticize my motives...

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:


Look at the places where we did "withdraw:" Vietnam and Panama come
to mind. Hong Kong is another example

Hong Kong was a British protectorate and they pulled out at the end
of a 100-year treaty. Be hard to put either of those on the backs of ANY
US person.


## Panama was not a failure until a Democratic president decided to withdraw
from the Canal Zone.

On the Canal Zone, I tend to agree (for about the only time) with
the Late and Much Lamented SI Hyakawa Senator from California who said:
"Of course it is ours we stole it fair and square". The Canal Zone was
hardly a loss. Panama itself was a plus because we got rid of the
dictator and the country itself has been doing much better economically
and otherwise. And we got a chance to annoy Vatican Ambassadors by
playing rock at their embassy until Noriega left. All in all a most
satisfactory foray.

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"retired54" wrote:



Thanks...Do you have any links to credible sources. I'd be interested in
hearing the full story and the circumstances.

Define credible and which full stories are you interested? The stuff
on Obama's votes for gun-related issues are from the voting records of
the State Legislature or Senate, depending on where he was voting on
things.

Yeah...you got a point: But by credible I mean not John Stewart and not Rush
Limpbaugh.

I found this

http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm

....thanks anyway. :-)

olddog

In article ,
Nate Nagel wrote:

Do you deny that Bush/Cheney lied us into war or that McCain has
completely reversed his position on many issues since Y2K (or even more
recently, e.g. torture) most of them for the worse, in a clear attempt
to pander to the ignorant Bush core voter bloc?

Yep. The lied into war part is a fallacy since (1). The intelligence
was put together under the supervision of the lone holdover from the
Clinton administration. So, it would have to be assumed that the
holdover was in collusion with the GOP and that he sold his soul to Bush
for the job. Hard to believe.. although we ARE talking about a Clinton
appointee so may be you have a point (g().
2).The raw intelligence was placed in a secured room in the
Capital prior to the vote so Congresscritter could see it and judge for
themselves, less than 1 did.
3) Even the Freakin' French were not arguing at the time that SH did
not have weapons, just that we should continue with the status quo.
Largely because Elf, their large oil company was involved with oil for
UN.. err kickbacks to SH, err. food deal. (The irony in this so
delicious)
$). The Iraqi high command was at least as surprised as anyone else
by the lack of WMDs. Apparently the Sadamster was using the fact that
"other general" were in command of WMD to keep them in line.
5). H certainly wasn't acting like a man w/o something to hide.
One of those things that has been said over and over until accepted.
Again "ignorant Bush core voter block".

In article ,
Nate Nagel wrote:


Including the 1st amendment - "free speech zones" anyone?

Not sure the context of this.

In article ,
"Stormin Mormon" wrote:

What would you do with an Obama sign?

Well, I can make a hat, or a brouche, or a epititom!

In article ,
"Stormin Mormon" wrote:

Are Bush Cheney signs useful for anything?


Well, I can make a hat, or a brouche, or a epititom!

Kurt (@ least I'm consistent) Ullman

clipped


No, that is called stupidity. A true patriot, when the folks in charge
make a bonehead move, CALLS them on it, and insists on a different
course of action.


Does anyone recall that in the leadup to the "war" in Iraq anyone who
was not for invading was unpatriotic? That, IMO, is the worst form of
traitor. We are bombing to install "democracy" in Iraq, and in the
Republican/gun toting/warmonger form of democracy you are a traitor if
you don't toe the party line. Just as true to the cause as the phony
religious (gag) posturing that has gone on for so long.

The PTB work for us, not the other way around. The rub comes when it
is a situation where there are no good answers, just choices among
varying degrees of bad ones. The US knocked over the bucket in SWA, so
they are sort of obligated to help clean it up at this point. Saddam
was scum, and deserves to burn in hell. But why exactly was he OUR
problem to solve, again?

Because we armed him to fight Iran, where they overthrew the ******* we
installed? Why would the middle-east not hate our guts? If we could be
honest and say that we went in to keep China from grabbing the oil, then
GWB would be a hero and we could fight a real war. The so-called
"surge" is looking good because we are paying the Sunni tribe
mercenaries to fight some bad guys, and when the money spigot is turned
off, then...........

Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
"retired54" wrote:



Thanks...Do you have any links to credible sources. I'd be interested in
hearing the full story and the circumstances.



Define credible and which full stories are you interested? The stuff
on Obama's votes for gun-related issues are from the voting records of
the State Legislature or Senate, depending on where he was voting on
things.


Was that before or after the week that Chicago had ten drive-by murders
in one week?

Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:



Look at the places where we did "withdraw:" Vietnam and Panama come
to mind. Hong Kong is another example



Hong Kong was a British protectorate and they pulled out at the end
of a 100-year treaty. Be hard to put either of those on the backs of ANY
US person.



## Panama was not a failure until a Democratic president decided to withdraw
from the Canal Zone.



On the Canal Zone, I tend to agree (for about the only time) with
the Late and Much Lamented SI Hyakawa Senator from California who said:
"Of course it is ours we stole it fair and square". The Canal Zone was
hardly a loss. Panama itself was a plus because we got rid of the
dictator and the country itself has been doing much better economically
and otherwise. And we got a chance to annoy Vatican Ambassadors by
playing rock at their embassy until Noriega left. All in all a most
satisfactory foray.


Hope they played some "Meatloaf".

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
Nate Nagel wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
Nate Nagel wrote:

Right, but in none of those places is there active fighting going
on. There haven't been shots fired in Korea or Germany for decades.

But in all of those places shot were being exchanged for much
longer than 5 years after we got there. This argument means nothing
until we get 10 or more years out.


I don't want to commit our young men and women for 10 years in Iraq
for no purpose.

It's yet to be explained to me why we're even in Iraq, save for the
lies of the Bush administration all proven to have been false.


[How can a lie be false? When it's the truth? But I know what you're
trying to say.]

Commit our young men and women? They are all volunteers. They joined up
for the chance to kill people and blow things up. 85% of Iraq and
Afghanistan veterans re-enlist. The remaining 15% retired, invalided out,
went to work for Blackwater, or have harridan spouses.

Our soldiers want to be there, they enjoy being there, they NEED to be
there! They fight for duty's sake, for honor's sake, for glory's sake.

Having our forces engaged in combat every decade or so is also to our
benefit. I saw a recent report stating that virtually every military
commander, from sergeant to general, has, by now, led men in combat. You
can't get that kind of experience off the shelf.

Leaving Iraq and Afghanistan out of the equation for a moment, of the
50-odd remaining Muslim countries, only two are putative democracies
(Turkey and Malaysia). The rest are monarchies (Jordan, Saudi Arabia),
theocracies (Iran), oligarchies (Egypt), totalitarian (Lybia), or
out-and-out anarchies (Sudan, Somalia).

These 48 leaders have to worry about whether they'll be next.

With McCain, we have a clear chance to take out Iran. Following Iran, with
Palin as president, I don't know who would be next.

Which country has wolves?

They are all out to get you.

olddog

Nate Nagel wrote in
:

Jim Yanik wrote:
Nate Nagel wrote in
:

Jim Yanik wrote:
Nate Nagel wrote in
:


face it, your hero is a FAILURE and the sooner he is out of the
White House the sooner we can get back to rebuilding our own
country.

nate

you simply have "failure" etched into your brain.
Nope

Yup.

But liberals/leftists want the US to fail.
What does that have to do with me? (hint: I am neither a liberal or
a leftist, and would rather vote for Zombie Goldwater than either of
the two candidates running for prez this time around.)

YOU want the US to fail by continuing Bush's policies of failure.

I just want a government that doesn't lie to me (and the rest of the
world) doesn't start wars for no reason and commits enough resources
to a job to finish it. IS that too much to ask?

nate




Obama has lied to you BIG time.
He's counting on the "useful idiots",too,who only hear what he says
and don't bother examining his past record.

Bush has lied to me (and you!) too. So has McCain. The only
difference between them is the intent of their lies.

sophistry.

you're simply too blind to see.


We've already seen where Bush's lies have taken us.

And what lies were those??
(here comes the WMD nonsense...)

McCain simply
will tell you whatever you want to hear to get elected; I have no idea
what his true agenda is. Obama is simply a Democrat; that's bad, but
that's less bad than the devil I don't know.

You have McCain and Obama reversed.McCain has a very public record,while
Obama has little,and tries to HIDE what little he has.
But you're too blind to see that.

Obama's words;
"We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what
it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's
like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And
that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."

He clearly believes in legislating from the bench. More judges like
Ginsberg,that make up their own law instead of interpreting the
Constitution AS WRITTEN. That is FAR more dangerous to America than
anything Bush or McCain has done.

So,you are saying that's what -you- want,and that is a LIBERAL,socialist
position.


The real problem is people like you who refuse to accept that you've
been lied to and manipulated.

That is exactly what I belive about YOU.
And there's SO much evidence to prove it.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Kurt Ullman wrote in news:kurtullman-
:

In article ,
Nate Nagel wrote:


Obama is trying to move policy in a leftwardly direction. We *know*
this. This is not completely bad; so long as the more reasonable
elements of Congress can at least get him to lower corporate tax rates,
there's really nothing wrong with, say, reasonable progressive personal
income taxes or health care reform.

Good luck with the reasonable part. Don't even get me started on
either one's health care reform. It ain't remotely what is needed.


No, anyone who still thinks that Bush is a good President or McCain has
any integrity *has* been lied to and manipulated. If that sounds
condescending so be it, but the evidence is plain and readily available
to anyone who is willing to do more than simple watch Fox News.

I do far more than watch Fox News.
(and no talk radio,no O'Reilly,no Rush...)
Anyone who thinks Time,Newsweek,CBS,NBC,ABC,or CNN are fair and
balanced(not even close...) are oblivious.


Again, anyone who disagrees you with has been manipulated. The
Stepford Voter, so to speak. Real interesting in light of your response
to Jim a couple of posts ago.


Nate is citing all the typical LIBERAL,leftist talking points.But he claims
to be "centrist".
Well,the Soviet communists used to claim they were "progressives",just like
the Liberals and DemocRATs of today.
And there's lots of similarities between them.

Nate is SO blind.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Nate Nagel wrote in
:

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
Nate Nagel wrote:

Obama is trying to move policy in a leftwardly direction. We *know*
this. This is not completely bad; so long as the more reasonable
elements of Congress can at least get him to lower corporate tax
rates, there's really nothing wrong with, say, reasonable
progressive personal income taxes or health care reform.

Good luck with the reasonable part. Don't even get me started on
either one's health care reform. It ain't remotely what is needed.

True dat... true dat.


No, anyone who still thinks that Bush is a good President or McCain
has any integrity *has* been lied to and manipulated. If that
sounds condescending so be it, but the evidence is plain and readily
available to anyone who is willing to do more than simple watch Fox
News.


Again, anyone who disagrees you with has been manipulated. The
Stepford Voter, so to speak. Real interesting in light of your
response to Jim a couple of posts ago.

Do you deny that Bush/Cheney lied us into war

what lies were those? Do you even know the definition of "lie"?

or that McCain has
completely reversed his position on many issues since Y2K (or even
more recently, e.g. torture) most of them for the worse, in a clear
attempt to pander to the ignorant Bush core voter bloc?

nate


Nate obviously doesn't know the definitions of many words. "torture"??

I bet McCain knows what "torture" is. Nate sure doesn't.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Kurt Ullman wrote in news:kurtullman-
:

In article ,
Nate Nagel wrote:

Do you deny that Bush/Cheney lied us into war or that McCain has
completely reversed his position on many issues since Y2K (or even more
recently, e.g. torture) most of them for the worse, in a clear attempt
to pander to the ignorant Bush core voter bloc?

Yep. The lied into war part is a fallacy since (1). The intelligence
was put together under the supervision of the lone holdover from the
Clinton administration. So, it would have to be assumed that the
holdover was in collusion with the GOP and that he sold his soul to Bush
for the job. Hard to believe.. although we ARE talking about a Clinton
appointee so may be you have a point (g().

You omitted the info that many other allies information matched ours WRT
Iraq.

2).The raw intelligence was placed in a secured room in the
Capital prior to the vote so Congresscritter could see it and judge for
themselves, less than 1 did.
3) Even the Freakin' French were not arguing at the time that SH did
not have weapons, just that we should continue with the status quo.
Largely because Elf, their large oil company was involved with oil for
UN.. err kickbacks to SH, err. food deal. (The irony in this so
delicious)
$). The Iraqi high command was at least as surprised as anyone else
by the lack of WMDs. Apparently the Sadamster was using the fact that
"other general" were in command of WMD to keep them in line.

the WMD material was moved to Syria.

5). H certainly wasn't acting like a man w/o something to hide.
One of those things that has been said over and over until accepted.
Again "ignorant Bush core voter block".


Well,the leftists hear only what they want to hear,and anything that
demonizes Bush(the "illegitimate President") HAS to be gospel.
They repeat it over and over so it then becomes (to them) the "truth".

Liberals operate on feelings and not on rational thought.

Nate clearly didn't hear ALL the reasons Bush gave for the Iraq invasion.
His Mainstream Media,all Bush haters,omitted or deemphasized much to aid in
the demonization of Bush.(the MSM ARE 70% DemocRAT...)

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Nate Nagel wrote in
:

Jim Yanik wrote:
Nate Nagel wrote in
:

HeyBub wrote:
Bob F wrote:
"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
...


Major misconception;
Bush is NOT "doing the same thing over and over".
Bush made a strategic move for the ME with the Iraq war.
IMO,it was/is a good idea.

It WOULD have helped greatly if the DemocRATs had given true
support instead of being divisive and thus giving moral support
to the enemy. But they would rather appease the enemies of the
US,thinking that will buy them respect and good will.How naive.
This has been claimed by the Republicans continuously and has
never been true. The democrats were not devisive. They were
realistic. Going into Iraq was stupid, uncalled for, persued with
lies and distortions, and totally missplanned. So why should they
support it. "Morale support to the ememy"???? This is laughable.
Why?

"Our country! In her intercourse with foreign nations, may she
always be in the right; but our country, right or wrong."

It's called loyalty.

I'm loyal to my *country* not to that idiot in the White House

Uh,HE AINT RUNNING in THIS election..

McCain, Bush, what's the difference? They're indistinguishable
off-screen.

If you don't know,then perhaps you should not vote;it would be voting out
of ignorance.

Talk about buying into Obama's deception plan....


and all
his evil sidekicks.

"evil sidekicks";
do you mean like Ayers(terrorist,communist),Wright(america-
hater),Rezko(felon),Khalidi,Pflieger,Alinsky(commu nist),et al ???

those are OBAMA'S sidekicks.Obama's a product of the Daley Chicago
political machine,the most corrupt in America.
But Nate is too blinded by BDS to see that.


nate


so you would destroy your country by voting in a communist;Obama.

Or are you voting Libertarian? That's essentially not voting at all.


I'm voting *against* the party that has been destroying the country I
love for the last eight years.

The DemocRATs??? B-)

nate



You have NO idea of real destruction of America,and the communist Obama
would be the one to begin it.
Starting with the Constitution.
He's already on record as being anti-2nd Amendment,demonstrates a clear
dislike for the First Amendment.

But you are too blind to see that.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Jim Yanik wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote in news:kurtullman-
:

In article ,
Nate Nagel wrote:

Do you deny that Bush/Cheney lied us into war or that McCain has
completely reversed his position on many issues since Y2K (or even more
recently, e.g. torture) most of them for the worse, in a clear attempt
to pander to the ignorant Bush core voter bloc?

Yep. The lied into war part is a fallacy since (1). The intelligence
was put together under the supervision of the lone holdover from the
Clinton administration. So, it would have to be assumed that the
holdover was in collusion with the GOP and that he sold his soul to Bush
for the job. Hard to believe.. although we ARE talking about a Clinton
appointee so may be you have a point (g().

You omitted the info that many other allies information matched ours WRT
Iraq.

And yet it's odd that the support of said allies started to dry up after
we invaded Iraq...

Come on, be honest, when you turned on the TV and saw GWB sitting there
telling us that US forces had just invaded Iraq, weren't you thinking
exactly what I was - which was pretty much "WTF? Why the hell would he
do THAT when we're already committed in Afghanistan? What the hell
happened? ****, this is all about his dad, isn't it?" Never mind that
GHWB is on record as stating that the deliberately did not go after
Saddam after our initial objectives in GW1 were met as that would
destabilize the country and we didn't have the resources to rebuild it
from the ground up etc.


2).The raw intelligence was placed in a secured room in the
Capital prior to the vote so Congresscritter could see it and judge for
themselves, less than 1 did.
3) Even the Freakin' French were not arguing at the time that SH did
not have weapons, just that we should continue with the status quo.
Largely because Elf, their large oil company was involved with oil for
UN.. err kickbacks to SH, err. food deal. (The irony in this so
delicious)
$). The Iraqi high command was at least as surprised as anyone else
by the lack of WMDs. Apparently the Sadamster was using the fact that
"other general" were in command of WMD to keep them in line.

the WMD material was moved to Syria.

Then it's good that GWB will be out of office before he has the chance
to invade Syria on your intelligence and embarasses us even more.


5). H certainly wasn't acting like a man w/o something to hide.
One of those things that has been said over and over until accepted.
Again "ignorant Bush core voter block".


Well,the leftists hear only what they want to hear,and anything that
demonizes Bush(the "illegitimate President") HAS to be gospel.
They repeat it over and over so it then becomes (to them) the "truth".

Liberals operate on feelings and not on rational thought.

Nate clearly didn't hear ALL the reasons Bush gave for the Iraq invasion.
His Mainstream Media,all Bush haters,omitted or deemphasized much to aid in
the demonization of Bush.(the MSM ARE 70% DemocRAT...)


There were really only two. WMD's and connections to Bin Laden. Both
lies. The latter wasn't really an explicit lie, more of an attempt to
associate the two by juxtaposing them in speeches, even though there was
no connection between Saddam and Al-Qaida (then) IRL. Cheney did slip
up once and made an explicit connection between the two on TV though,
although nobody seemed to make any kind of big deal out of it for some
reason.

There might have been other reasons for the invasion, but they were
never presented to the American public.

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Nate Nagel wrote in
:

Jim Yanik wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote in
:

In article ,
Nate Nagel wrote:

Which brings us full circle to my original point. McCain has no
set convictions (say what you will about Bush, he has those - he's
almost always wrong, but at least he has convictions) so it's
impossible for me to vote for him.

But then that would also make it impossible for vote for Obama,
too.


Worse;the convictions Obama HAS already evidenced are those of
communism. If Nate really fears for the Constitution,OBAMA is the one
who will truly tear it apart.The Second Amendment will be the first
to go,followed closely by the First Amendment.

But ol Nate has drunk the Kool-aid.


Um, Obama used to teach Constitutional law.

Who says he got it right??
after all,he will not release any of his papers,thesis,etc.

He may be a Socialist,
but he has to have a better grasp on what the Constitution says and
means than Bush, McCain, et. al.

nate

How DELUDED by hate and BDS you are....


Obama'a words on nominating judges;
"We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what
it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's
like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And
that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."


He clearly believes in legislating from the bench.
Constitutional? I don't believe that.

what Constitution are you referrring to,Nate???

Do you believe in WRITTEN LAW?

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Nate Nagel wrote in
:

Jim Yanik wrote:
Nate Nagel wrote in
:

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
Nate Nagel wrote:

Which brings us full circle to my original point. McCain has no set
convictions (say what you will about Bush, he has those - he's
almost always wrong, but at least he has convictions) so it's
impossible for me to vote for him.

But then that would also make it impossible for vote for Obama,
too.
Obama simply by being younger hasn't had the same opportunities as
McCain to go on record with one position and then eight years later
support another one.

How BLIND you are;Obama has alrady reversed himself on many things.
(besides his voting "Present" 90% of the time)

The sad thing is, I would have voted for the Y2K
McCain, before he was destroyed by the same Karl Rove who's working
for the 2008 McCain.

I'll probably vote for Obama not because I want to but because I feel
that the current Republican administration is literally dangerous to
the American way of life

More blindness.

and McCain has done little to distance
himself from their policies and actions, his protestations of "I'm not
George Bush" notwithstanding. The Republican party needs to move away
- no, that's not strong enough, try "make a clean break" - from the
neocons and religious right and back towards a more Goldwater-esque
philosophy before I can ever consider supporting them.

I would be sorely tempted to vote Libertarian just to make a point if
it weren't for the fact that the election is still close enough that
there's a danger that that would allow McCain to win. That can't be
allowed, period. I do live in one of those states that is still "too
close to call" so I really don't feel that I can vote how I really
want to, I need to cast the vote that will keep McCain and Palin out.

nate


typical Liberal "thinking".


Gawd, you're a moron. Do you ever have any thoughts? Do they hurt?

nate


Ah,now we get into ad hominem attacks.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Jim Yanik wrote:
Nate Nagel wrote in
:

Jim Yanik wrote:
Nate Nagel wrote in
:

HeyBub wrote:
Bob F wrote:
"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
...


Major misconception;
Bush is NOT "doing the same thing over and over".
Bush made a strategic move for the ME with the Iraq war.
IMO,it was/is a good idea.

It WOULD have helped greatly if the DemocRATs had given true
support instead of being divisive and thus giving moral support
to the enemy. But they would rather appease the enemies of the
US,thinking that will buy them respect and good will.How naive.
This has been claimed by the Republicans continuously and has
never been true. The democrats were not devisive. They were
realistic. Going into Iraq was stupid, uncalled for, persued with
lies and distortions, and totally missplanned. So why should they
support it. "Morale support to the ememy"???? This is laughable.
Why?

"Our country! In her intercourse with foreign nations, may she
always be in the right; but our country, right or wrong."

It's called loyalty.

I'm loyal to my *country* not to that idiot in the White House
Uh,HE AINT RUNNING in THIS election..
McCain, Bush, what's the difference? They're indistinguishable
off-screen.

If you don't know,then perhaps you should not vote;it would be voting out
of ignorance.

Talk about buying into Obama's deception plan....
and all
his evil sidekicks.

"evil sidekicks";
do you mean like Ayers(terrorist,communist),Wright(america-
hater),Rezko(felon),Khalidi,Pflieger,Alinsky(commu nist),et al ???

those are OBAMA'S sidekicks.Obama's a product of the Daley Chicago
political machine,the most corrupt in America.
But Nate is too blinded by BDS to see that.

nate

so you would destroy your country by voting in a communist;Obama.

Or are you voting Libertarian? That's essentially not voting at all.

I'm voting *against* the party that has been destroying the country I
love for the last eight years.

The DemocRATs??? B-)
nate



You have NO idea of real destruction of America,and the communist Obama
would be the one to begin it.
Starting with the Constitution.
He's already on record as being anti-2nd Amendment,demonstrates a clear
dislike for the First Amendment.

But you are too blind to see that.


Don't even speak about destruction of the Constitution if you are a Bush
supporter. He's done more to destroy the Constitution than every
president preceding him combined. He is, quite literally, the worst
president ever to hold the office.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel