The Best Way To Support Obama?

Status
Not open for further replies.
All this "what has he done? what does he stand for?" crap is willful ignorance. You have time to shoot the shit here but can't be bothered to look up the info you need to vote? Concrete information about his positions and his record is all over the Internet. The "empty suit" meme is for people who actually believe everything that comes out of a Clinton's mouth.

As for what Obama stands for, here's a blog post linking to his policy speeches. There's a lot more detail on his website:

Economists for Obama: Obama Policy Speeches (or Doesn't Susan Estrich Know How to Use Google?)

For his record, this is the best post I've seen:

Obsidian Wings: Barack Obama

Here's a more detailed list of his U.S. Senate accomplishments:

Daily Kos: State of the Nation

Short summary of his major Illinois accomplishments:

Charles Peters - Judge Him by His Laws - washingtonpost.com

A graphic summarizing his Illinois record:

The New York Times > U.S. > Image > Obama’s Record in the Illinois Senate

Here's a really interesting profile of Obama written in 1995, which kind of shows his authenticity, the way his main no-BS message remained the same:

Chicago Reader | Obama-rama: What Makes Obama Run? Lawyer, teacher, philanthropist, and author Barack Obama doesn't need another career. But he's entering politics to get back to his true passion--community organization. December 8, 1995

Also, FYI, he's a professor of Constitutional Law, and he graduated #1 from his class at Harvard Law. He's much, much smarter than Hillary or Mccain.

Here's a Youtube video that really captures what Obama's about. It's an off-the-cuff answer to somebody's question about education after a rally in Texas the other day. It's just completely different from the kind of stuff you hear from most politicians, so common sense, so non-ideological. He dares to not pander.

YouTube - Barack Obama in Beaumont, TX

Obama's not the lesser of 2 evils. Every 4 years we sit around thinking, "well, these choices suck, why can't someone like _____ run?" Obama fills in that blank. He's a good guy with common sense and he's smart as hell.
 


And what do we know of the hidden agendas associated with the big money coming in to finance his campaign? Some of those people are gonna want to at least get a reach around.
Click to expand...
Over 1,000,000 donors, including me. Average donation about $130. The only thing these people want for their money is a President who doesn't owe any donors special favors.

No I want to see his social, economic and military stance pertaining to the United States. He isn't running for the United Nations, he is running for President of the United States.
Click to expand...
Um, then look at the parts of his website other than his foreign policy summary.

Barack Obama | Change We Can Believe In | Issues

I want to know what he expects to do about the current problems facing the US like illegal immigraion, possible recession, what social programs does he expect to immplement. What is he going to do with our military cut it or raise a larger army.
Click to expand...
You can find all that off his website. But, off the top of my head...

Immigration: Strongly increased border security, plus a path to naturalization for people who are here, provided they learn English and pay a fine and back-taxes. Once they become citizens they have to pay taxes and can't work for less than minimum wage etc, which solves a lot of the economic problems illegals are causing.
Recession: Short-term tax rebates for the middle class to boost consumers. Long-term investment in infrastructure, especially energy independence, which will create a lot of public works jobs and private sector green jobs.
Military: He's planning to increase the number of troops we have, and gradually redeploy them out of Iraq back home for training or into Afghanistan.

If you want more detail, go to his website. He's got a bunch of lengthy PDFs about all these issues. Don't expect his supporters to regurgitate everything for you on a forum.

I don't trust Obama. He's coming off like Hitler did before he got into power.
I don't trust McCain. Anyone remember the Keating 5?
I don't trust Hillary. Still screaming about "Universal Health Care".
Click to expand...
You're contradicting yourself. The only way to buy into the idea that Obama's an "empty suit" full of talk with a cult-like following is to trust what Hillary Clinton says about him.

That's a problem with how a lot of people see politics: they say they don't trust any politician, but they're inclined to believe just about every negative thing any politician says about the others, and so they end up thinking they're all a bunch of crooks. That's wrong, and it's lazy. Sometimes good people do go into politics for good reasons and don't get corrupted along the way. It doesn't happen as often as it should, but it does happen, and it's possible to sort them out. That means not buying into anyone's bullshit, including the negative bullshit flung by the likes of the Clintons.

Obama's one of the good ones. I've read both his books and a shitload of biographical articles about him, including stuff dating back to before he entered politics. He's been consistent on his main messages all his life, and he's extremely good at everything he tries. You may have some policy disagreement you just can't get past or something, but don't get suckered into thinking he's not experienced or smart or honest or tough enough. His character and background are ideal for the job.
 
I watched the part of interview on TV. That guy as a congressman couldn't answer simple question. We can really sense how Obama supporters are. Lot of his supporters are duped or cheated by his non-substance big talk "Change".
Click to expand...
It's stupid to judge all his supporters by one airheaded Texan local politician. Ask Hillary's supporters to name her concrete accomplishments during her so-called "35 years of experience" and they'll come up empty 99% of the time. She's less accomplished than Obama is... she's just been famous for longer.

Here's an awesome YouTube video... some jerk reporter tried to corner a random young Obama supporter with those gotcha questions and got his ass handed to him:

YouTube - Obama vs Clinton Hollywood Democratic Debate 3

Is that just another cultist? I'd like to see Chris Matthews pick on that kid.

What he really changed in politics for the past 17 years?
Click to expand...
In Illinois, he was behind the biggest ethics reform they've ever had. In the U.S. Senate, he was behind the biggest ethics reform since Watergate, and transparency reform, creating USAspending.gov to allow people to track all government spending and make it clear which legislators are being wasteful. Those are just the big accomplishments... he's done a lot of less famous work on voter rights, etc.

What's real fact he united others in the senate?
Click to expand...
Read about his Illinois death penalty reform to see how he really took an issue on which everyone was bitterly divided and ended up passing a really good bill unanimously. That's the best example. In the U.S. Senate, he worked with Republicans on all the government reform I mentioned above. He also worked with Dick Lugar on nuclear non-proliferation, making sure all the nukes left over in former Soviet republics are secure so they can't fall into the wrong hands.

Is he clean? Washington is broken/bad, why he got into Washington? Why he didn't leave wishington? Why he is associated and want to get endoresment from those oldest guys in senates?
Click to expand...
He's completely clean... not a corrupt bone in his body. He's got enough raw political talent as a speaker he never needed to be corrupt to get ahead.

He didn't leave Washington because he's trying to fix it. What good could he do from outside compared to what he can do as President?

Why did he want endorsements? Um, everybody in politics wants endorsements. The more the better.

His words and his actions just don't match!
Click to expand...
Yeah, they do. Unless you're getting your opinion on them straight from Hillary Clinton, rather than looking at the facts for yourself.
 
Jondoe0069 said:
Plus things were much more peaceful when Bill was in the office getting blown and getting his cigars wet with pussy juice.
Click to expand...

Yeah, like the first time the terrorists bombed the World Trade Center in '93. Guess the body count was too low then :sleep:. Or maybe when dead U.S. soldiers were being dragged through the streets by cheering Somali mobs - supposedly the same people we helped rescue from starvation :sleep:. Or how about the attack on the USS Cole - 19 dead, 39 injured :sleep:. What did the Clinton administration do in response to all those events? :sleep: The only time he showed any sack was ordering air strikes against Iraq for Saddam's failure to comply with UN weapons inspectors - which just so happened to be on the eve of the House meeting to consider the four articles of impeachment against him :eek:. Good times.
 
it's a amazing how people will support a guy who says nothing and offers nothing ... He just says change change ....



Stupid totally stupid people ...

Peaceful God man stupid people think terrorist are the good guys and the
Bush is the bad guy ...

They hate war they say like anyone really love war ...
The hate the soldiers who fight and say they are killing people ...
Yes killing people who would in a heart beat kill you and your family ...

Strange these liberals say this about war and soldier ....
The are against getting information out of terrorist even if they are planning to kill millions... Like water boarding is so wrong we should not hurt these good terrorist ...
Totally without understanding are these liberals ...

Why is it we have police and they have no problems calling the police to stop someone...
Stop the criminals cause crimes ,but don't stop the terrorist who believe they are support to kill all of us. (yes you liberals too)

God the common sense of people is lost ...
 
superman said:
it's a amazing how people will support a guy who says nothing and offers nothing ... He just says change change ....



Stupid totally stupid people ...

Peaceful God man stupid people think terrorist are the good guys and the
Bush is the bad guy ...

They hate war they say like anyone really love war ...
The hate the soldiers who fight and say they are killing people ...
Yes killing people who would in a heart beat kill you and your family ...

Strange these liberals say this about war and soldier ....
The are against getting information out of terrorist even if they are planning to kill millions... Like water boarding is so wrong we should not hurt these good terrorist ...
Totally without understanding are these liberals ...

Why is it we have police and they have no problems calling the police to stop someone...
Stop the criminals cause crimes ,but don't stop the terrorist who believe they are support to kill all of us. (yes you liberals too)

God the common sense of people is lost ...
Click to expand...

I'm assuming English isn't your first language, but try to get to grips with the basics of grammar and punctuation, please.

I don't have time to try and respond to each of your poorly-constructed points, but consider this:

A terrorist is a criminal. Terrorism is a criminal act, not an act of war. Those who want to you to think otherwise are those who, as you put it, love war.
 
it's a amazing how people will support a guy who says nothing and offers nothing ... He just says change change ....
Click to expand...

Why do you post shit that makes you look like an idiot? Especially right below 3 lengthy posts in which I list all kinds of resources about Obama's substance?

For someone who claims not to be a liberal, you sure love Hillary Clinton's talking points about Obama. I hope you realize that you don't have to believe everything she says just because you think she's hot. She's not going to leave Bill (at least not for you), so there's really no point.
 
I have been watching Barrack Obama for quite sometime and what I have seen, has been nothing short of disappointing. Obama has been mostly silent in regards to his policy on the mortgage and housing crisis. You guys know, the BIGGEST FUCKEN THING on the US shores.

He has done little to address the millions of Americans that are “suffering” as a result of these loans they were sold by irresponsible lenders.

I came across thisinteresting article in the Huffington Post by Earl Ofari Hutchinson. Here are some quotes that I thought I would share with my readers. Since they need to know what candidates truly have their backs. Meaning, which candidate is truly here for the people which they represent and the millions of homeowners that were swindled by the banks.
Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama says he’ll crack down on fraudulent sub-prime lenders. If he really means it he can start by firing his campaign finance chair, Penny Pritzker. Before taking over Obama’s campaign finances, she headed up the borderline shady and failed Superior Bank. It collapsed in 2002. The bank’s sordid story and its abominable role in fueling the sub-prime crisis are well known and documented. It engaged in deceptive and faulty lending, questionable accounting practices, and charged hidden fees. It did it with the sleepy-eyed see-no-evil oversight of federal. It made thousands of dubious loans to mostly poor, strapped homeowners. A disproportionate number of them were minority.
​
I am not really familiar with this Penny Pritzker. So, I thought I would do a Google search and this is what I found. This is from wikipedia.​
On February 20, 2008, Flashpoints Radioproduced an investigative report segment into how Penny Pritzker’s possible role in the current predatory lending(aka. sub-prime) crisis. According to investigative reporter Tim Anderson, Superior Bank, FSB of Hinsdale, Illinois, was owned by the Pritzker family until closed by the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) was named Receiver. Superior Bank was among the original lending institutions who used their investors money to purchase “subprime” mortgages for securitization. Pritzker banking resources working with Ernst & Young and Merrill Lynch developed the original mortgage securitation package, putting mortgages into a bond and then selling the bond. Like many banks nationwide, the decision to participate and underwrite subprime business ultimately proved fatal for their mortgage division.
​
Here is the podcast that I feel everyone should listen to from Flashpoints Radio.​
Wednesday, February 20, 2008ListenD’loadPodcast - Today on Flashpoints: Today on Flashpoints, An investigative report into Penny Pritzker, the 2008 campaign finance chairman for Barack Obama, who was a key mover and shaker in creating the sub-prime meltdown;​
It doesn’t end there and keep in mind, this is all as easy as doing a 30 second Google search. This is a November 8, 2002 article is from Inside These Times:​
After federal regulators closed the $2.3 billion Superior Bank in July 2001, investigations revealed that the suburban Chicago thrift was tainted with the hallmarks of a mini-Enron scandal. New legal developments are adding additional twists, including racketeering charges. And yet the bank’s owners, members if one of America’s wealthiest families, ultimately could end up profiting from the bank’s collapse, while many of Superior’s borrowers and depositors suffer financial losses.
​
The Superior story has a familiar ring. Using a variety of shell companies and complex financial gimmicks, Superior’s managers and owners exaggerated the profits and financial soundness of the bank. While the company actually lost money throughout most of the ’90s, publicly it appeared to be growing remarkably fast and making unusually large profits. Under that cover, the floundering enterprise paid its owners huge dividends and provided them favorable loans and other financial deals deemed illegal by federal investigators.

Wanting to avoid a lawsuit, the secretive Pritzkers quickly agreed to what the FDIC hailed in December as the biggest settlement they had ever negotiated. The Pritzkers would pay $100 million immediately, then $360 million over 15 years. But there were lots of little provisions in the agreement that benefit the Pritzkers. First, as former bank consultant and longtime thrift watchdog Tim Anderson notes, the $100 million doesn’t even quite pay back all of the unpaid loans made to the owners. The Pritzkers also pay no interest on the $360 million, and since it is paid over many years, the real cost to the Pritzkers may be only around $250 million. As of September 2002, according to FDIC figures, the insurance fund was still out $440 million after this settlement.
​
But it gets even sweeter for the Pritzkers. The FDIC also agreed to pay the Pritzkers 25 percent of any claim won in a lawsuit against Ernst & Young. Since the FDIC is now suing for $548 million, the Pritzker share could be $137 million. On top of that, the agreement stated that the Pritzkers get half of any civil penalties from such a lawsuit (after certain agency expenses). The FDIC is asking for triple damages, or $1.64 billion; the Pritzker share could be over $800 million.

Even taking into account the “record” settlement they made with the FDIC, the Pritzkers could make more than $700 million in additional profit for running a financial institution into the ground. They had already profited handsomely, sharing in the more than $200 million in dividends to the owners in the ’90s. They accomplished all this with an investment of about $21 million for each partner—though the Pritzkers had also already benefited from $645 million in tax credits.

Meanwhile, roughly 1,000 depositors who had deposits above $100,000 in a Superior account—money above the FDIC-insured limit—lost about $65 million. Most of them were middle-class individuals, attracted by Superior’s high interest rates.​
Here is the failed Superior Bank information from the FDIC

So, what does all this tell the American people? The suffering American homeowner that is struggling in one of the very same loans that Penny Pritzker used to pedal at her “Superior Swindle of a Bank”?

How can Barack Obama say you have a splinter in your eye when there is a log in his?
Personally to me, it shows that Mr. Obama is all about the Benjamin’s (AKA Money) and speeches with his big white toothed grin and hollow words that seem to have Americans under his spell and hanging on to his every word as his pockets are lined by the very sharks that feed off of suffering Americans.

Isn’t Obama supposed to protect the people against these corporations or is he to align himself with them to win an election? Hell, it seems like it doesn’t matter where that money came from to fund his campaign. As long as it serves his purpose and this purpose seems to be rearing its ugly head in the form of campaign contributions from the very same people that he criticises.​
 
More wise words from Earl Ofari Hutchinson from the Huffington Post:​
Obama boosters will try to muddy the water by fingering Pritzker’s brother, Jay Robert Pritzker, who heads up a campaign committee for Hillary Clinton. That’s irrelevant. Jay Robert did not head up Superior Bank when it ran roughshod over homeowners in Illinois and nationally. He does not head up Clinton’s campaign finance committee. The campaign committee he started is one of dozens of Clinton campaign committees that operate in many states.​
Obama’s message is one of hope and especially change. He can prove it by changing his finance chair, and doing it now. And then telling the public what he will do to stop bank’s like the one his financial point person headed from bleeding needy and desperate home buyers dry.
​
The predictable happened when many of those lost their homes. When the bank collapsed Pritzker and bank officials skipped away with their profits and reputations intact. Aside from the financial and personal misery sub prime lenders caused the thousands of distressed homeowners, sub-prime lending has been a major cause of the housing crisis in many areas, and has dealt a sledgehammer blow to the economy. Obama has said nothing about Pritzker, Superior Bank, or their dubious practices.
​
Instead, there was a touching, even teary eyed photo op, moment during one of Obama’s Texas campaign swings. There was Obama talking to a group of San Antonio residents and lambasting the CEO of a sub-prime lender for greedily snatching at a $100 million buy out package while thousands of home borrowers that his company snookered into loans at below market rates faced foreclosure or the threat of foreclosure.
​
So let me get this straight Obama. You can berate a CEO like Angelo Mozilo (I assume that is who you are speaking of) for taking profits as a result of snookering the American people. But when it comes to accepting money for your campaign, it is quite all right to take money from a woman who snookered American Homeowners and was made rich off the backs of people for which she made toxic loans to.

Excuse me Barack Obama, Penny Pritzker is guilty of the very same thing for which you had a lambasting fest in San Antonio. Now, lets see if main stream media is also under Obama’s goofy grinned spell and if they will pick up this very important information that the American people “need” to know.
 
Blastyourass said:
Isn’t Obama supposed to protect the people against these corporations or is he to align himself with them to win an election? Hell, it seems like it doesn’t matter where that money came from to fund his campaign. As long as it serves his purpose and this purpose seems to be rearing its ugly head in the form of campaign contributions from the very same people that he criticises.​
Click to expand...

How's things, Moe?

Obama seems as corrupt as the rest of them, but then hasn't this game always been about picking the best of a bad lot?
 
So exactly what evidence of wrongdoing by Obama did Assblaster find? One of the people who works for his campaign previously worked for a bank that potentially did something unethical but not illegal? So what?

If you want to know what he'll do about the mortgage crisis, maybe start with the summary on his "issues" page:

Protect Homeownership and Crack Down on Mortgage Fraud

Obama will crack down on fraudulent brokers and lenders. He will also make sure homebuyers have honest and complete information about their mortgage options, and he will give a tax credit to all middle-class homeowners.
  • Create a Universal Mortgage Credit: Obama will create a 10 percent universal mortgage credit to provide homeowners who do not itemize tax relief. This credit will provide an average of $500 to 10 million homeowners, the majority of whom earn less than $50,000 per year.
  • Ensure More Accountability in the Subprime Mortgage Industry: Obama has been closely monitoring the subprime mortgage situation for years, and introduced comprehensive legislation over a year ago to fight mortgage fraud and protect consumers against abusive lending practices. Obama's STOP FRAUD Act provides the first federal definition of mortgage fraud, increases funding for federal and state law enforcement programs, creates new criminal penalties for mortgage professionals found guilty of fraud, and requires industry insiders to report suspicious activity.
  • Mandate Accurate Loan Disclosure: Obama will create a Homeowner Obligation Made Explicit (HOME) score, which will provide potential borrowers with a simplified, standardized borrower metric (similar to APR) for home mortgages. The HOME score will allow individuals to easily compare various mortgage products and understand the full cost of the loan.
  • Create Fund to Help Homeowners Avoid Foreclosures: Obama will create a fund to help people refinance their mortgages and provide comprehensive supports to innocent homeowners. The fund will be partially paid for by Obama's increased penalties on lenders who act irresponsibly and commit fraud.
  • Close Bankruptcy Loophole for Mortgage Companies: Obama will work to eliminate the provision that prevents bankruptcy courts from modifying an individual's mortgage payments. Obama believes that the subprime mortgage industry, which has engaged in dangerous and sometimes unscrupulous business practices, should not be shielded by outdated federal law.
Click to expand...
LazyHippy writes:

Obama seems as corrupt as the rest of them, but then hasn't this game always been about picking the best of a bad lot?
Click to expand...
No, it hasn't, and it's especially untrue this time.

The reason every politician seems like the lesser of two evils by the time the election rolls around is that the other side has just spent millions of dollars and man-hours trying to smear them. Imagine if someone poured millions of dollars into researching your past, everything you've ever did and everyone you've ever known, looking for anything that could be portrayed, even dishonestly, as improper. Imagine them digging through everything that everyone you know has said or done, even things you don't agree with and weren't involved with. And there's also a crowd out there just making shit up. Do you really think you or anyone you know could run that gauntlet and come out looking any cleaner than Obama? Hell, if you dabbled in PPC arbitrage the smear machines would have you painted as a spam kingpin in no time. That's how it works.

The point is that you should be as skeptical of negative claims as of positive ones, and most people aren't. Most people have a hard time believing any politician is genuinely good, but they're inclined to unquestioningly believe every negative rumor that comes their way. That's why negative campaigning and character attacks are so popular. It's hard to convince people you're good, but it's easy to convince people that the other guy sucks. That's why you have die-hard Republicans, people who wouldn't trust Hillary as far as they could throw her, eager to believe her nonsensical assertion that Obama is "all talk and no substance." They hate the woman, but they believe everything she says, if it's negative. People who fall for this kind of politics end up thinking, "oh, they're all a bunch of crooks."

That's just not true. Sometimes, people really do go into politics because they want to do good. And sometimes they make it high up without being corrupted. It doesn't happen as often as it should, but it happens. And Obama is one of the good ones. I know this from reading both his books, including the one he wrote before entering politics, various other biographies and profiles, and following him closely since 2004.

People are going to fling mud at him, but if you want to really make a good decision you've got to look at how much sense the criticism makes. Right now it's mostly just people making fun of his middle name, and coming up with these cheesy guilt-by-association scandals along the lines of, "oh! He's so corrupt! He knew a guy who knew a guy whose uncle's mechanic had a daughter who got arrested for shoplifting at a 7-11..." Everyone in politics has come into contact with, and even had dealings with, someone who's done something improper, someone who has been corrupted. It's impossible to put together a campaign staff of hundreds without hiring someone who's connected to something sketchy in their past. Unless it's a systematic pattern of cozying up to shady characters, it's not relevant. Look at what the candidate has done to judge the candidate.
 
LazyHippy said:
A terrorist is a criminal. Terrorism is a criminal act, not an act of war. Those who want to you to think otherwise are those who, as you put it, love war.
Click to expand...

Well you prove my point:calling a terrorist the same as criminals show how low your I.Q is ...
Terrorism is not a criminal act and has never been .Terrorism is engages in war tractics for the purpose killing in the name of war for their false God ... But as I said you liberals defend the terrorist and then attack your own country with words of traitors...

A Liberal is a Socialist is a Communist ...
 
The best way to support obama?

strap a bomb to your chest and run into a american base

ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US!!!!
 
superman said:
Well you prove my point:calling a terrorist the same as criminals show how low your I.Q is ...
Terrorism is not a criminal act and has never been .Terrorism is engages in war tractics for the purpose killing in the name of war for their false God ... But as I said you liberals defend the terrorist and then attack your own country with words of traitors...

A Liberal is a Socialist is a Communist ...
Click to expand...

It seems your grasp of politics is on par with your understanding of law.

I'm not going to get into the differences between liberalism, socialism and communism - just use Wikipedia.

Under the majority of legal systems worldwide terrorism is regarded as a criminal act, regardless of whether "terrorism is engages in war tractics for the purpose killing in the name of war for their false God", or they are freedom fighters fighting for an oppressed minority (as many would view the acts of early Americans against the British) the acts they commit are criminal ones.

Why should someone who commits a crime for political, religious or ideological reasons be treated more harshly than someone who commits crimes for any other reason?

Religious extremists are only a threat to your way of life because your leaders want them to be. They've done a good job convincing the sheeple that there's a threat so they happily pour their taxes into it. Great use of money - creating a battlefield far away to create more.. I mean fight the "terrorists" - much better than spending it on actual security at borders or maybe even dealing with the root causes of religious extremist terrorism.

Look where the cash is going. Look where it went during the cold war. Baa.

Obama is making noise about diplomacy with Iran etc, I think a lot of it is just noise though. I doubt he'll invade Iraq - thank fuck - but it wouldn't surprise me if they become a friendly dictatorship again, they've got a fair bit of oil.

Maybe Obama would put some time into trying to sort out the Israel-Palestine issue, along with Bush's legacy in Iraq and Afghanistan, but most likely it'll be too little, too late.
 
LazyHippy said:
It seems your grasp of politics is on par with your understanding of law.

I'm not going to get into the differences between liberalism, socialism and communism - just use Wikipedia.

Under the majority of legal systems worldwide terrorism is regarded as a criminal act, regardless of whether "terrorism is engages in war tractics for the purpose killing in the name of war for their false God", or they are freedom fighters fighting for an oppressed minority (as many would view the acts of early Americans against the British) the acts they commit are criminal ones.

Why should someone who commits a crime for political, religious or ideological reasons be treated more harshly than someone who commits crimes for any other reason?

What surprises me is the stance alot of Brits take with terrorist. The IRA bombed the shit outa you guys for a long time. Hell, terror plots are broke up in London constantly. Disgruntled muslims are burning cars and killing people in France and you guys wana "talk it out with them". Look what stopped the IRA. It wasn't talkin that solved that problem. It was hunting them down and killing them.

Religious extremists are only a threat to your way of life because your leaders want them to be. They've done a good job convincing the sheeple that there's a threat so they happily pour their taxes into it. Great use of money - creating a battlefield far away to create more.. I mean fight the "terrorists" - much better than spending it on actual security at borders or maybe even dealing with the root causes of religious extremist terrorism.

Look where the cash is going. Look where it went during the cold war. Baa.

Obama is making noise about diplomacy with Iran etc, I think a lot of it is just noise though. I doubt he'll invade Iraq - thank fuck - but it wouldn't surprise me if they become a friendly dictatorship again, they've got a fair bit of oil.

Maybe Obama would put some time into trying to sort out the Israel-Palestine issue, along with Bush's legacy in Iraq and Afghanistan, but most likely it'll be too little, too late.
Click to expand...

Obama is not the man for the job. He will broker nothing. Iran and other terrorist states and organizations do not want peace. This is provin time and time again. Israel gives up territory held by them for many years and what do the palestinians do? use the land as rocket bases to fire upon Israeli civilians. I am sorry to say the only thing that the terrorist and the terrorist states understand is the business end of a gun and Obama is not the man to give that to them. They will laugh at him.

You cannot sit down and negotiate with an extremist. Obama is nothing more than a dog to them. No negotiating...More bombing!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom