Obama has absolutely no clue what he's talking about

He knows what he's talking about.

He just doesn't want you to know until after the election.

What is he talking about?
What is his plan?
Does he plan to create a National Police force for this country?

H2O_MAN wrote:

What is he talking about?
What is his plan?
Does he plan to create a National Police force for this country?

Um...

Funding the FBI?
Making Homeland Defense something more than a joke?

DrewDad wrote:

H2O_MAN wrote:

What is he talking about?
What is his plan?
Does he plan to create a National Police force for this country?

Um...

Funding the FBI?
Making Homeland Defense something more than a joke?

I see both you and Obama are clueless... I'm not surprised.

H2O_MAN wrote:

What is he talking about?
What is his plan?
Does he plan to create a National Police force for this country?

Um...

Funding the FBI?
Making Homeland Defense something more than a joke?

And liberals complain now about FISA.

...

They'll find someone to watch.

You.

real life wrote:

And liberals complain now about FISA.

...

They'll find someone to watch.

You.

Yes, I do complain about FISA. And they do watch everyone.

First instance:


one of the first countries in the world to adopt Christianity as an official religion (Wikipedia)

vs.

one of the world's first nations to adopt Christianity as an official religion (McCain)


Second instance:


After the Russian Revolution of 1917, Georgia had a brief period of independence as a Democratic Republic (1918-1921), which was terminated by the Red Army invasion of Georgia. Georgia became part of the Soviet Union in 1922 and regained its independence in 1991. Early post-Soviet years was marked by a civil unrest and economic crisis. (Wikipedia)

vs.

After a brief period of independence following the Russian revolution, the Red Army forced Georgia to join the Soviet Union in 1922. As the Soviet Union crumbled at the end of the Cold War, Georgia regained its independence in 1991, but its early years were marked by instability, corruption, and economic crises. (McCain)


Third instance:


In 2003, Shevardnadze (who won reelection in 2000) was deposed by the Rose Revolution, after Georgian opposition and international monitors asserted that the 2 November parliamentary elections were marred by fraud. The revolution was led by Mikheil Saakashvili, Zurab Zhvania and Nino Burjanadze, former members and leaders of Shavarnadze's ruling party. Mikheil Saakashvili was elected as President of Georgia in 2004. Following the Rose Revolution, a series of reforms was launched to strengthen the country's military and economic capabilities. (Wikipedia)

vs.

Following fraudulent parliamentary elections in 2003, a peaceful, democratic revolution took place, led by the U.S.-educated lawyer Mikheil Saakashvili. The Rose Revolution changed things dramatically and, following his election, President Saakashvili embarked on a series of wide-ranging and successful reforms. (McCain)


Granted the third instance isn't as close as the first two, which seem quite obviously taken from Wikipedia.

Democrat Sen. Barack Obama's stunning assertion in this speech that the U.S. needs a
"civilian national security force" that would be as powerful, strong and well-funded as the half-trillion dollar Army,
Marines, Navy and Air Force is not included in published transcripts of his prepared remarks.

real life wrote:

And liberals complain now about FISA.

...

They'll find someone to watch.

You.

Yes, I do complain about FISA. And they do watch everyone.

Don't that just make you feel warm and cozy?

H2O_MAN wrote:

Democrat Sen. Barack Obama's stunning assertion in this speech that the U.S. needs a
"civilian national security force" that would be as powerful, strong and well-funded as the half-trillion dollar Army,
Marines, Navy and Air Force is not included in published transcripts of his prepared remarks.

So, just curious, where exactly did you hear of these remarks if they are not included in published transcripts?

I'd say not so much a matter of having a clue or not - there's things he wrote the book on and there's things he talks out his ass on - the real problem is his cognition of what to him is unknown. You can see it with these BS mickey-mouse preachfests he keeps coming out with where an attempt at somekindof policy might suffice - this militia thing, the tire-pressure, the thing with Penna and guns/religion/xenophobia, to a wider but more obscure extent his take on taxes, healthcare environment. Whereas McCain is comfy enough in his own mighty hard-grizzled war-hero skin to buy the ticket/take the ride on issues. You can tell McCain's diggin' it - he's keeping his sense of humor better. Barack's defect is hubris - he thinks he's got all the real clues.