mysteryman
 
  1  
Tue 1 Jul, 2008 05:41 pm
I thought Obama was FOR equal pay for equal work!?!?!

Based on what he pays his staff, he isnt for it at all...

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200806/POL20080630a.html

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200804/POL20080430d.html


So what is his actual position on the issue?
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Tue 1 Jul, 2008 05:43 pm
Keeping Gates is not a terrible move IMO. It makes the transition on the issue of Iraq seamless, but keeps the ultimate vision in the hands of Obama. I think you are crying from democrats to be upset, when I don't think there is a real cause. I think that Gates would be a good choice, especially for Obama to make good on his early troop return ideas.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Tue 1 Jul, 2008 05:45 pm
Diest TKO wrote:
Keeping Gates is not a terrible move IMO. It makes the transition on the issue of Iraq seamless, but keeps the ultimate vision in the hands of Obama. I think you are crying from democrats to be upset, when I don't think there is a real cause. I think that Gates would be a good choice, especially for Obama to make good on his early troop return ideas.

T
K
O


There are so many on the left that have called EVERY membert of the Bush admin "war criminals" that I find it hard to believe that the "loony left" wont complain about it and raise hell.

I am willing to bet that some on here right now will be in that group.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Tue 1 Jul, 2008 05:59 pm
mysteryman wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
Keeping Gates is not a terrible move IMO. It makes the transition on the issue of Iraq seamless, but keeps the ultimate vision in the hands of Obama. I think you are crying from democrats to be upset, when I don't think there is a real cause. I think that Gates would be a good choice, especially for Obama to make good on his early troop return ideas.

T
K
O


There are so many on the left that have called EVERY membert of the Bush admin "war criminals" that I find it hard to believe that the "loony left" wont complain about it and raise hell.

I am willing to bet that some on here right now will be in that group.

Perhaps, but it is of no consequence what you anticipate. I don't identify as a democrat, I'm just labeled as one by the people on the far right. If I don't agree with them that's fine. I have my reasons, I'm sure they have theirs. What is more at issue here MM is that after all the attacks of...

1) Obama being another partisan politician
2) Obama's followers being cultists who will follow him down any road

Neither my response in favor or another poster's against confirm either attack as being valid. It can't be both ways.

If I believe in Obama's vision and Obama feels that Gates could be useful in that vision, then I think it's worth my consideration. Considering what I see on the daily basis, I think it's worth more than a brief glance.

If Gate's career has been damaged by the bush administration, perhaps this is a great opportunity for public redemption. The damage or the redemption to reputation may be real or simply perceived, it doesn't matter. It could be good for both men.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Tue 1 Jul, 2008 07:10 pm
Diest TKO wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
Keeping Gates is not a terrible move IMO. It makes the transition on the issue of Iraq seamless, but keeps the ultimate vision in the hands of Obama. I think you are crying from democrats to be upset, when I don't think there is a real cause. I think that Gates would be a good choice, especially for Obama to make good on his early troop return ideas.

T
K
O


There are so many on the left that have called EVERY membert of the Bush admin "war criminals" that I find it hard to believe that the "loony left" wont complain about it and raise hell.

I am willing to bet that some on here right now will be in that group.

Perhaps, but it is of no consequence what you anticipate. I don't identify as a democrat, I'm just labeled as one by the people on the far right. If I don't agree with them that's fine. I have my reasons, I'm sure they have theirs. What is more at issue here MM is that after all the attacks of...

1) Obama being another partisan politician
2) Obama's followers being cultists who will follow him down any road

Neither my response in favor or another poster's against confirm either attack as being valid. It can't be both ways.

If I believe in Obama's vision and Obama feels that Gates could be useful in that vision, then I think it's worth my consideration. Considering what I see on the daily basis, I think it's worth more than a brief glance.

If Gate's career has been damaged by the bush administration, perhaps this is a great opportunity for public redemption. The damage or the redemption to reputation may be real or simply perceived, it doesn't matter. It could be good for both men.

T
K
O


I think you are misunderstanding me.
I also think it would be a great choice for Obama to keep Gates.
I am simply pointing out what the reaction of some on the left will undoubtedly be.

I have been called a repub, and I have been called a liberal by some because of some of my beliefs (that from people that dont know me).
I AM however a conservative.

I do have some reservations about Obama, just like I do McCain.
I have not yet said who I would vote for, except to say that I would NOT under any circumstances support Hillary.
My first choice didnt run this year.

I will however say that if my first choice is picked as Obama's VP, I will take a serious look at his campaign.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Tue 1 Jul, 2008 08:13 pm
I do believe that Evan Bayh is no lower then #2 or 3 on his list, MM. I think he would suit the position just fine. I don't know if Obama will pick him, but I think if he did, he would pretty much lock up a whole corridor of states around IN which are already trending Obama's way.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Tue 1 Jul, 2008 11:52 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
okie wrote: "...has questionable links..."

Great imagination and paranoia.

Here is a homework assignment for you, ci. Do an internet search with the words: muslim charities funnel money to terrorist organizations;
That will provide you with numerous links that discuss evidence of Muslim charities around the world and in the U.S. funneling money to groups like Al Qaeda, Hamas, and other groups. The Bush Administration has made efforts to shut these things down, but it is unlikely that they have been able to shut all of them down.

Also, as I mentioned, the Woods Fund, the foundation that Obama served on the board with the likes of William Ayers, has been linked to giving money to all kinds of leftist causes and groups. This is also part of your homework, ci, click on the following link and then peruse all of the groups that the Woods Fund has connections with and has given grants to. Example, the Tides Foundation is a piece of work indeed, with ties to pro Castro groups, George Soros, Arab American Action Network, MoveOn.org, ACLU, ACORN, the list goes on. Don't some of these people ever work, or is this their career, to work on their leftist causes?

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/funderprofile.asp?fndid=5340&category=79

The Arab American Action Network is interesting as a central figure is Rashid Khalidi, former terrorist, current terrorist sympathizer, and friend of Barack Obama.

The tangled web is difficult to unravel, but there is little doubt that Muslim charities have funneled money to terrorist groups, and there is little doubt that Obama has questionable friends, including those associated with the Woods Fund, which has given money to questionable groups with dubious activities.

The homework assignment is as detailed as you would like to make it, ci, it could be a short report or a virtual thesis taking more than a year to complete.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Wed 2 Jul, 2008 09:24 am
okie, It's no wonder your brain has been fried; your imagination exceeds the reality. Your fear-mongering is legend on a2k. All leftest causes are tied to al Qaeda and bin Laden (and once to Saddam). Never mind that the Bush family has been tied to the bin Laden family, or how the Bush family made their fortune before and during WWII.

When are you going to start killing all democrats? They're your enemy. Aren't you fearful they'll start killing your family with all those funding of terrorist organizations?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Wed 2 Jul, 2008 09:26 am
http://www.rense.com/general14/bushsformer.htm
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Wed 2 Jul, 2008 09:36 am
Okie, why look for difficult connections to terrorists and the like, when we can examine much easier ones instead?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/02/mccain-fundraiser-oversaw_n_110354.html

Quote:
*
*

The co-host of a recent top-dollar fundraiser for Sen. John McCain oversaw the payment of roughly $1.7 million to a Colombian paramilitary group that is today designated a terrorist organization by the United States.

Carl H. Lindner Jr., the billionaire Cincinnati businessman, was CEO of Chiquita Brands International from 1984 to 2001, and remained on the company's board of directors until May 2002. Beginning under his tenure, Chiquita executives paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (known by the Spanish acronym AUC), which is described by George Washington University's National Security Archive as an "illegal right-wing anti-guerrilla group tied to many of the country's most notorious civilian massacres."


This guy has raised 2 million for McCain. He's about as linked to terrorism as you can get without being directly involved.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Wed 2 Jul, 2008 09:36 am
Nice try, ci, but having shady characters invest in a company is not something you can necessarily control, and it is not the same as being friends with shady characters. Go back and do your homework.

If Obama bombs in November, and I don't know if people will wake up in time or not, but if he does, one big reason will be his associations with shady characters.

But aside from Obama, that was a token point thrown in, there is little doubt that charities and other various organizations have funneled money to terrorist organizations. If you wish to call that fear mongering, then I think you live in a state of denial. And that is precisely why we need an administration that cares about such legitimate concerns or fears. In fact, it has been the often mentioned point that if you cut off the money from these people, you will have severely curtailed their ability to function as they do.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Wed 2 Jul, 2008 09:38 am
I live in a state of "enjoyment of life." It beats living in fear 24/7 - like you!
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Wed 2 Jul, 2008 09:39 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Okie, why look for difficult connections to terrorists and the like, when we can examine much easier ones instead?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/02/mccain-fundraiser-oversaw_n_110354.html

Quote:
*
*

The co-host of a recent top-dollar fundraiser for Sen. John McCain oversaw the payment of roughly $1.7 million to a Colombian paramilitary group that is today designated a terrorist organization by the United States.

Carl H. Lindner Jr., the billionaire Cincinnati businessman, was CEO of Chiquita Brands International from 1984 to 2001, and remained on the company's board of directors until May 2002. Beginning under his tenure, Chiquita executives paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (known by the Spanish acronym AUC), which is described by George Washington University's National Security Archive as an "illegal right-wing anti-guerrilla group tied to many of the country's most notorious civilian massacres."


This guy has raised 2 million for McCain. He's about as linked to terrorism as you can get without being directly involved.

Cycloptichorn

Its called blackmail, cyclops, have you ever done business in Colombia? He probably wanted to be able to pick his bananas. I am not justifying it, but just telling you what businesses have to do down there in some countries. If you care, I could tell you a story about the company I used to work for.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Wed 2 Jul, 2008 09:40 am
http://cagle.com/working/080630/allie.jpg
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Wed 2 Jul, 2008 09:41 am
LOL! Good one.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Wed 2 Jul, 2008 09:42 am
Look who's talking about "get a life." The man who lives in fear 24/7 by over-stating all the boogie men around the world who is out to get him - and ignoring the obvious terrorists in our government who has pretty much destroyed what America was about only a decade ago.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Wed 2 Jul, 2008 09:43 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
I live in a state of "enjoyment of life." It beats living in fear 24/7 - like you!

I don't live in fear, but I do believe in minding the store. Maybe you don't? Maybe you favor leaving it unlocked and let it go.

By the way, I thought some of you people were living in fear of George Bush listening to your phone calls?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Wed 2 Jul, 2008 09:49 am
okie wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
I live in a state of "enjoyment of life." It beats living in fear 24/7 - like you!

I don't live in fear, but I do believe in minding the store. Maybe you don't? Maybe you favor leaving it unlocked and let it go.

By the way, I thought some of you people were living in fear of George Bush listening to your phone calls?


I've "minded our store" for most of my life, and am now enjoying the fruits of it by world travel. In our city in Silicon Valley, we've been rated number one by Money Magazine several years ago as the "safest" city for populations over 100,000, and we leave our door unlocked often.

What Bush did to ignore FISA was to break the laws of this country; it's too bad the other branches of government failed in their duty to charge him with the crime.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Wed 2 Jul, 2008 09:54 am
cicerone imposter wrote:

What Bush did to ignore FISA was to break the laws of this country; it's too bad the other branches of government failed in their duty to charge him with the crime.

Thats your interpretation, ci, because of your fears. I don't particularly care if Bush listens to any of my calls, as I have no fears about what I might say. Besides, it was nothing more than a computer filtering of calls that scares you so much. I could probably find out more about you on the internet than George Bush would ever know. Get over it, ci, when Bush leaves office he will go back to Crawford and clear brush, and you won't need to worry about your boogeyman anymore. And possibly thanks to Bush, no terrorists attacked your house.

The outright fear of George Bush by the left is --- well, weird, thats about the best term I can come up with.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Wed 2 Jul, 2008 10:19 am
okie wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:

What Bush did to ignore FISA was to break the laws of this country; it's too bad the other branches of government failed in their duty to charge him with the crime.

Thats your interpretation, ci, because of your fears. I don't particularly care if Bush listens to any of my calls, as I have no fears about what I might say. Besides, it was nothing more than a computer filtering of calls that scares you so much. I could probably find out more about you on the internet than George Bush would ever know. Get over it, ci, when Bush leaves office he will go back to Crawford and clear brush, and you won't need to worry about your boogeyman anymore. And possibly thanks to Bush, no terrorists attacked your house.

The outright fear of George Bush by the left is --- well, weird, thats about the best term I can come up with.


Just goes to show your ignorance about our government breaking the laws; it destroys our Constitution and Bill of Rights - the only protections we have against our own government.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 961
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.18 seconds on 07/19/2025 at 07:04:44