BuffettNews.com

popcornjack wrote:

Feesh wrote:

sonofabeach wrote:Imo it's in the bag for Obama barring a major blunder.
Of course my opinion means jack shiznit! just ask my wife

I have to completely disagree with you on this one. I think the only shot Obama has is if Hillary is on the ticket. And what they call a "dream" ticket is what I consider a "nightmare" for this country.

Unfortunately, I feel my party went against it's supposed conservative values and went with a candidate who they feel had the best shot against Obama or Clinton. McCain will carry the conservative vote and will pull a large minority of independents and some of the liberal vote.

McCain would have to seriously mess up to lose this election.

You could be right but I'm thinking it won't be that close. I keep thinking "this is the best republicans have? (circa Bob Dole in 96)
Either way it can't get any worse.....err...right?
I'm smack dab in Skynyrd country and hearing the rednecks b*tching if Obama is president is reason enough for me to vote for him

Sorry all..I have no idea who Sam is.

I get very passionate when it comes to politics. Blame the fact that I worked for a recent candidate's campaign during the primaries. It got me very close to what's going on and I only want what I feel is right for this country.

The constant bashing of our President and the Obama hype really drives me nuts if that wasn't obvious.

bocanuts wrote:

Here's hoping he doesn't choose Flem Snopes, er, I mean Hillary as his VP!

That is almost a given (as I think he's smart enough to not become another Vince Foster)

Tried to restrain myself, but... you know how it is.

A few thoughts...

I'm glad Hillary (and Bill) is gone. With Bill in the White House, the U.S. essentially "took the decade off" from foreign affairs... and with disastrous results. Plus, the Clintons are dishonest, self-centered, self-righteous, and feel entitled to whatever they think benefits the Clintons. Good riddance.

John McCain reminds me WAY too much of Bob Dole in '96. Not good. I'll have to vote for him, but I'm quite convinced he'll lose this election.

Barack Obama scares me. Badly. Economically, he's Jimmy Carter. In foreign policy, he's... Jimmy Carter. Basically, he's Jimmy Carter with Bill Clinton's speaking ability, but stronger socialist tendencies. Don't know about you, but I didn't enjoy the whole Iran hostage, Stagflation thing last time around.

Only hope I can see is that, at times, Obama seems reasonable and at least willing to listen to people with knowledge and experience. (Thin, I know, but it's the best I've got.)

Still, congratulations to Barack Obama on winning the nomination. I don't think he'd make a good President, but he DID run a good campaign.

Feesh wrote:
The constant bashing of our President and the Obama hype really drives me nuts if that wasn't obvious.

Strike that. Reverse it...

A little common sense wrote:
The constant bashing of "the liberals" and the GW Bush hype really drives me nuts if that wasn't obvious.

I'm certainly not ultraleftist by any stretch of the imagination, but after giving W the benefit of the doubt after 9/11 and see him just tank at being President, I'm going back to my <Democrat> roots. Hopefully I can eat my words and people will think he is great 20 years down the line as they do with Reagan (Reagan people really scare me BTW, but eh, to each your own).

bocanuts wrote:

SMLCHNG wrote:

bocanuts wrote:Hey Sam! Oh, that's Feesh I mean

It's not him, Brad.

God, I hope not! Oh, but wait. Someone else thinks like Sam?

Nahhhh. He's not thinking with enough capital letters.

parrothead216 wrote:

LIPH wrote:

parrothead216 wrote:

SMLCHNG wrote:And lest we ALL forget those in the Senate and House who pass legislation and bills every day that the president basically has nothing to do with.. they are as much, or more, to blame about the state of this country. IMHO, of course.

Lest we ALL forget, The Republicans had control of both the House and the Senate for a good portion of "W" years. They rubber stamped all of his interest!

So the Republicans should get the credit for what good shape the country was in during Bill Clinton's administration. Didn't they control Congress for 6 of his 8 years in office. Or is that an "inconvenient truth", to coin a phrase.

Not at all Larry, they were too busy trying to get rid of a competent President, to F**K up the country like they have while"W" has been office.

Not an "Inconvienient Truth" at all Larry! "You can't Stand the TRUTH!"

The impeachment was in 1998, 4 years after the Republicans took control of both houses of Congress. But why let facts get in the way.

parrothead216 wrote:I also, bet that "W" is going to leave the The White House a very Rich man.

Since he went into the White House a fairly rich man, that's pretty much a given. But with any luck, he might become almost as rich as Bill and Hillary.

LIPH wrote:

parrothead216 wrote:I also, bet that "W" is going to leave the The White House a very Rich man.

Since he went into the White House a fairly rich man, that's pretty much a given. But with any luck, he might become almost as rich as Bill and Hillary.

His royalities from his Mad magazine covers will keep him rich for years to come.

buffettbride wrote:

bocanuts wrote:

SMLCHNG wrote:

bocanuts wrote:Hey Sam! Oh, that's Feesh I mean

It's not him, Brad.

God, I hope not! Oh, but wait. Someone else thinks like Sam?

Nahhhh. He's not thinking with enough capital letters.

No Newsmax link and using proper grammar? Definitely not Sam!

parrothead216 wrote:

Feesh wrote:

parrothead216 wrote:

SMLCHNG wrote:And lest we ALL forget those in the Senate and House who pass legislation and bills every day that the president basically has nothing to do with.. they are as much, or more, to blame about the state of this country. IMHO, of course.

Lest we ALL forget, The Republicans had control of both the House and the Senate for a good portion of "W" years. They rubber stamped all of his interest!

But I agree with you Penny, that there is enough blame to go around to everyone.

But does it surprise people that oil was 20 a barrel when "W" took office and it is currently over 125 a barrel as of today. Awful lot of those Texas Oil people got paid back, for getting "W" into wht The White House!

I also, bet that "W" is going to leave the The White House a very Rich man.

So Dubya is to blame for the price of oil? It has nothing to do with supply and demand with India and China coming into the picture? It has nothing to do with the fact that we can't build any refineries on US soil or tap into resources that are available to us on our own soil? Yet, Japan can go a few miles off of the Florida coast and drill and that's ok. We are reliant upon foreign oil because we are forced to be. Until that changes, the prices will not come down, no matter who the President is.

So India and China in just the last 8 years have come into the picture?

It's all about profits , right? They have an obligation to their stockholder, right?

India and China are 2 of the fastest growing economies in the world. They weren't 8 years ago.

Yes it is all about profits, companies aren't in business to lose money.

And yes, they do have an obligation to their stockholders. There's something called the plaintiffs' bar (of which I am not a part) in the law profession that looks for a reason to sue companies on behalf of stockholders when the stock price tanks.

bocanuts wrote:

SMLCHNG wrote:

bocanuts wrote:Hey Sam! Oh, that's Feesh I mean

It's not him, Brad.

God, I hope not! Oh, but wait. Someone else thinks like Sam?

Feesh can't be Sam, he writes coherent English sentences and I can get from point A to point B without taking a detour. Besides, I've met both of them. Although not at the same time in the same place, so maybe with some good cosmetic surgery ...

If I am driving an eighteen wheeler he||-bent-for-leather down an icy mountain road, against all common sense and good advice, and then decide about a half-mile from a hairpin turn and a picturesque plunge through a flimsy guardrail, that I'm gonna switch places with YOU, my petrified passenger, would it be fair and just for YOU to be blamed for the crash when our pulverized bodies are pulled from the wreckage?

Please - let us give credit where credit is due. Long after their terms have come to a merciful (for the rest of us) end, both George and Dick will be able to gaze across the water at far distant Iraq, still mired in conflict, bodies piling higher each passing day, spreading not democracy and liberty and rule of law, but turmoil and destruction and death throughout the region, and each give themselves a pat on the back and smile and say in their self-satisfied state "Look what we done."

The sad thing is, there will still be some of their hangers-on who think it was all a good thing.

No, George and Dick have surely done enough 'for their country'. Time for them to leave and don't worry about the mess (not that it would be in their separate natures to do so).

Obama will have to try to get it all cleaned up and I think we should all give him our support in doing so.

flyboy55 wrote:Obama will have to try to get it all cleaned up and I think we should all give him our support in doing so.

A year and a half ago it was "inevitable" that Hillary would be the Democratic nominee. We saw how that worked out. Maybe we should at least have an election first before the Obama coronation.

LIPH wrote:

bocanuts wrote:

SMLCHNG wrote:

bocanuts wrote:Hey Sam! Oh, that's Feesh I mean

It's not him, Brad.

God, I hope not! Oh, but wait. Someone else thinks like Sam?

Feesh can't be Sam, he writes coherent English sentences and I can get from point A to point B without taking a detour. Besides, I've met both of them. Although not at the same time in the same place, so maybe with some good cosmetic surgery ...

And next time we hang, you've got a cold Land Shark coming your way. Oh wait...nasty!

flyboy55 wrote:Please - let us give credit where credit is due. Long after their terms have come to a merciful (for the rest of us) end, both George and Dick will be able to gaze across the water at far distant Iraq, still mired in conflict, bodies piling higher each passing day, spreading not democracy and liberty and rule of law, but turmoil and destruction and death throughout the region, and each give themselves a pat on the back and smile and say in their self-satisfied state "Look what we done."

Huh? Free elections? No death squads? Free speech?

Sure after 9/11 we could have gone into the Middle East and systematically destroyed ANYTHING we felt like. Mosques, camps, whole cities, millions of people. We could have started and finished a Holy War pretty freaking quickly and no one could have done anything to stop us until it was over.

Think of it from an historical perspective - what would a Roman response have been? Jeez . . . the whole place would have been leveled. Mecca? Medina? Stories for the history books.

We have a destructive capability never seen before on the face of this planet and we decided it was in everyone's best interest (theirs, and yes, ours) to take the hard route. Limit collateral damage, put our people in greater risk than necessary, to try an create a better place overall. That in time, the spark of freedom would take hold and their lives would be better, making our lives better and safer.

Maybe the sheet of glass approach would have been preferable?

ConchRepublican wrote:

flyboy55 wrote:Please - let us give credit where credit is due. Long after their terms have come to a merciful (for the rest of us) end, both George and Dick will be able to gaze across the water at far distant Iraq, still mired in conflict, bodies piling higher each passing day, spreading not democracy and liberty and rule of law, but turmoil and destruction and death throughout the region, and each give themselves a pat on the back and smile and say in their self-satisfied state "Look what we done."

Huh? Free elections? No death squads? Free speech?

Sure after 9/11 we could have gone into the Middle East and systematically destroyed ANYTHING we felt like. Mosques, camps, whole cities, millions of people. We could have started and finished a Holy War pretty freaking quickly and no one could have done anything to stop us until it was over.

Think of it from an historical perspective - what would a Roman response have been? Jeez . . . the whole place would have been leveled. Mecca? Medina? Stories for the history books.

We have a destructive capability never seen before on the face of this planet and we decided it was in everyone's best interest (theirs, and yes, ours) to take the hard route. Limit collateral damage, put our people in greater risk than necessary, to try an create a better place overall. That in time, the spark of freedom would take hold and their lives would be better, making our lives better and safer.

Maybe the sheet of glass approach would have been preferable?

Why not? The genocidic approach would be awesome!

ConchRepublican wrote:

flyboy55 wrote:Please - let us give credit where credit is due. Long after their terms have come to a merciful (for the rest of us) end, both George and Dick will be able to gaze across the water at far distant Iraq, still mired in conflict, bodies piling higher each passing day, spreading not democracy and liberty and rule of law, but turmoil and destruction and death throughout the region, and each give themselves a pat on the back and smile and say in their self-satisfied state "Look what we done."

Huh? Free elections? No death squads? Free speech?

Sure after 9/11 we could have gone into the Middle East and systematically destroyed ANYTHING we felt like. Mosques, camps, whole cities, millions of people. We could have started and finished a Holy War pretty freaking quickly and no one could have done anything to stop us until it was over.

Think of it from an historical perspective - what would a Roman response have been? Jeez . . . the whole place would have been leveled. Mecca? Medina? Stories for the history books.

We have a destructive capability never seen before on the face of this planet and we decided it was in everyone's best interest (theirs, and yes, ours) to take the hard route. Limit collateral damage, put our people in greater risk than necessary, to try an create a better place overall. That in time, the spark of freedom would take hold and their lives would be better, making our lives better and safer.

Maybe the sheet of glass approach would have been preferable?

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, but you have succeeded in frightening me.

Going back to 1973, I have frequently heard people talk about 'nuking' the Middle East (ie turning it into a 'sheet of glass'). The expression 'nuke their a$$ and take the gas' was one I heard often. The idea of purposefully incinerating millions of humans as a foreign policy initiative is quite shocking and frankly scares the he|| out of me.

Are you suggesting that the people of the Middle East (which covers a lot of territory and different nations by the way) got off 'lucky' after 9/11 because we chose to invade Iraq rather than turn the region 'into glass' with nuclear weapons?

Perhaps you are unaware of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis (most of them children) who died as a direct result of the U.S. led embargo against Iraq through the 1990s. Or maybe you are unaware of a similar number of Iraqis (many of them children) who have died violent deaths since the U.S. turned their nation into a 'free-fire' zone so our troops could look for WMDs or hunt 'terrorists' or whatever . . .

In this regard, I'm not sure what you meant when you said our actions would "limit collateral damage". For the past fifteen years, the story of Iraq has in fact been one of collateral damage writ large in innocent blood.

As far as that bit about the "spark of freedom" taking hold and their lives being better, I believe that falls into the category of fable - something comforting and useful to tell the masses while they bear the burden of sacrifice.

But cleaning up the Iraq mess left by the previous administration doesn't only involve figuring out when and how to get the troops out - it involves dealing with the ridiculous amount of debt that this nation will carry as a result of the invasion.

Some estimates (by Nobel prize winning economists no less) put the ultimate cost of our misguided intervention in Iraq in the TRILLIONS of dollars. Your children and mine will be paying this bill for years to come, while the nation's infrastructure crumbles, not to mention having no fiscal 'wiggle room' to deal with the impacts of climate change (water shortages throughout the West and South, falling farm production and domestic food shortage, etc) and change over to alternate sources of energy.

And speaking of alternate energy, we might be further ahead right now if that Hero of the Right Ronald Reagan hadn't closed down entire research programs into alternate energy sources and axed the budget of the Solar Energy Research Institute in Boulder, CO when he came into office twenty-seven years ago.

Spare us from anymore 'cowboys' in the Oval Office.

bocanuts wrote:

LIPH wrote:

parrothead216 wrote:I also, bet that "W" is going to leave the The White House a very Rich man.

Since he went into the White House a fairly rich man, that's pretty much a given. But with any luck, he might become almost as rich as Bill and Hillary.

His royalities from his Mad magazine covers will keep him rich for years to come.

This proves my point about the constant President bashing.

I guess we can all look to our Messiah, Obama to save the day. Just make sure you keep your thermostat set at 78 degrees. The day that the government mandates your electricity expenses or taxes you for not having an eco-friendly home is the day I question if we're truly living in a democracy.