Obama is the presumptive democratic nominee

[N1ghtmare]

Hillary HAS BEEN ELIMINATED
\o/ \o/ \o/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7j2g2axmnY8

[Zxanphorian]

I am very pleased with this outcome, but I would be regardless of who clinches the nomination. We have a stronger Democratic candidate than in '04 with John Kerry. Now starts the healing from the quarrels by both candidates to ultimately defeat the Republicans come November. :tup:

[Balton]

phew, it was an ordeal. no more BS in the news about your american elections... oh shi* wait ;)

[The Dopefish]

Now begins the hard part.

[Al]

Yes we can!

I'll be voting for him again in November :)

[Fearless]

Finally.

[Mozi]

:cheers:

Good news

[hal]

http://www.freewebs.com/socialistcommonwealth/bralds_marx-s%20(2).jpg

[BillyBadAss]

This is great!:):):):):):):)

[UY]

Can't wait to have a black racist Muslim as our president.

Nothing against blacks as a whole though.....just the racists.

Btw...you cannot belong to a church like that for 20 years and not be a racist. Impossible. Sorry. Truth ftw.

That said, I'd take him over Hillary any day. :)

[Renegade Retard]

...and so it begins...

[Zxanphorian]

Can't wait to have a black racist Muslim as our president.

Err, Obama isn't Muslim...

[TWD]

Sorry I can't stop laughing. You think that Obama vs Clinton was bad? McCain isn't a nice guy, and there's plenty of pool laying about for slinging.

[Soggy_Popcorn]

Yes we can!!!









.........








....destroy our country's economy, military, security, and constitution. :mad:

[T2A`]

Wow. I don't care how long you've been here UY, but you're f**king retarded. Stop watching Fox News, FFS.

Other peoples: Carry on.

Obama '08! :-)

[hal]

Come on... no need to verbally attack each other here.

[TWD]

Wow. I don't care how long you've been here UY, but you're f**king retarded. Stop watching Fox News, FFS.

Other peoples: Carry on.

Obama '08! :-)

Well then I'm sure that you can explain to us why we should overlook Obama's association with such a questionable character.

[T2A`]

The same reason you and everyone else overlooked McCain's associating with a questionable character?

It doesn't matter, that's why. McCain's guy is actually about three times as insane. It's been far too long so I won't be able to find it, but I recall a video of another pastor who actually knows Obama's pastor talking about him and it made a lot of sense. Naturally, the MSM would never cover that, so most people never saw it.

In the end, religious fanatics are dumb. Who cares what they have to say? Most of the time people simply blow right by them without a care in the world, but because it was a perfect smear tactic to harp on one in this instance, that's what happened.

Besides, Obama quit his church because of this mess, if you weren't aware.

[hilo_]

Well then I'm sure that you can explain to us why we should overlook Obama's association with such a questionable character.

It's not so much the statements of his pastor that worry me (although some of them are quite ridiculous), but rather his church's close relationship with louis farrakhan. Anyone who honors louis farrakhan needs to have his/her head examined D:

Although I'd love to vote this election, neither candidate appeals to me, so I think I'm sitting this one out. :(

edit:
McCain's guy is actually about three times as insane.

If you're talking about John Hagee, then yes, that guy is really insane. McCain should have looked a little more into Hagee instead of blindly accepting his endorsement as a means of reaching more "evangelical" voters. To be fair, though, he was never John McCain's pastor, whereas Rev. Wright was Obamas pastor for, what, ~20 years?

[Big-Al]

w00t :)

[KillStreak]

The same reason you and everyone else overlooked McCain's associating with a questionable character?



who the **** has overlooked that?

[Airmoran]

Sorry I can't stop laughing. You think that Obama vs Clinton was bad? McCain isn't a nice guy, and there's plenty of pool laying about for slinging.
...it was bad 'cause it was dragged on for too long and rather than encouraging this... democratic process, it started to schism and disenfranchise people. It stopped being about campaigning but the two sides slowly descended into slinging mud, by calling each other out of touch, elitists, what-have-you.

If you think Obama vs. McCain will be worse than that, then that means both Obama and McCain will have to run pretty dirty campaigns built on misleading statements and so forth. That won't be good for anyone.

So, uhh... yeah. Know why the hell people were so annoyed about before you start laughing. Then again, you were a Romney guy, weren't ya?

Well then I'm sure that you can explain to us why we should overlook Obama's association with such a questionable character.

Uhh... dunno about that, but I think we can, in fact, overlook Obama's *snicker* secret Muslim ties.

And how the f*ck has anyone overlooked Obama's connection to Rev. Wright?

[Soulja]

how the hell did John Kerry get so much press for flipping around but John McCain didnt? Look at him 4 years ago and see what he was doing and then now. ****ing screwball.

Voting Obama in November.

[JohnDoe641]

Voting Mike McFArtface 08.

[das_ben]

Come on... no need to verbally attack each other here.
I take it verbally attacking others is fine though?

On-topic, congratulations I suppose. I'm not exactly a supporter of Obama so far (neither was I of Clinton), but I'm willing to be positively surprised - if he does get into office, that is.

[Angel_Mapper]

I'm pretty sure Obama is going to win, and I'm inspired, and excited to see what will happen in the following four years.

[Big-Al]

I'm pretty sure Obama is going to win, and I'm inspired, and excited to see what will happen in the following four years.

me too :)

[Mister_Prophet]

Yes we can!!!









.........








....destroy our country's economy, military, security, and constitution. :mad:

Bush kinda already beat him to the punch.

[Jacks:SmirkingRevenge]

I'm pretty sure Obama is going to win, and I'm inspired, and excited to see what will happen in the following four years.

Can't be "sure" of anything until he or McCain has their hand over that bible in January.

However, he's riding a strong wave, it's good for the party for this segment of the race to end.

Now we have to wonder who he's going to choose as his running mate with Clinton already pressuring him to make a decision. I don't believe he'll take her though, he might if it weren't for Slick Willy.
Reason being, he doesn't need her to lock up any potential votes he'll be losing out on. The women and part of the working class that were going to vote Clinton certainly are not going to go with McCain just because she's out as he clearly won't meet any of their wishes.

If I had to pick I think ole' Jimmy Webb would be a perfect match. He's ex-republican, so he'll appeal to those elephants or fence-sitters who tend to sway. He's also got the military credibility to tag some of those veterans votes away from John. Not to mention him being from blue collar Virginia and all pro-guns.
Good matchup for the first black Executive head of state of any Western government.

[Mister_Prophet]

Personally, if he took Edwards on as his running mate then that would be pretty win for me.

[gregori]

http://www.freewebs.com/socialistcommonwealth/bralds_marx-s%20(2).jpg


Meh, Obama is no Marxist and Marx wouldn't have been too pleased with the Democrats. :D

[das_ben]

The women and part of the working class that were going to vote Clinton certainly are not going to go with McCain just because she's out as he clearly won't meet any of their wishes.

No, but they might simply not vote for anyone then, hurting him just the same.

[Lizard Of Oz]

http://www.freewebs.com/socialistcommonwealth/bralds_marx-s%20(2).jpg

http://nefarious-240z.com/Pub/Mcbush.jpg

[Angel_Mapper]

Can't be "sure" of anything until he or McCain has their hand over that bible in January.Well, if I had to bet $100 I'd put it on Obama, how's that? ;)
Now we have to wonder who he's going to choose as his running mate with Clinton already pressuring him to make a decision. I don't believe he'll take her though, he might if it weren't for Slick Willy.
Reason being, he doesn't need her to lock up any potential votes he'll be losing out on. The women and part of the working class that were going to vote Clinton certainly are not going to go with McCain just because she's out as he clearly won't meet any of their wishes.I don't think he should take her because it would completely go against his message of change.

[Soggy_Popcorn]

Besides, Obama quit his church because now it's exposed.

I fixed it for you. :)

I'm pretty sure Obama is going to win, and I'm inspired, and excited to see what will happen in the following four years.

We're ****ed.

Bush kinda already beat him to the punch.

Oh, you mean with the tax cuts (awesome benefits in the econ.)? I don't really like Pres. Bush either, but he is certainly not as catastrophically bad as Obama would be.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl32Y7wDVDs&feature=related
O_o

Meh, Obama is no Marxist and Marx wouldn't have been too pleased with the Democrats. :D

Really? I'm not so sure.... socialized medicine, ridiculous taxation for ridiculous government intervention, and recently I saw a video in which a Dem. congresswoman suggested that we socialize our oil industry!! :O

[Al]

LOL ^

Stop posting already.

I wouldn't mind Obama/Edwards either.

[willhaven]

Can't wait to have a black racist Muslim as our president.

Nothing against blacks as a whole though.....just the racists.

Btw...you cannot belong to a church like that for 20 years and not be a racist. Impossible. Sorry. Truth ftw.

That said, I'd take him over Hillary any day. :)1) He isn't Muslim.
2) He's racist? He's half ****ing white.

[Airmoran]

Wait, so it turns out the secret to beating racism is to be partially white?

Interresssting...

[Twisted Metal]

http://www.tshirthell.com/shirts/products/a902/a902_bm.gif

[GotBeer?]

Wait, so it turns out the secret to beating racism is to be partially white?

Interresssting...And just what color is your skin? Hmm? Hmmmm?!? ;)


Katie Couric last night interviewed some women who were major Clinton supporters. A couple of them said they'd vote for whatever Dem was running, a couple said they'd stay home, and a couple said they'd vote for McCain because of all the crap Hillary was put through during her campaign.

[Jacks:SmirkingRevenge]

No, but they might simply not vote for anyone then, hurting him just the same.

:lol: uhhh no. They're going to vote. Obama will accommodate far more of their concerns than will McCain. At this point he can pretty much count on the vast majority of the votes she was going to receive regardless of his running mate.

Well, if I had to bet $100 I'd put it on Obama, how's that? ;)


My fingers are crossed.

[Crotale]

Although I'm honestly unclear about what either McCain or Obama will bring to the table, all I keep hearing about and from Obama is change. Well, what f*cking change is he planning to bring? I am hearkened back to the inauguration of Bill Clinton ,and I remember Sam Donaldson stating that that an era of change was about to begin. What changed when Clinton was in the WH and what will change with Obama in there?

I guess what I'm getting at is this: what changes will Obama make to how our government works in order to facilitate a change for the better for our country?

[ilkman]

Although I'm honestly unclear about what either McCain or Obama will bring to the table, all I keep hearing about and from Obama is change. Well, what f*cking change is he planning to bring? I am hearkened back to the inauguration of Bill Clinton ,and I remember Sam Donaldson stating that that an era of change was about to begin. What changed when Clinton was in the WH and what will change with Obama in there?

I guess what I'm getting at is this: what changes will Obama make to how our government works in order to facilitate a change for the better for our country?

Well if Obama does what he says he will in this video concerning disarming and cutting funding to military stuff then it won't be for the betterment of America. These points alone worry me about him getting into the White House than any other.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl32Y7wDVDs

In an ideal world there can be world peace. In an ideal world all nations will lay down their arms and come together to make things a better place. We don't live in an ideal world, and probably never will.

He mentions ending the Iraq war. If he ends it outright it'll probably do more long term damage to our country and Iraq than whats been done so far.

He talks about cutting funding to unproven missile defense systems. What systems? Like the Patriot system that was pretty good at best until it was discovered it could shoot down other missiles like in the first Gulf War? I'd hate to see what potential would be lost in other systems he would cut.

Next up is weaponizing space. Personally I don't think anyone should have control over space. It should be neutral ground. However as more developing countries find themselves getting into space, whose going to stop them from sending weapons into space? A slap on the wrist? A coddling plea to not do it? Not likely. Space is the perfect platform to launch nukes from. If it comes to it I'd rather a country with a bit more restraint gets up their first.

Why would we want to slow our development of future combat systems? So other countries can catch up and surpass us? What has made us one of the most powerful nations on earth? A large economy, freedom of the people, and the best military period, which includes heightened technology. We need to maintain that edge for our own safety.

I agree with him on unnecessary spending. We shouldn't be waisting money. However, based on his other thoughts on how we should limit our military I question his judgment on what should and should not be funded.

His goal for a world without nuclear weapons is the most naive ideal ever. It will not happen. He plans to not make any more nukes, and try to globally ban fissile material? And how will that make America a better place? How will that make the world a better place? Ideally it would, but then again we don't live in an ideal world. And most of all how would anyone police other countries to make sure they are not making more nukes and that they got rid of all their current nukes? Who would get to do that? Taking it to an extreme what sort of corruption is spawnable in an institute with that much power?

Need I remind everyone about the adamant hate of the western world by certain middle eastern nations and certain terrorist groups and the lengths at witch they will go to gain nuclear armament. This ties in with the canceling of missile defense systems. If such persons gain nuclear weapons we'll certainly need a means to defend ourselves from them. This would be a good reason to weaponize space. Its a good place to intercept ICBM style nukes.

His desire is noble, but it cannot be realized. Human beings are inherently evil. From a raving madman to the most noble philanthropist who goes home and beats his wife or subtly ignores his kids. There is evil in all forms. As long as there is evil there will be a need for weapons.

The modernized western world would probably comply and willingly disarm and get rid of nukes, but what I'm afraid of are the terrorist groups and dictators in the ravaged parts of the world who would not comply and possibly even get ahold of nukes and other weapons. They would use them and if we don't have similar and better weapons we couldn't defend ourselves.

Its not a matter of wanting to, we NEED to maintain a stockpile of weapons. And I'd rather it be America than most other countries to be honest.

P.S. tl;dr

[IBStephyJo]

Ugh.. Great. I like Obama. He's represented Chicago and Illinois well, I'll give him that. But a President from Hyde Park, Chicago? I don't know.. that whole area, and alot of the people from Hyde Park are really shady characters.

But to be honest... I don't like McCain, Hilary or Obama. And it doesn't really matter anyways since I won't be voting in November.

[Jacks:SmirkingRevenge]

Ugh.. Great. I like Obama. He's represented Chicago and Illinois well, I'll give him that. But a President from Hyde Park, Chicago? I don't know.. that whole area, and alot of the people from Hyde Park are really shady characters.

Wait.

You don't like to think of Obama as president because he's from Hyde Park? And because you're going to stereotype the entire neighborhood as "shady?" The man is clearly highly educated and well-spoken for, what difference does the area he comes from make?

You know what, don't answer that. It's a good idea that people like you choose not to vote, at least you've got that much sense.

[hal]

Meh, Obama is no Marxist and Marx wouldn't have been too pleased with the Democrats. :D

Haha... I'm sure he'll give it the 'ol college try though!

Liz: saw that one earlier... I lol'ed!

Ugh.. Great. I like Obama. He's represented Chicago and Illinois well, I'll give him that.

Interesting post from a local (I assume). What has he done for Chicago and Illinois?

[UY]

1) He isn't Muslim.
2) He's racist? He's half ****ing white.


http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2006/12/barack_hussein.html

And how can you go to a church like that for 20 years and not say you are a racist? WTF?

[TWD]

I think Ilkman's comments is only the tip of the iceberg. Obama supporters are celebrating like he's got the presidency in the bag. They are 100% confident that he's going to win. Fact is however that Obama has as much working against him as McCain does. It's Obama's to screw up. All McCain has to do is sit by and be quiet like he did in the republican race, and let Obama screw it up with his naive foreign policy/radical relationships.

[Big-Al]

I his naive foreign policy/radical relationships.

yeah! you don't wanna go all soft & nice on foreigners! they might get the idea the US isn't such a bad place after all!

[T2A`]

You all watch too much Fox News.

Also, US foreign policy has never made any sense.


Buy sh*t from Eastern Asia where labor is really cheap.
F**k Europe.
Bomb the Middle East.
F**k Russia.
Bomb the Middle East some more.
F**k Canada and Australia, eh?
Immigration is good. Except from Mexico. THEY TOOK OUR JAERBS.
Give billions in money and military aid to Israel.
...
Profit!

[Plumb_Drumb]

You all watch too much Fox News.

Also, US foreign policy has never made any sense.


Buy sh*t from Eastern Asia where labor is really cheap.
F**k Europe.
Bomb the Middle East.
F**k Russia.
Bomb the Middle East some more.
F**k Canada and Australia, eh?
Immigration is good. Except from Mexico. THEY TOOK OUR JAERBS.
Give billions in money and military aid to Israel.
...
Profit!



yeah yeah, but that's just hind sight; it has nothing to do with policy.

[Big-Al]

http://www.freewebs.com/socialistcommonwealth/bralds_marx-s%20(2).jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/10/Sign_language_I.svg/388px-Sign_language_I.svg.png

[Plumb_Drumb]

http://img123.imageshack.us/img123/3103/nbagjrsmith395no5.jpg

[das_ben]

The modernized western world would probably comply and willingly disarm and get rid of nukes, but what I'm afraid of are the terrorist groups and dictators in the ravaged parts of the world who would not comply and possibly even get ahold of nukes and other weapons. They would use them and if we don't have similar and better weapons we couldn't defend ourselves.

This is not entirely accurate. Nuclear weapons are a largely defensive measure, the very pinnacle of deterrence - the whole point of having them is to be safe from attacks by other states, in fact they're probably the only reason why the Cold War never turned hot and one of the main reasons why Israel can feel fairly safe from major attacks by neighbouring states today. That's also the reason why states that fear attacks by other states (particularly the US) were and are pushing for nuclear weapons - something that worked particularly well for North Korea. While it's still not entirely sure whether the country really does possess nuclear weaponry now, all talk of aggression against it has ceased. Given that, it's also important to point out that new states acquiring nuclear weapons is not a realistic threat to the US itself: warheads are the less complicated part of nuclear technology, the carrier rocket systems are usually very limited in range and will be for decades to come. To give you some kind of perspective, even Britain doesn't have its own carrier rockets and relies on American technology for that. This is also why there is no real threat from terrorists using nuclear weapons. What are they going to do with it, launch it at the US with a slingshot? Smuggling one into the country is also somewhat complicated, considering nuclear weapons tend to come in inconvenient sizes.

On top of that, it's a common misconception that states acquire nuclear weapons in order to use them against hostile countries. The problem with that is obvious: if any nuclear power ever was to its weapons against another nuclear power (or a close ally of a nuclear power), the retaliation would be swift and devastating. All major nuclear powers have a second strike capability that would ensure massive retaliation even if their countries were totally annihilated in a first strike by a hostile nation, another remnant of the Cold War. As everyone involved is well aware of that fact, they certainly will not make use of their nuclear weaponry, even if their rhetoric suggests otherwise (I think it's clear to which country I'm alluding to here).
All that said, it's pretty safe to say that no future president of the United States, including Obama, will make a serious move into dismantling the nuclear potential. It's rhetoric. He (or others) will probably get rid of obsolete systems to show some goodwill, as well as push at least Russia to do the same. I understood the stop of funding of unproven missile systems and the refusal to weaponize space as a stab at the "Star Wars" project, which is not all that inconsequential considering what an utter failure that was. Furthermore, it's certainly a good idea to avoid initiating another arms race. This all will hardly leave America defenseless. As a matter of fact, a new push to limit nuclear proliferation can certainly improve regional stability in the Middle East and East Asia, thus helping American allies in those regions.

[Plumb_Drumb]

This is not entirely accurate. Nuclear weapons are a largely defensive measure, the very pinnacle of deterrence - the whole point of having them is to be safe from attacks by other states, in fact they're probably the only reason why the Cold War never turned hot and one of the main reasons why Israel can feel fairly safe from major attacks by neighbouring states today. That's also the reason why states that fear attacks by other states (particularly the US) were and are pushing for nuclear weapons - something that worked particularly well for North Korea. While it's still not entirely sure whether the country really does possess nuclear weaponry now, all talk of aggression against it has ceased. Given that, it's also important to point out that new states acquiring nuclear weapons is not a realistic threat to the US itself: warheads are the less complicated part of nuclear technology, the carrier rocket systems are usually very limited in range and will be for decades to come. To give you some kind of perspective, even Britain doesn't have its own carrier rockets and relies on American technology for that. This is also why there is no real threat from terrorists using nuclear weapons. What are they going to do with it, launch it at the US with a slingshot? Smuggling one into the country is also somewhat complicated, considering nuclear weapons tend to come in inconvenient sizes.

On top of that, it's a common misconception that states acquire nuclear weapons in order to use them against hostile countries. The problem with that is obvious: if any nuclear power ever was to its weapons against another nuclear power (or a close ally of a nuclear power), the retaliation would be swift and devastating. All major nuclear powers have a second strike capability that would ensure massive retaliation even if their countries were totally annihilated in a first strike by a hostile nation, another remnant of the Cold War. As everyone involved is well aware of that fact, they certainly will not make use of their nuclear weaponry, even if their rhetoric suggests otherwise (I think it's clear to which country I'm alluding to here).
All that said, it's pretty safe to say that no future president of the United States, including Obama, will make a serious move into dismantling the nuclear potential. It's rhetoric. He (or others) will probably get rid of obsolete systems to show some goodwill, as well as push at least Russia to do the same. I understood the stop of funding of unproven missile systems and the refusal to weaponize space as a stab at the "Star Wars" project, which is not all that inconsequential considering what an utter failure that was. Furthermore, it's certainly a good idea to avoid initiating another arms race. This all will hardly leave America defenseless. As a matter of fact, a new push to limit nuclear proliferation can certainly improve regional stability in the Middle East and East Asia, thus helping American allies in those regions.


what kind of new push do you propose?

[das_ben]

I'm not proposing anything, but I gathered from Ilkman's post that Obama suggested a global ban on (trading of, I assume) fissile material. While I'm fairly sure it's not meant as a complete ban of these materials (considering their civilian uses), a more elaborate supervision of the trade and use certainly won't hurt.

[Plumb_Drumb]

I agree completely! That's why there should be regulations, and that is why I have complete distrust in Iran amd North Korea...

By the way, whatever happend with North Korea?
It's like they fell off the face of the earth.

Is America = Homer J. Simpson? One threat in, another threat out?
(that's how I feel, but I don't vote for Plumb_Drumb)

[das_ben]

North Korea presumably conducted a nuclear test around two years ago, with unknown/disputed results. This created pressure on all sides to resume the six-party talks and an agreement was reached last autumn that both reduces nuclear tension in the region and guarantees North Korean security.

[gregori]

I agree completely! That's why there should be regulations, and that is why I have complete distrust in Iran amd North Korea...

By the way, whatever happend with North Korea?
It's like they fell off the face of the earth.

Is America = Homer J. Simpson? One threat in, another threat out?
(that's how I feel, but I don't vote for Plumb_Drumb)


I would distrust Iran and North Korea! They are trying to aquire the exact same WMD's as everybody else who has them for all the same reasons.

Honestly, Its going to be hard to convince nations like Iran not to aquire nuclear weapons. Firstly, both countries either side of it have recently been invaded. Secondly, after North Korea's little 'test', the US was willing to negotiate all of as sudden! Thirdly, all the powerful countries in the world have them and no threatens to invade them.

If Iran get a nuclear weapon, I highly doubt they will attack Israel. They be wiped out themselves as Israel has 2-300 nuclear weapons, never mind what US, Britain, France and Russia would do to them. The balance of power in the region will change drastically however and the western nations will be forced to negotiate with Iran. Using the millitary threat won't be possible anymore. They will do a deal just like with NK.


Missile Defense Shield is a very scary idea because the status quo of mutually assured destruction kinda keeps nuclear countries in balance. MDS has the potential to start a new arms race. The real advantage of MDS is not as a detterent from a nuclear attack, but as part of a first strike offensive. You attack country X, and if they try retaliate you can block it with your MDS.

[Azura]

Honestly, Its going to be hard to convince nations like Iran not to aquire nuclear weapons. Firstly, both countries either side of it have recently been invaded. Secondly, after North Korea's little 'test', the US was willing to negotiate all of as sudden! Thirdly, all the powerful countries in the world have them and no threatens to invade them.

Now people are starting to think. If somehow I was someone in charge in Iran I'd try to get nuclear weapons in as soon as possible. It would seem to be the only dissuasive measure to avoid any invasion. The same goes for North Korea.

[TWD]

I think it is somewhat incorrect when you say over and over that the US was ready to invade until they thought North Korea might get a nuke. I think North Korea was a special situation. I don't think anybody in the US ever really thought an invasion of North Korea was necessary, but they didn't want them to get a nuke either.

Countries like Iran on the other hand are a different story. They can talk and so forth, but when push comes to shove the US will blast them off the face of the earth if they get any indication that Iran is going to get a nuke. If Iran really thinks they can get away with it let them try. Israel will never let it happen.

[gregori]

I think it is somewhat incorrect when you say over and over that the US was ready to invade until they thought North Korea might get a nuke. I think North Korea was a special situation. I don't think anybody in the US ever really thought an invasion of North Korea was necessary, but they didn't want them to get a nuke either.

Countries like Iran on the other hand are a different story. They can talk and so forth, but when push comes to shove the US will blast them off the face of the earth if they get any indication that Iran is going to get a nuke. If Iran really thinks they can get away with it let them try. Israel will never let it happen.


What the magical difference that makes it not necessary to invade North Korea but very necessary to invade Iran? What special situation?


You have to substantiate such claims with reasoning and facts, not just stating them as if that makes it truth.

[GotBeer?]

http://img123.imageshack.us/img123/3103/nbagjrsmith395no5.jpg

http://media.urbandictionary.com/image/large/shocker-35838.jpg

[GeckoYamori]

I think all the rampant Obama support on the internet is instilling a false sense of hope. The majority of Americans probably can't handle the mental image of anything other than an old white guy running the show.

It'll make the disappointment of the final outcome all the more bitter.

[Plumb_Drumb]

I think all the rampant Obama support on the internet is instilling a false sense of hope. The majority of Americans probably can't handle the mental image of anything other than an old white guy running the show.

It'll make the disappointment of the final outcome all the more bitter.

I don't think it matters now.
We have no hope, it just can't get any worse!

[Jacks:SmirkingRevenge]

http://www.corruptfibers.com/images/products/shocker_tshirt.jpg

[TWD]

North Korea just wanted negotiation power. Iran is looking to carry out nuclear genocide. I think it's a slightly different situation.

[Airmoran]

Iran is looking to carry out nuclear genocide.
...Seeing how the people (and I'm guessing the government) of Iran are, oh, I dunno, self-serving, intelligent people who aren't looking for a way to, say, end their existence, I'd probably offer a bit more factual support before claiming that Iran is looking to carry out nuclear genocide.

Just a thought.

[Soggy_Popcorn]

LOL ^

Stop posting already.

I wouldn't mind Obama/Edwards either.

Just as I would expect. Someone who want to shut my opinion down because they don't agree. And (surprise) they support the Comm....er.....Obama!

Kinda j/k...kinda. ;)

Now people are starting to think. If somehow I was someone in charge in Iran I'd try to get nuclear weapons in as soon as possible. It would seem to be the only dissuasive measure to avoid any invasion. The same goes for North Korea.

This would seem reasonable at face value, and I can see why people like you and Gregori would believe this. However, you entirely missed the point.

Iran does not want weapons primarily for deterrence. It has consistently sponsored terrorists with conventional weapons for use against Israel and the U.S. and it will continue this policy with NUCLEAR weapons. They will see it as an opportunity to indirectly cripple their enemies while maintaining plausible deniability. This is also what frightens us about North Korea.

Nuclear attacks aren't necessarily launched from the air.

[Al]

Just as I would expect. Someone who want to shut my opinion down because they don't agree. And (surprise) they support the Comm....er.....Obama!

Kinda j/k...kinda. ;)

Sorry, I meant to say... Your opinions are retarded. $4 gas ftw!

[das_ben]

Nuclear attacks aren't necessarily launched from the air.

I can see it now: radical extremists take a really big truck, load up a nuclear bomb and drive straight to Jerusalem where they proceed to ignite the device by lighting a fuse.

[IBStephyJo]

Wait.

You don't like to think of Obama as president because he's from Hyde Park? And because you're going to stereotype the entire neighborhood as "shady?" The man is clearly highly educated and well-spoken for, what difference does the area he comes from make?

You know what, don't answer that. It's a good idea that people like you choose not to vote, at least you've got that much sense.

I didn't choose not to vote. I CAN'T vote.
And it's not only Hyde Park(maybe a little.. but I don't think a president should come from Chicago... based on my own bias) I don't see what he can do for the US. Too many people will cause too much drama surrounding his religion, church, color, "fist bump"(which was pretty damn cool). Then nobody will be paying attention to what he really is/can do for us.




Interesting post from a local (I assume). What has he done for Chicago and Illinois?

Nothing, which is great compared to the other government officials of Illinois. But I wonder what will happen if somehow the courts get signifigant proof linking Obama to Tony Rezko's fraud and such.


But will all this said, If I had to choose between Obama and McCain, I would choose Obama. I don't particularly like either of them, I just dislike McCain a LOT more.

[Al]

You do know he's NOT from Chicago, right? ^

He grew up mostly in Hawaii.

[Iron Archer]

One day the United States will have a great Black President, but it's not going to be Obama. He keeps repeating change and hope but the masses do not understand what kind of change he's pushing for. He's a politician through and through and he will say whatever it takes to lull people into accepting his platitudes in lieu of real promises. He pretends to be a terrible judge of character, with all the radicals he's been associated with and yet gets away with using the line "he's not the insert name that I knew".

It's ok, feel free to shout me down too. It's my opinion, but I'm sure someone's going to come out like one of the people in Invasion of the Body Snatchers and do the usual pointing and screaming for not joining the Obama Collective.
http://www.t-nation.com/img/photos/2008/08-atomicdog-008/image005.jpg

[Azura]

I've been looking for that picture for ages. Thanks.

As for Presidency, who knows maybe McCain could be a good candidate as long as he isn't just another puppet for the money-spinners. Obama appears promising but I'd venture into saying that he will fall short of people's expectations.

[Jacks:SmirkingRevenge]

I didn't choose not to vote. I CAN'T vote.


Oh, if you're just too young or something then disregard that comment.

but still...
I don't think a president should come from Chicago... based on my own biasThis is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. It makes no difference where a person is from.

I don't see what he can do for the US.:rolleyes:

Then pick up a newspaper, go to his website, or listen to him speak and he'll tell you. It's just like every other candidate; they're going to say a lot of sh*t. Most of it they will probably never do. But you listen to each of them and then you decide on which person said the most sh*t that you agree with or whoever you think will get the most sh*t that you want to see done.

After that there's nothing you can do, you vote and hope they do 10% of the sh*t they said they would. Thats politics for you.

Too many people will cause too much drama surrounding his religion, church, color, "fist bump"(which was pretty damn cool). Then nobody will be paying attention to what he really is/can do for us.The media will create drama surrounding the little nuances of every candidate at this stage of the race. None of them will get away from it.

[gregori]

North Korea just wanted negotiation power. Iran is looking to carry out nuclear genocide. I think it's a slightly different situation.

emm.... no

There is no evidence Iran wants to carry out any genocide (it could if it wanted - it has plenty of populations within its borders that are a source of civil conflict, there are even jews living in Iran), nevermind a nuclear one.

They're arent going to do anything that would ensure that they would be wiped out also. They may be pretty fascist but they're not stupid!! In the event of Iran getting a nuclear weapon, Israel and the United States will do a deal with them.

Just like North Korea, Iran want to up their bargaining power and insure their own security from foreign invasions. North Korea is able to threaten Japan and South Korea with Nuclear attacks. There are significant US business interests there, so they did a deal.

In the Middle East, US has huge interest in Saudi Arabia, Israel, Iraq etc etc
This is what Iran will use to bargain itself into a better position.

The Missile Defense Shield is all about taking away this defensive capability of states with Nuclear Weapons, to make a first strike capability by the US a viable option. Its just like having a sword and a shield.





This would seem reasonable at face value, and I can see why people like you and Gregori would believe this. However, you entirely missed the point.

Iran does not want weapons primarily for deterrence. It has consistently sponsored terrorists with conventional weapons for use against Israel and the U.S. and it will continue this policy with NUCLEAR weapons. They will see it as an opportunity to indirectly cripple their enemies while maintaining plausible deniability. This is also what frightens us about North Korea.

Nuclear attacks aren't necessarily launched from the air.

Not very likely. Denying it would do Iran no good. Nuclear weapons don't just fall in your lap from thin air. Everybody would know who supplied it. Had Iran given terrorists a Nuclear Weapon, they would but be obliterated whether the denied it or not.

Afghanistan was bombed to **** by the US, on the off chance that Bin Laden might have been there and might have have been behind 9/11! God only know what they would do to Iran.

[Jaydee]

I'm not American or anything but I'm glad Obama beat Clinton.

[Al]

One day the United States will have a great Black President, but it's not going to be Obama. He keeps repeating change and hope but the masses do not understand what kind of change he's pushing for. He's a politician through and through and he will say whatever it takes to lull people into accepting his platitudes in lieu of real promises. He pretends to be a terrible judge of character, with all the radicals he's been associated with and yet gets away with using the line "he's not the insert name that I knew".

It's ok, feel free to shout me down too. It's my opinion, but I'm sure someone's going to come out like one of the people in Invasion of the Body Snatchers and do the usual pointing and screaming for not joining the Obama Collective.
http://www.t-nation.com/img/photos/2008/08-atomicdog-008/image005.jpg

So, you're hoping for 4 more years of the same BS? Cool! I guess 8 wasn't enough. $20/gallon gas ftw!

[Azura]

After that there's nothing you can do, you vote and hope they do 10% of the sh*t they said they would. Thats politics for you.

There is something you can do, at least in principle. A true democracy doesn't stop at national elections and you should have the possibility to address local and national representatives about your concerns. Whether they will be taken into account is another question but, really, elections are just a small part of a democratic process. If it was otherwise then the basic citizen is basically handing over power to a small group of people to do as they please.

[Jonathan]

Obama is a dummy and so is McCain.

Obama is a Muslim/"Christian"/Roman Catholic, depending on who he's hanging around. He sat under a uber-racist, anti-American pastor for 20 years, his wife said she was never proud of America until now, he said we shouldn't stay used to 72* houses and SUVs, and just wants to grow the government, and we've had enough of that with Bush, who perhaps meant well, but made a lot of dumb choices.

McCain, from what I gather, left his first wife because she was in a car accident and in a wheel chair, and now married to a woman who is rich due to income by alcohol sales, and is very floppy, and just a RINO.

If I do muster up the ability to actually vote, I'll have to vote McCain, but I'll probably have to go vomit aftwards.

[Iron Archer]

So, you're hoping for 4 more years of the same BS? Cool! I guess 8 wasn't enough. $20/gallon gas ftw!

thanks for the inane response. If you think the last 8 years were so bad, then there's nothing that I can say that will change your mind. I have not brought up the current administration, so I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Either way, I think Obama's plans for the country are going to have an adverse effect on economic, political, and national security situations. Obama is ultra-partisan, economically ignorant and at best naive in the area of national security and foreign policy. To top it all off, he's extremely disingenuous and is constantly having to do damage control for stupid statements he's made or for his friendly associations with radical individuals.

[N1ghtmare]

So I had power outage for 2 days and I get back...wuuuuu?

So everything Obama's pastor says immediately goes to Obama? Ive gone to my church for 7 years, but that doesn't mean that I agree to everything my priest says. Im sure all of you would say the same thing. If you are letting your pastor speak for you, then, well...

[Mister_Prophet]

Either way, I think Obama's plans for the country are going to have an adverse effect on economic, political, and national security situations. Obama is ultra-partisan, economically ignorant and at best naive in the area of national security and foreign policy. To top it all off, he's extremely disingenuous and is constantly having to do damage control for stupid statements he's made or for his friendly associations with radical individuals.

This is basically a perfect description of what we have now, under Bush. A president who currently does all the above. I completely respect your opinion and all, Iron, I just find it strange how you think he's going to make it worse. How? I think both candidates, McCain and Obama, despite faults here and there are much more adept than the current admin and either would do just a little bit better by default.


Anyways, in the democratic primary I backed Obama over Hilldog. But now that it's officially on I've entered neutral mode once again. I'm here to be astonished. That starts with who they pick as running mates.

[Al]

Thank you ^

[Molgan]

American President is way more entertaining then American Idol. Too bad I can't vote in either of it. =(

[Lizard Of Oz]

Obama is a Muslim/"Christian"/Roman Catholic, depending on which ultra far-right wack-o radio/Fox News propagandist you listen to.

Corrected.


P.S. Sen. Obama is a Protestant.

[thewalkingman]

Sen. Obama is a Neophyte!


There I said it!

[Al]

Along with Obama, Lizard Of Oz wins this thread.

And yes... I said it.

[TWD]

So, you're hoping for 4 more years of the same BS? Cool! I guess 8 wasn't enough. $20/gallon gas ftw!

erm explain to me how you can blame Bush for the price of gas? Oh I see how it is. Something is wrong so it must be Bush/republicans fault :confused:

[Al]

erm explain to me how you can blame Bush for the price of gas? Oh I see how it is. Something is wrong so it must be Bush/republicans fault :confused:

Since they've been in big oils pocket since the beginning... yes, I blame Bush.

The funny thing is, I voted for Bush. Doh! :doh:

TBH, I was a registered Republican. I switched to vote for Obama. Someone for the PEOPLE. The only thing Bush ever did for me was give me a stimulus check so I could buy my HD-TV.

[Angel_Mapper]

The funny thing is, I voted for Bush. Doh! :doh:You hussy! :mad:

[Al]

You hussy! :mad:

Yeah, I know. We all make mistakes.

[Jacks:SmirkingRevenge]

The only thing Bush ever did for me was give me a stimulus check so I could buy my HD-TV

Yeah, around 600 dollars to help those who are losing value in their homes due to the market slide he caused.

Right, because 600 dollars is going to cover that.

Why oh why couldn't someone have assassinated that sorry waste of oxygen sooner :(

[Jonathan]

Corrected.


P.S. Sen. Obama is a Protestant.

His step-dad was a Muslim, he dumped his "Christian" pastor, and has been hanging out/attending a church under a Roman Catholic Priest, though I think it's more of a charismatic-Catholic and not traditional Roman Catholic.

It's amazing how some people blame the governemnt for everything.

As for Obama, yeah, he's for the people, he's for controlling the people, 'cause 72* houses have got to go!

[Agent_5]

Why oh why couldn't someone have assassinated that sorry waste of oxygen sooner :(
Then we'd have Cheney as the president D:

[hal]

Why oh why couldn't someone have assassinated that sorry waste of oxygen sooner :(

That's kind of extreme, isn't it?

By the way... just to throw this out there. Change, for the sake of change, does not always better your predicament. There are good and bad things about the current situation in the US, but the key to making them better doesn't really lie with the presidency. Though continued ineffectual leadership will surely not help. As long as the House and Senate (both sides of the aisle) continue to make poor economic and legislative decisions, we cannot improve the state of the country.

Study history, economics, and our Constitution and you'll see there's plenty wrong with the offerings we're getting from both Democrats and Republicans. Neither side is poised to make sweeping changes for the better... nor do they really want to.

[das_ben]

His step-dad was a Muslim
And as we all know, children are liable for their parents, especially when they commit such unthinkable crimes as being of a different faith than most of the rest of the population.

[Larkin]

but still...
This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. It makes no difference where a person is from.

Actually, it does. The experiences you (well for a lack of a better word) experience as a child have an effect on every aspect of your live as you get older. So in turn the place you are from, the people that life there, the type of life styles they live, the things they do, etc. Will affect your dreams, your wishes, your career choices, your views, your friends, the things you enjoy, and so on. That is not saying the results are always the same on each person, but it is clear where you life as an influence on what kind of person you are.

Not defending her post though.

[T2A`]

FWIW, McCain voted (on bills and sh*t) with Bush 95% of the time in 2007 and has voted with Bush 100% of the time in 2008. If you're looking for a move away from DOW drops, a dollar worth less and less to the world every day, housing crises out the wazoo, and the highest unemployment in a long time, McCain certainly is not the answer.

IMO, anyone bringing up religion in this is a churchfag whose words should be treated like those in insane asylums with imaginary friends. The only difference is you all have the same imaginary friends. I guess that somehow makes it acceptable. D:

[Fearless]

Edit: Oops, don't remember this one :P

[Molgan]

And as we all know, children are liable for their parents, especially when they commit such unthinkable crimes as being of a different faith than most of the rest of the population.
Yes, my ancestors faith was filled with animism and hunting Gods, to make up for that I pollute as much as I can in the name of the Lord.

IMO, anyone bringing up religion in this is a churchfag whose words should be treated like those in insane asylums with imaginary friends.
Agree, religion and politics should never be mixed together. Where religion goes in, reason goes out.

[hal]

FWIW, McCain voted (on bills and sh*t) with Bush 95% of the time in 2007 and has voted with Bush 100% of the time in 2008.
You're gobbling up those DNC one-liners.

Most of those bills have little or nothing to do with the stuff you just mentioned and some of the bills were even co-sponsored by McCain and other Democrats.

I'm no fan of McCain, but I'm really troubled by the amount of people jumping on the Obama bandwagon because of a dislike for Bush. I urge everyone to really look into the policies each of the candidates espouse (not just listen to their stump speeches) and understand the course it will lead our country. Some of the stuff Obama says sounds great because he says it so well, but if you get down to it, there's an awful lot of socialism in the agenda.

I don't know who I'm going to vote for, but it's looking less likely that it's going to be for either of the two "incumbent parties".

[thewalkingman]

Hal don't bring common sense to a gaming board. Besides, Malcolm will betray us in the end.

[TWD]

FWIW, McCain voted (on bills and sh*t) with Bush 95% of the time in 2007 and has voted with Bush 100% of the time in 2008. If you're looking for a move away from DOW drops, a dollar worth less and less to the world every day, housing crises out the wazoo, and the highest unemployment in a long time, McCain certainly is not the answer.

IMO, anyone bringing up religion in this is a churchfag whose words should be treated like those in insane asylums with imaginary friends. The only difference is you all have the same imaginary friends. I guess that somehow makes it acceptable. D:

To say that McCain has voted with Bush 95% of the time is waaay over simplifying things. First off McCain wrote or sponsored most of these bills in the first place. If anything it's Bush that has been voting with McCain recently. This also doesn't count all the bills that get shot down before they ever get to the president. For Bush and McCain to even have the chance to both vote on an issue it has to pass through congress. Maybe you should blame the pathetic democratic led congress for even passing these laws in the first place. Like hal said it's just a DNC one-liner.

Maybe if people actually started looking at real issues they'd see past all the BS. Is the oil price really all George Bush's fault? Can you provide me with even one shred of evidence linking him to the high prices? All the senate has done the past few weeks has been "investigating" big oil. Did it ever occur to anyone that it's the free market, high demand, and low supplies driving the price up? Why doesn't anyone ever realize that on McCain's more hated and controversial votes that Obama and Clinton were right beside him (IE Immigration). The only place that these accusations are anywhere near legit is in the case of Iraq and national security, and this is an issue that the nation is still very divided on.

[Agent_5]

Maybe if people actually started looking at real issues they'd see past all the BS. Is the oil price really all George Bush's fault? Can you provide me with even one shred of evidence linking him to the high prices? All the senate has done the past few weeks has been "investigating" big oil. Did it ever occur to anyone that it's the free market, high demand, and low supplies driving the price up?
You answered your own question there. The Iraq war reduced the amount of barrels exported from that region, and the continued instability has dropped oil production by more than a million barrels per day. (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Iraq/Oil.html) There are certainly other factors involved besides Iraq, and they don't have anything to do with President Bush, but the Iraq war is something the President has been involved in which has contributed to the current price of oil.

On topic, I think both McCain and Obama would be more willing to reach across the aisle in order to get things done, but I have some doubts about both of them also. I'll have to wait and see who's going to be in their cabinet.

[Jacks:SmirkingRevenge]

Then we'd have Cheney as the president D:

True. I formally retract my previous statement.

That's kind of extreme, isn't it?


No, no it's not. He deserves to die for his war crimes, just like the good ole' UN says. Or at least have one of his limbs removed, preferably his writing arm.
He's going to leave the presidency to retire on a ranch with an endless supply of cash and not a care in the world, at the very least he'll live very comfortably. Meanwhile the men and women he sent to fight a war that should never have been, on false premises no less, are either dead, dying, amputees or crippled some other way and the ones who live all seem to be suffering PTSD with not enough resources being applied to help them.

This faggot not only has the nerve to declare MISSION ACCOMPLISHED when it's nowhere near but he can't give a single speech without finding a reason to smirk or look happy in general. No other president thats has ever been would be so hair-brained as to show the slightest bit of swagger while addressing the nation behind the sort of circumstances that have come to be under his office.

It's sick and I wish someone would shoot him in his ear. No scratch that, he doesn't deserve to even die the way Abraham Lincoln did. Better put that lead between the eyes.

[DeeperShade]

there's an awful lot of socialism in the agenda.

Socialism isn't always a bad thing.
Socialised Health care is one of the greatest aspects of my nation, and any other nation that has it would agree.

[hal]

No, no it's not. He deserves to die for his war crimes, just like the good ole' UN says.

What war crimes has the UN charged him with?

Regardless, your solution is extreme.

[Crotale]

I like the thread tag "americans misunderstand socialism." So, what's not to understand? Real Americans don't want anything to disrupt their free enterprise, and socialism threatens to do just that. As much as we need health care to be made more affordable for those who cannot afford it, there is no need to force it on those who do not want it. Nor should able taxpayers pick up the slack for those who will not or cannot pay for it. There are existing avenues for those who need insurance and cannot afford it, at least for their children. I don't mind so much if my taxes pay for the children, but why should I be forced to pay extra taxes to pay for a bunch of a-hole slackers who can't or won't pay?

Looking at Canada, eh, for socialized health care, and I see a system that works well in theory but not in practice. From what I understand, actual care is hard to get in Canada. In the US, if you have any insurance at all, you generally have your pick of just about any doctor in your area. And that is the crux of the issue, if you have insurance. I just don't see the Federal Gov't being able to effectively manage a health insurance plan that covers all Americans in any similar fashion that we are already accustomed to. Does this mean we are at times too staunch for our own good? Perhaps. But change for the sake of change isn't always the better solution.

Sincerely speaking, if the Gov't wants to make health care affordable, they should look at subsidizing care for those who qualify as low-income or those who fit in other brackets in which the household may not be low-income but are in an area where they still need a little break from the rising health care costs.

[Jacks:SmirkingRevenge]

What war crimes has the UN charged him with?

Regardless, your solution is extreme.

I'm being a little facetious... clearly the UN has never charged him with war crimes.

But still.

The man makes me sick.

[T2A`]

As much as we need health care to be made more affordable for those who cannot afford it, there is no need to force it on those who do not want it. Nor should able taxpayers pick up the slack for those who will not or cannot pay for it.You mean like welfare and social security?

Socialism is already here if that's how you define it. D:

[TWD]

All you have to do is look at where social security is at right now, and it's pretty easy to see how bad of an idea nationalized health care would be...

[das_ben]

Sincerely speaking, if the Gov't wants to make health care affordable, they should look at subsidizing care for those who qualify as low-income or those who fit in other brackets in which the household may not be low-income but are in an area where they still need a little break from the rising health care costs.

What do you think how subsidies are paid for? Errr... taxes?

He deserves to die for his war crimes, just like the good ole' UN says.

:con:

[Crotale]

You mean like welfare and social security?

Socialism is already here if that's how you define it. D:
Exactly. I don't think we need more.


What do you think how subsidies are paid for? Errr... taxes?
I was tired when I wrote that, but yes. I don't want to pay more f*cking taxes. I'm sure there can be a way to minimize any additional taxes to help cover any subsidies, but I don't subscribe to a nationalized plan in which the Gov't manages health care "insurance." Right now, all Americans, whether they can afford it or not, have access to health care plans of their choosing. I think most that say they cannot afford health care just don't try to find reasonably priced plans, because they are out there. If the Gov't gets involved, you know there will be too much control over that sector and IMO health care access will mirror that of Canada.

[Renegade Retard]

Yeah, around 600 dollars to help those who are losing value in their homes due to the market slide he caused.

Right, because 600 dollars is going to cover that.

I really, really try to avoid these political threads because they give me such tired-head. With that said, I do need to say something to the above statement.

Things like economy swings are rarely caused by current or even recent actions. People are losing their value in their homes due to the boom of the sub-prime market in the 90's. If you were breathing, there was a sub-prime product right for you that could get you in a home. The trouble is, no one was regulating these loans and considering the long term affects of these loans. Since everyone could afford a home, the demand for homes went up up up, which drove up the cost of homes.

Now in the 00's, costs for home have been driven up so far that, even with a sub-prime loan, lower income people couldn't afford to buy. The sub-prime dried up as the couldn't afford the inflated price tags on the homes. Since the sub-prime market was suddenly non-existent, rates went through the roof. This has caused many, many foreclosures, short-sales, and delinquencies. Suddenly, the market is full of these abandoned home which are available to buy at a cut rate. This reduces the demand for new homes, which reduces property values of all homes.

My point is, the housing market (and to a lesser extent, the economy as a whole) is NOT due to actions over the last several years under the current regime. It is due to our nation's greed from 15-20 years ago.

No matter your stance on the Bush administration, you have to admit there were some mistakes made as with any administration. If you're going to hang him, hang him for the things he can control, not on the failures of the gluttonous American people before is office.

[gregori]

Exactly. I don't think we need more.


I was tired when I wrote that, but yes. I don't want to pay more f*cking taxes. I'm sure there can be a way to minimize any additional taxes to help cover any subsidies, but I don't subscribe to a nationalized plan in which the Gov't manages health care "insurance." Right now, all Americans, whether they can afford it or not, have access to health care plans of their choosing. I think most that say they cannot afford health care just don't try to find reasonably priced plans, because they are out there. If the Gov't gets involved, you know there will be too much control over that sector and IMO health care access will mirror that of Canada.

Do you mean that everybody will have access? How terrible....

The way that Helathcare is generally handled is aweful as it give those with plenty of money an unfair advantage. Stupid, fair access Healthcare should be a human right.

[Crotale]

gregori, the only way to make health care access truly equal is to completely remove it from the private sector in every way, shape and form. And do you know that that does? It removes incentive to research and develop new cures and technologies.

There has got to be a middle ground that provides more affordable health care for those who cannot afford it. But I do not feel that taxpayers should pay for those who are too lazy to get the coverage or care they may need.

[Molgan]

I'm sure there can be a way to minimize any additional taxes to help cover any subsidies, but I don't subscribe to a nationalized plan in which the Gov't manages health care "insurance." Right now, all Americans, whether they can afford it or not, have access to health care plans of their choosing. I think most that say they cannot afford health care just don't try to find reasonably priced plans, because they are out there. If the Gov't gets involved, you know there will be too much control over that sector and IMO health care access will mirror that of Canada.
I don't understand why you folks are so against social security. When I grew up in Sweden we had the best health care, and it was all handled in the "common sector" funded by taxes based on income. Lately we have striven towards something that more resembles the US way, and it has really gotten worse. inefficient, expensive and unfair.

Freedom for me is to know that if I get sick or injured I will get the best health care available without having to worry about money, insurances and crap. Same thing with our pension insurance, now we have to look for the best investment funds and gamble our savings on the stock market if we want to be able to put food on the table when we are old. Thats not freedom, that is being a slave to the system and feels like a huge step back in evolution. What is the point of creating a society if we don't make use of its benefits?

gregori, the only way to make health care access truly equal is to completely remove it from the private sector in every way, shape and form. And do you know that that does? It removes incentive to research and develop new cures and technologies.
No, we had no problems like that. The problems with medical research in the private sector is that it narrows the research into fields that generate money. How to make fat rich people thin or more potent is more important then curing costly 3rd world plagues etc.

/end of political rant

[gregori]

gregori, the only way to make health care access truly equal is to completely remove it from the private sector in every way, shape and form. And do you know that that does? It removes incentive to research and develop new cures and technologies.

Not true. Unless you think everybody does everything soley for money. There can be ways to provide universal access to healthcare, whilst funding new research. Like what already happens in many other countries in the world.



There has got to be a middle ground that provides more affordable health care for those who cannot afford it. But I do not feel that taxpayers should pay for those who are too lazy to get the coverage or care they may need. Sorry, but thats just bull****. There are many people who simply can't afford to get coverage and the market doesn't feel like helping them out one bit. I've no problems paying more taxes if it allows everybody access to healthcare. What you don't pay taxes to do is already lining the pockets of private coporations, several times over.

It in the interest of society (and even buisness) that everybody is healthy.

EDIT: What Molgan said!!!

[hal]

I think there's a misconception that everyone in the US doesn't have access to healthcare... they do. Including people who are not even citizens.

What happens right now is that you can privately fund your healthcare, use employer co-funded healthcare, or (by law) get treated for free in hospital emergency rooms. In addition, there are a number of charities that help people with low/no income to pay medical bills. On top of that, you have medicare/medicaid - something of a social healthcare net.

One of the reasons we have high costs in medicine is litigation. Physicians are forced to pay for ridiculously expensive insurance plans because the courts have been allowing far too many frivolous lawsuits to see the light of day. Also, generally, healthcare plans are tied to employers (since they co-fund) and are not portable from job to job - yet another silly expense.

We have great healthcare providers here in the United States and people come from all over the world to use their services. You can generally pick from providers covered by your insurance and services can be rendered more or less on demand. It's just that we have a lousy Frankenstein-ish mishmash of regulated policies that cause tremendous problems and impose stupid restricitions on the people that use it.

The free market is being stifled by our current system and litigation is out of control. THAT'S what's wrong with what we have here now - anything that's broken about it will NOT be fixed by introducing government control.

[Molgan]

What happens right now is that you can privately fund your healthcare, use employer co-funded healthcare, or (by law) get treated for free in hospital emergency rooms. In addition, there are a number of charities that help people with low/no income to pay medical bills. On top of that, you have medicare/medicaid - something of a social healthcare net.
Yes my knowledge about how things work over there isn't too great, and oc each country should pick the health care model they judge as most beneficial. To me this sounds horrible though.
anything that's broken about it will NOT be fixed by introducing government control.
Ah here we see a difference, what you call controlled by the government is what I call controlled by the people. Never thought about it, but deep inside I'm probably a frickin commie. =)

[Lizard Of Oz]

... or (by law) get treated for free in hospital emergency rooms...

Emergency care is far more expensive than preventive and supportive care, which we all pay for in the form of increase health care cost across the board.

Example: The cost to support someone with type 2 diabetes would be only $100 or so per month for drugs and maybe $1000 for 4 doctor visits per year. But one emergency room visit and the follow-on hospital stay for someone in the middle of a diabetic crisis cost tens of thousands of dollars per incident.

I know this because I have lived through both situations. I am diabetic, and for years I let it go untreated. Then I had a "diabetic crisis" and had to stay in the hospital for 12 days while my blood-glucose was brought under control. That hospital stay cost my insurance company about $60,000.oo and me another $5000.oo. I'm managing my diabetes now with drugs and quarterly doctor visits that cost about $2500.oo for me and my insurance company per year.

If people with chronic health problems had access to free/low-cost preventive or supportive care, cost across the board would drop.

[Armagon917]

Many of you like Obama because he wants to get the US out of Iraq. Thats fine although I think we need to stay there until the country is stable. Nixon said that when he entered office he would implement a "secret plan" to end the war in Vietnam.

I think that Obama won't be able to deliver on his promise to get US troops out of Iraq. Not that he doesn't want to, simply that the results would be a disaster. First the Iraqi government would be executed. The Sunnis would fight the Shiites and the country would fall into civil war. Atrocities would be common place and Iran would certainly take advantage of this and try to invade or setup a puppet government there. These things are likely to happen. At least one of the above mentioned events would happen. Thats why we can't simply pull out of Iraq. Wheather you approve of the war or not these are the the facts of what would happen if there were no US troops there tomorrow.

So is Obama ready to do this? I don't think he is. I think he wants to end our involvement there but he can't because of the effect. If Iran invades then we will likely see a coalition to remove them like we saw in 91 with Hussein and Kuwait. Then what? Also if we pull out and nobody does anything do you think the person who comes to power through a violent transition of genocide is going to be good for the world? Hussein 2.0 which will repeat the cycle full circle. I don't think either McCain or Obama will remove US troops anytime soon when the decision has to be made.

The US's only option is to create a a stable Iraq that will defend itself. Simply leaving will cause serious problems and the United States will find itself back in Iraq quickly. Obama knows all of this but he wants to win the presedency. He can not say certain things on Iraq because his base won't vote for him and then the presidency will be handed to McCain. Leaving and no involvement in Iraq would be handing it over to Iran. The US will not allow that to happen.

This is just my opinion but I really don't believe that Obama will come in and change policy in such a drastic way. This is just my gut feeling. I'm just pointing out there are some serious consquences involved with pulling out of Iraq which I don't think Obama will put into motion.

[Armagon917]

I'm being a little facetious... clearly the UN has never charged him with war crimes.

But still.

The man makes me sick.

You don't govern your reason very well. Hoping a president is assasinated. You make me sick. I absolutly hated Clinton as president but wish him the best and was concerned when I hear of his heart problems. Here you are complaining of supposed war crimes and then hoping for an assasination?

If Bush was a war criminal and the evil person you think he is we would've treated Iraq like the Nazis treated Poland. When you have military blending into the general population of Iraq innocent people get caught in the middle.

I guess Roosevelt should've been put up for war crimes as well for implementing carpet bombing which killed far more people then Bush's policies in Iraq. What about targeting civilians with nuclear weapons? Should Truman
have been brought up on war crimes as well? The US has used smart bombs to try and minimize civilian casualties. We have also done everything possible to protect mosques in Iraq which are obviously important to the population and then the US military os shot at from these mosques. This is not the way a war criminal would conduct a war.

I know shady things have happened under Bush's watch. If there were any proof of war crimes then all those who want to impeach Bush would've suceeded long ago. Nixon was removed from office for far less. If there were any evidence of war crimes Bush would be out of office and I would support that. Instead of you hoping for an assasination you should've said a court of law should bring him up on war crimes if that was your point. I would not ave had a problem with that stance but would have explained why IMO he isn't a war criminal. But your comments are completely irresponsible.:(

[Soggy_Popcorn]

I think there's a misconception that everyone in the US doesn't have access to healthcare... they do. Including people who are not even citizens.

What happens right now is that you can privately fund your healthcare, use employer co-funded healthcare, or (by law) get treated for free in hospital emergency rooms. In addition, there are a number of charities that help people with low/no income to pay medical bills. On top of that, you have medicare/medicaid - something of a social healthcare net.

One of the reasons we have high costs in medicine is litigation. Physicians are forced to pay for ridiculously expensive insurance plans because the courts have been allowing far too many frivolous lawsuits to see the light of day. Also, generally, healthcare plans are tied to employers (since they co-fund) and are not portable from job to job - yet another silly expense.

We have great healthcare providers here in the United States and people come from all over the world to use their services. You can generally pick from providers covered by your insurance and services can be rendered more or less on demand. It's just that we have a lousy Frankenstein-ish mishmash of regulated policies that cause tremendous problems and impose stupid restricitions on the people that use it.

The free market is being stifled by our current system and litigation is out of control. THAT'S what's wrong with what we have here now - anything that's broken about it will NOT be fixed by introducing government control.

Thank you!! This tasty bit of intelligence just made my day!! :) Also, the reason you Swedish/Euro dudes can get universal healthcare is because 1) you have far smaller populations than the U.S. and 2) you often get the majority of your income taxed away. We Americans really don't want (any more) of that.

*edit* Heh heh, I don't know if that tag is sarcasm or what.. ;)

*edit 2* Since they've been in big oils pocket since the beginning... yes, I blame Bush.

The funny thing is, I voted for Bush. Doh! :doh:

TBH, I was a registered Republican. I switched to vote for Obama. Someone for the PEOPLE. The only thing Bush ever did for me was give me a stimulus check so I could buy my HD-TV.

Holy ****, this is retarded. Logic please? TEH DEMS ARE IN TEH LAYEWRS POCKET!!!2111!! I win.

*EDIT 3 HOLY CRAP* .....non-logic......IMO, anyone bringing up religion in this is a churchfag whose words should be treated like those in insane asylums with imaginary friends. The only difference is you all have the same imaginary friends. I guess that somehow makes it acceptable. D:

Wow, you atheists sure are reasonable, tolerant (note the use of p.c. buzzword) people. :|

[Fearless]

Um. Up here in Canada the health care system is great... and we don't pay that much more tax to get it.

[gregori]

You don't govern your reason very well. Hoping a president is assasinated. You make me sick. I absolutly hated Clinton as president but wish him the best and was concerned when I hear of his heart problems. Here you are complaining of supposed war crimes and then hoping for an assasination?

If Bush was a war criminal and the evil person you think he is we would've treated Iraq like the Nazis treated Poland. When you have military blending into the general population of Iraq innocent people get caught in the middle.

I guess Roosevelt should've been put up for war crimes as well for implementing carpet bombing which killed far more people then Bush's policies in Iraq. What about targeting civilians with nuclear weapons? Should Truman
have been brought up on war crimes as well? The US has used smart bombs to try and minimize civilian casualties. We have also done everything possible to protect mosques in Iraq which are obviously important to the population and then the US military os shot at from these mosques. This is not the way a war criminal would conduct a war.

I know shady things have happened under Bush's watch. If there were any proof of war crimes then all those who want to impeach Bush would've suceeded long ago. Nixon was removed from office for far less. If there were any evidence of war crimes Bush would be out of office and I would support that. Instead of you hoping for an assasination you should've said a court of law should bring him up on war crimes if that was your point. I would not ave had a problem with that stance but would have explained why IMO he isn't a war criminal. But your comments are completely irresponsible.:(

Starting wars and attacking other countries is a war crime!

Also arbittary arrest without trial and detention for years and years, abducting to secret prisons and torture. It all has flavours of fascism.

Ofcourse western nations don't get convicted of supporting terrorists or commiting war crimes because they effectively rule the world.

When Nurembourg trials were being conducted, what was defined as a war crime was picked so that the Allies would be charged with those crimes themselves. For example, the Allies carried out far more Firebombing than the Nazis etc etc etc

[Soggy_Popcorn]

Canada....health care....great? You've never heard of Canadians ditching the 1000000 yr. long lines for treatment in America? Err... I'd much rather get my diseases fixed in this century.

To Gregori, you just seem to think that any participants in a war, even if they defended themselves, should be charged with war crimes. Also, detaining without limit is perfectly legal for enemy combatants. Which terrorists are. Enemies......and combatants.....

[gregori]

Canada....health care....great? You've never heard of Canadians ditching the 1000000 yr. long lines for treatment in America? Err... I'd much rather get my diseases fixed in this century.

To Gregori, you just seem to think that any participants in a war, even if they defended themselves, should be charged with war crimes. Also, detaining without limit is perfectly legal for enemy combatants. Which terrorists are. Enemies......and combatants.....

thats not what your supreme court said and you know it.

The US wasn't 'defending itself' by attacking Iraq anymore than Germany was defending itself from Poland.

[Crotale]

The US did not enter into Iraq to take over the country and its resources. That would be the difference between Ger-Pol and USA-Irq. Also, Poland posed no threat to any of it neighbors; former Iraqi leader So-damned Insane was funneling money for suicide bombers in the region, as well as preventing any medical supplies from reaching his own people. The guy was an ass, defied the rest of the civilized world and the only way to depose him was from the outside. Maybe it wasn't America's greatest moment, but it definitely wasn't its darkest.

Nobody I have seen or heard from ever said the invasion of Iraq was going to be the end-all of all world conflict and strife. It was a necessary action brought on by Hussein's need for the attention and "respect" he wasn't getting from the US because it was involved in Afghanistan. The failure of the US Administration was that they assumed the Iraqi people in general would welcome us with open arms and let us help them rebuild. Well, after you rebuild the same stores and schools several times over a three year period, you kinda get the idea that we aren't welcome by all who inhabit the area. The arsehole rebels and the idiots that cannot or will not get along are the problem, not the US.

If you'd get off your high horse for a minute, you might allow yourself to comprehend truth from fiction.

[Armagon917]

The US did not enter into Iraq to take over the country and its resources. That would be the difference between Ger-Pol and USA-Irq. Also, Poland posed no threat to any of it neighbors; former Iraqi leader So-damned Insane was funneling money for suicide bombers in the region, as well as preventing any medical supplies from reaching his own people. The guy was an ass, defied the rest of the civilized world and the only way to depose him was from the outside. Maybe it wasn't America's greatest moment, but it definitely wasn't its darkest.

Nobody I have seen or heard from ever said the invasion of Iraq was going to be the end-all of all world conflict and strife. It was a necessary action brought on by Hussein's need for the attention and "respect" he wasn't getting from the US because it was involved in Afghanistan. The failure of the US Administration was that they assumed the Iraqi people in general would welcome us with open arms and let us help them rebuild. Well, after you rebuild the same stores and schools several times over a three year period, you kinda get the idea that we aren't welcome by all who inhabit the area. The arsehole rebels and the idiots that cannot or will not get along are the problem, not the US.

If you'd get off your high horse for a minute, you might allow yourself to comprehend truth from fiction.

Thankyou. Well said. We screwed up by assuming we were going to be viewed as liberators. Its very unfortunate that many Iraqis don't see or don't want a representative government. But the US has always been a positive force in the world.

[Iron Archer]

The Iraqi regime should have been taken out in 91 after the first Gulf War for what it tried to do to Kuwait. The only reason Saddam's ass was saved was because of the favorable deals he was able to get through the UN with the oil for food program. Sure, Saddam had to kind of be the U.N.s bitch on the backside, but he never really had to answer for anything else, as he was still involved in supporting terrorism and kept taking potshots at aircraft. Some U.N. nations were even kind enough to stall the whole process leading up to 2003 so Saddam could prepare to get his ass kicked by the US, potentially hiding anything he might have had--maybe not nukes, but certainly other types of weapons not appropriate for defense purposes.


Socialized medicine will not work here in the U.S.. I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing in some governments, but the U.S. government is usually best suited leaving us citizens alone and staying out of our lives as much as possible. Whenever the government gets involved in a part of your life, not only do they control it, 9 times out 10 they botch it up good. I'm not sure why anyone would want the U.S. government to have sway over your health and wellness.

[N1ghtmare]

But of course you trusted them in going to war...

[Crotale]

Oh, the f*cking irony.

[Iron Archer]

But of course you trusted them in going to war...

That's your argument not mine. I trust in our military strength and in the skill of our soldiers. As far as you're concerned any war that is ran by someone you don't like is unjust. Besides, the military is not the same as a social program. Social programs are just stopgap measures used to gain votes and to keep people happy with false promises, basically enslaving financial and ethnic minorities and ensuring future generations of idiot voters who are financially and educationally disadvantaged.

If you can't discern the military from stupid social programs concocted by crooked politicians, then you're a moron.

[GG-Xtreme]

http://www.hamsterforpresident.com/

[T2A`]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlX9l1g1ZE0

[Soggy_Popcorn]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlX9l1g1ZE0

Complete, out-of-context bull****. McCain was referring to the presence of peacetime troops, ala Germany, South Korea, etc. What was your point again?

Also, to Gregori, I don't understand your reference to our Supreme Court; you know the executive branch and legislative branches decide to go to war, right? And they both did. Expound please. As far as "defending ourselves" goes, we weren't defending ourselves from Iraq, per se, but demonstrating out complete destructive power against Al Qaeda and its allies. And don't even try that "there's no Al Qaeda in Iraq" BS. Because we found plenty of them.

[T2A`]

So you pick one thing out of the many in that video to defend? Convenient.

My point is he's untrustworthy and will send us to war with Iran immediately.

[Soggy_Popcorn]

So you pick one thing out of the many in that video to defend? Convenient.

My point is he's untrustworthy and will send us to war with Iran immediately.

1) I only watched the first 30 seconds before being overwhelmed by the stupidity.

2) The other candidates have made supposed "war-mongerish" comments about Iran and Pakistan. Don't make me track them down. The point is that Iran is clearly dangerous, so war with them would most certainly not be the U.S.'s fault, regardless of whether the President is McCain or Obama, honestly.

[Azura]

Also, the reason you Swedish/Euro dudes can get universal healthcare is because 1) you have far smaller populations than the U.S. and 2) you often get the majority of your income taxed away. We Americans really don't want (any more) of that.

Bang on target. There's about 10-11 million people in Belgoland (like Legoland but not as fun) which is a smaller population than London I think. For each working person the corresponding employer has to dish out 100% of the paid salary to the state if not more (for unemployed, pensions, health care, etc). But that's just the tip of the iceberg because there's loads of taxes also.

In short, socialism is bloody expensive, it's totally overrated but at least you'll get good health care, can stay without work for long periods and not worry to much about getting old. Of course there's that major flaw that if the country collapses all of this will be lost.

[Armagon917]

Soggy here it is. I completely agree with you on everything you've posted. I got this emailed to me today so I happened to have it on hand.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08n4bj1Mz4A

If Bush said this people would freak out while this gets very little coverage. Double standard.
The McCain video was so stupid. Here we have Iran talking about wiping Israel off the map. Where is your outrage there? The video I supplied above shows that likely everyone running for president knows Iran is a threat. France has even threatened Iran with nuclear retailiation under these conditions. Scroll down a bit Could it be they're a bit dangerous? We would attack to defend while Iran would out of its vicious hatred of Israel and the west. Theres the difference because I know a few of you will try to make the US seem hypocrytical on this. 3-4 years is the estimate and Iran has been trying to increase its delivery system capability. This is why everyone is threatening them~!

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,1864693,00.html

I think we should take out their capability but not invade if they continue. I hope Iran just stops. I don't want anymore war.

[das_ben]

thats not what your supreme court said and you know it.

You know, based on his following comment I'd say he doesn't.

[gregori]

As far as "defending ourselves" goes, we weren't defending ourselves from Iraq, per se, but demonstrating out complete destructive power against Al Qaeda and its allies. And don't even try that "there's no Al Qaeda in Iraq" BS. Because we found plenty of them.

Oh, you mean the Al Qaeda that the war attracted into Iraq in the first place?


Besides that, Attacking Iraq to "demonstrate our complete destructive power against Al Qaeda" should be constructed as a war crime as it praises indiscrininate offensive violence as a means to threaten - which has all the morality of a Mafia Don ordering murders/beating to make people know he means business. Al Qaeda and Saddam were no allies, nor was terrorists in Iraq the reason for the invasion.

[MonsOlympus]

If you'd get off your high horse for a minute, you might allow yourself to comprehend truth from fiction.

Just gonna chime in here! If the US had UN peace keeping logo's you think anyone would be portesting about the troops being there? The actual "war" was more of a landslide victory with the allies basically flogging the **** all the way to the capital. They didnt find those weapons of mass destruction we heard so much about but we certainly saw them used in the first gulf conflict.

I would have been more comfortable with the whole thing myself if it was UN sanctioned, ofcoarse the UN might have been stalling but it takes time. If the US wanted suddam out that badly, 1 man and 1 long ranged rifle could have done a much cleaner job. As people have said though thats not the real issues with all the factions, rebels n whatnot over there. Maybe if the truth was used the UN would have sanctioned a peace keeping force instead of fart arsing around with weapons inspectors :cool:

[das_ben]

Peacekeeping forces cannot be used against a country's will and only if the Security Council recognizes at least "a threat to international peace".

[MonsOlympus]

I was lead to believe that Iraq was gonna start ww3, hmmz! :lol:

[Crotale]

Saddam was a thorn in the world's side, and although a thorn normally isn't detrimental to one's survival, it does affect the overall health of the region in which it is stuck. Eventually, if left to fester it can cause widespread problems, as Saddam was proven to have been doing.

[MonsOlympus]

Agreed but with the US going against the UN like that and calling in the help of acouple of other countries, well it kinda just showed what they are capable of. Not that I think the US is gonna go totally crazy but for other countries like perhaps north korea and china Im sure it made them think twice. Not so much so in oh theyre scared but with the US and allies flexing their muscles Im sure they went on atleast orange alert.

Im for removal of weapons of mass destruction as they call them but its really gotta be across the board, suddam ofcoarse was using them on his own people much like what happened in eastern europe. Its always been a rather unstable area of the world though, its good to see things are starting to quieten down its just a shame it took what it did.

Anyways yeah I rekon a hit woulda been much cleaner, ofcoarse keeping it under wraps is the hard part but hell if he died of a heart attack (poison) no one woulda been the wiser. It might sound alittle cold on my part since Im not totally up on suddams resume but he did enough to warrant it I think. I mean really was it worth it? Not that I dont think a free Iraq is kinda nobel but Im wondering if the losses were acceptable, I cant really agree with that.

Maybe by putting out a hit it woulda turned him into some sort of martyr, I dont think the execution was any better in terms of that though. Trade blockades can do wonders as well but I guess where Iraq is situated that woulda been a hard one.

[Armagon917]

Nobody is going to change each others minds here but I take comfort in knowing there is going to be a government elected by the people of laws and not guns. So some of you call Bush a war criminal. Amazing that a "war criminal" is trying to bring democracy to the country. Yes how extremely evil of him. haha. All those Iraqis voting. Terrible. We shouldn't give them the opportunity to debate issues in the arena of ideas. I think they should just continue fighting each other.

[(xtc)]

The Iraqi regime should have been taken out in 91 after the first Gulf War for what it tried to do to Kuwait. The only reason Saddam's ass was saved was because of the favorable deals he was able to get through the UN with the oil for food program. Sure, Saddam had to kind of be the U.N.s bitch on the backside, but he never really had to answer for anything else, as he was still involved in supporting terrorism and kept taking potshots at aircraft. Some U.N. nations were even kind enough to stall the whole process leading up to 2003 so Saddam could prepare to get his ass kicked by the US, potentially hiding anything he might have had--maybe not nukes, but certainly other types of weapons not appropriate for defense purposes.


Socialized medicine will not work here in the U.S.. I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing in some governments, but the U.S. government is usually best suited leaving us citizens alone and staying out of our lives as much as possible. Whenever the government gets involved in a part of your life, not only do they control it, 9 times out 10 they botch it up good. I'm not sure why anyone would want the U.S. government to have sway over your health and wellness.

WTH? lol
you are obviously a fanatic.i wonder why ppl like you are allowed to post here.
and what's it with your sig?you dumbass blame an entire religion for
what some criminals did?
mods should delete this offending anti islam signature.
k.tnx.bye.

[hal]

WTH? lol
you are obviously a fanatic.i wonder why ppl like you are allowed to post here.
and what's it with your sig?you dumbass blame an entire religion for
what some criminals did?
mods should delete this offending anti islam signature.
k.tnx.bye.
The pic says "Islamic Terrorists" not "Islamists". I think that's a fair distinction. I haven't looked at the website though, so I can't comment on that.

[(xtc)]

The pic says "Islamic Terrorists" not "Islamists". I think that's a fair distinction. I haven't looked at the website though, so I can't comment on that.

come on hal.we all know how he means it.it is sarcastic.
stuff like that doesnt belong to here.pls.

[hal]

come on hal.we all know how he means it.it is sarcastic.
stuff like that doesnt belong to here.pls.
Okay then, tell me "how he means it".

[(xtc)]

Okay then, tell me "how he means it".
oki.
first:there are no islamic terrorists.
second:terrorists dont represent any religions.
third:as a muslim i feel very offended by his sig.i dont care for his stupid posts.

plus i strongly doubt if thats no provokation or harrasement.
if you read some of his posts you will see what i mean.
i repeat...this kinda things dont belong here.we dont want that.
i tell you i would think the same if he would target christians or jews with his stupid sig.

[hal]

oki.
first:there are no islamic terrorists.
second:terrorists dont represent any religions.

You serious?

Would it be better if he called them Islamic extremist terrorists?

Look, I appreciate that you're protective of your religion, but I think pretty much all of them are attacked equally here and I don't think many people would defend either of those two points you just made.

[(xtc)]

look hal.
i dont want get in any discussions with freaks again (surely soon some of them popup again).had enough.

islam is no religion of terror.

dont think arabs or whatever who do terror acts are muslims.
they are criminals or terrorists.k?
dont get that missunderstood.pls.

[hal]

look hal.
i dont want get in any discussions with freaks again.had enough.

islam is no religion of terror.

dont think arabs or whatever who do terror acts are muslims.
they are criminals or terrorists.k?
dont get that missunderstood.pls.

Islam may not be a religion of terror, but terror is being performed in the name of Islam - there's no denying that. If it makes you feel any better, you could say the same of many religions at one point in history or another.

[Crotale]

Dude, I personally don't give a flying f*ck what religion any terrorist claims to belong to, but the fact of the matter is that many terrorists from the Middle East and Southwest Asia do their bidding in the name of Islam. If you want to be offended, you should be offended by the a-holes I just described, not the rest of us. TBH, religious extremists who carry out such acts are all in the same boat. It doesn't matter if they are Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Hindu or Vulcan, they all do their bidding in the name of their religion and they are extremely misguided in doing so.

[(xtc)]

ok mate one last reply.
who gave them the right to do terror and kill innocent ppl in the name of islam?
not we muslims or god.so pls.

i know better than maybe all of you that in my religion are morons who like
what the terrorist do.

but that is not in the name of islam.how can someone take such a statement for real?i repeat dont blame an entire worldreligion and millions of ppl for criminal activities done by terrorists.


its up to you now.i told you to remove that sig.pls.

[hal]

ok mate one last reply.
who gave them the right to do terror and kill innocent ppl in the name of islam?
not we muslims or god.so pls.

i know better than maybe all of you that in my religion are morons who like
what the terrorist do.

but that is not in the name of islam.how can someone take such a statement for real?i repeat dont blame an entire worldreligion and millions of ppl for criminal activities done by terrorists.