President Palin to be sworn in to office
- Thread starterJosetta
- Start date
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
RoSquirts said:I think it's interesting that you bring up an incident from McCain's youth as evidence of his untrustworthiness(is that a word?). Yet the much more recent past of Obama's life gives him little credibility also. And it's not because he's black.
Let's start with Resko and his association with him. Even forgetting that Obama was helped by Resko in getting property, let's talk about what Obama did for Resko. Obama helpedswing a deal where Chicago's low cost housing was turned over to private management. Guess who Obama helped get a big chunk of that management deal? Yep, Resko. Who then proceeded to collect rents and put no money back in to the housing. Subsequently, the facilities deteriorated to such an extent that the buildings were literally falling apart at the seams, Resko simply abandoned the deal and walked away, leaving the city and the residents high and dry. He collected huge sums of money for nothing and within 10 years the buildings are being knocked down because they're no longer worth repairing.
Oh yeah, don't forget association with a member of the weather underground and good ol' Rev. Wright.
And let's not forget Obama stating repeatedly that he will definitely not vote for Telecom Immunity and then, lo and behold, he votes for it. Or how about the only important thing he had to do in the Senate? Chairman of the Subcommittee for Afghanistan War Veterans(might not be exact name of subcommittee). Guess how many meetings they had since he's been in that position? ZERO.
A different kind of politician? Yeah, if you think that someone who wheels and deals and hacks his way up the Chicago political machine by pandering for black votes and wheeling and dealing with slumlords and anti-american radicals to be different. Mr. Unity. How about his primary campaign which he literally won by again pandering to black votes? Or do you think making false allegations about Bill Clinton being a racist wasn't playing the race card? Or Obama winning virtually every urban area and 90% of the black vote is just a coincidence?
It's kind of hypocritical to accuse people of being against Obama because he's black when so many blacks are voting for him just because he's black, dontcha think?
Obama talks the talk but he doesn't walk the walk. He has virtually no experience at managing anything except campaigns and has accomplished nothing but climbing up the political ladder. By all accounts, access to Obama is non-existent for the press. When was the last time you saw him answering impromptu reporter's questions? His campaign staff and him are probably the most shrouded in secrecy of any in recent history. Oh yeah, we can expect transparency in government.
I'm far from being a Bush fan or apologist and I think either candidate will do a far better job than Bush has. Mccain at least has some experience and is a known entity. Will he do what he says in his campaign? Nope. But we have SOME idea what to expect. We have absolutely NO idea what Obama will do because we have no prior record to analyze. We do have a history of poor character judgement though and I believe that might be the most important thing the next president will do, pick people to actually run the country. How many more Resko's and Wright's are going to be in Obama's administration?
I wish there was a way they could both lose,lol, because I could go on and on with what I consider Mccain's faults also. But you're trying to make a case for Obama on flimsy ground and essentially by attacking McCain, not by pointing out Obama's attributes. As a matter of fact, your only mentions of Obama are that people are voting against him because he's black.
BTW, I'm not voting for McCain but not for the reasons you stated.
P.S. Yes, we bought the warlord's support but part of the surge WAS sending an additional 4000 troops in to Anbar and Iran has no influence whatsoever with the Sunni warlords you mention.
I hear you on that. I can't wait until there is a viable "third party" (not just President, but congress down to the local levels). Until that day, I vote for the lesser of evils.
I am fully aware of Obama coming from Chicago. If you want to run for office in Chi-Town you bettter wear a body condom! Cause the shit you will come into contact with if down right infectous. Been that way since time began, and like every other American Large City unfortunately aside from God Almighty stepping in and washing them clean again, it will always be that way.
I am attaching a link to the photo of Johm McCain boarding a yacht on his birthday (August) to spend time with Ann Hathaway and her boyfriend Raffeleo Follieri. Leading McCain on the boat is
is Rick Davis, well known Washington Lobbyest, McCain Campaign Co-Manager.
Follieri had plead guilty the day before to a multi million dollar fraud!
gawker.com/5048485/picture-this-john-mccain-visits-criminals-yacht
Is this a "youthful" indescretion?
Guess when Obama switches sides of policies its wrong? If McCain switches sides its called being a maverick.
Sorry, I and many of us who heard the same youthful indescretion bull shit about Bush didn't buy it then and won't buy it now. We have been proven right.
I am not taking side, just choosing the lesser of the evils. In McCain's sake if you forgive his early adult life mistakes as being "youthful" then what he has shown up to this current time is just a continuation and means at some point (72) you loose the "youthful" disconting.
NO ONE EVER SAID "BARACK IS THE FIRST RIGHTEOUS POLITICIAN IN HISTORY", fore there are NOT! It's interesting how so many of you support McCain's foreign policy. So, of the ones supporting the foreign policy how many are being deployed to Iraq? And Mccain said he didn't care it we're there for a hundred years as long as the job is done, right? Well, these problems existed for about 3000 years so far in one form or another in that area. It only caught our attention in the past 60 years or so, but now we're saying we want in for the long haul and this is good foreign policy eh? I see.
its one thing to be strong in the face of attacks, hostage situations, to a slightly lesser degree business interests abroad, but it's another thing to be a proponent of endless fighting! Compared to the rest of the world we by far the most well armed nation but for us to engage on everyone that either disagrees with us or has some resource we want in the name of false patriotism is no different than a hostage situation! WE HAVE PROBLEMS TO FIX HERE, ON OUR OWN COUNTRY, PROBLEMS THAT ARE GETTING WORSE EVERYDAY! And yet you're focused on falsely solving others' when it is clear that a large segment of our economy depends on there being problems around the world!
Mccain will not solve anything whatsoever! he can't and neither will obama. however, i keep forgetting i'm talking to people that have no concept of anything other than "what can the country do for them".
its one thing to be strong in the face of attacks, hostage situations, to a slightly lesser degree business interests abroad, but it's another thing to be a proponent of endless fighting! Compared to the rest of the world we by far the most well armed nation but for us to engage on everyone that either disagrees with us or has some resource we want in the name of false patriotism is no different than a hostage situation! WE HAVE PROBLEMS TO FIX HERE, ON OUR OWN COUNTRY, PROBLEMS THAT ARE GETTING WORSE EVERYDAY! And yet you're focused on falsely solving others' when it is clear that a large segment of our economy depends on there being problems around the world!
Mccain will not solve anything whatsoever! he can't and neither will obama. however, i keep forgetting i'm talking to people that have no concept of anything other than "what can the country do for them".
blkoralslaveboy said:NO ONE EVER SAID "BARACK IS THE FIRST RIGHTEOUS POLITICIAN IN HISTORY", fore there are NOT! It's interesting how so many of you support McCain's foreign policy. So, of the ones supporting the foreign policy how many are being deployed to Iraq? And Mccain said he didn't care it we're there for a hundred years as long as the job is done, right? Well, these problems existed for about 3000 years so far in one form or another in that area. It only caught our attention in the past 60 years or so, but now we're saying we want in for the long haul and this is good foreign policy eh? I see.
I have a son in Iraq now. His brother and him have served 5 tours combined in Iraq and Afghanistan. I would like to see an end to the conflicts as much as anyone. However, neither will end the Afghan conflict soon and both will get us substantially out of Iraq before the next 2 year election. Both will leave a military presence there, like it or not.
That 100 years misquote of yours has been so taken out of context, it's ridiculous. We're involved for the long haul whether Obama wants to be or not. Reality is tough. And like all candidates, he can talk BS but when he gets in office, he'll have to deal with that reality.
It's how we deal with Russia, China, Iran, Korea, India, Pakistan, South America and new unfolding crises that concern me more. Who will deal with these pragmatically yet preserve our American ideals? That's the question we should be asking, not reflecting on fucking sound bites.
RoSquirts said:I have a son in Iraq now. His brother and him have served 5 tours combined in Iraq and Afghanistan. I would like to see an end to the conflicts as much as anyone. However, neither will end the Afghan conflict soon and both will get us substantially out of Iraq before the next 2 year election. Both will leave a military presence there, like it or not.
That 100 years misquote of yours has been so taken out of context, it's ridiculous. We're involved for the long haul whether Obama wants to be or not. Reality is tough. And like all candidates, he can talk BS but when he gets in office, he'll have to deal with that reality.
It's how we deal with Russia, China, Iran, Korea, India, Pakistan, South America and new unfolding crises that concern me more. Who will deal with these pragmatically yet preserve our American ideals? That's the question we should be asking, not reflecting on fucking sound bites.
Respectfully, this is a soundbite world we live in.
The reality is the only way to deal with Russia, China, Iran,Korea, Pakistan, and South America is to get the hell out and quit meddling in other peoples business.
Position our troops around the southern border, and begin rebuilding our nations infrastructure and making us energy independent for real. This will create more jobs and put this country back on the path it was originally founded.
I know you don't like soundbites, but McCain on one hand states over and over again about stacking the Supreme Court with Judges who will limit themselves to what the founding fathers intended in the Constitution.
The founding fathers didn't believe on the country meddling in the affairs of others!
So much of our money, resources, and finest young men and women are wasted on meddling in the affairs of other countries and in the end doing nothing but setting up the conditions for the next war.
Eisenhower knew what he was talking about when warning of the "military industrial establishment"!
I know you are proud of the service and sacrifice of your sons as we all should be too.
RoSquirts said:I have a son in Iraq now. His brother and him have served 5 tours combined in Iraq and Afghanistan. I would like to see an end to the conflicts as much as anyone. However, neither will end the Afghan conflict soon and both will get us substantially out of Iraq before the next 2 year election. Both will leave a military presence there, like it or not.
That 100 years misquote of yours has been so taken out of :nutkick:, it's ridiculous. We're involved for the long haul whether Obama wants to be or not. Reality is tough. And like all candidates, he can talk BS but when he gets in office, he'll have to deal with that reality.
It's not a misquote and you especially would know that. Here's the little "sound byte". YouTube - McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me"
and later still he defended his statement on Larry King:
McCain defends '100 years in Iraq' statement - CNN.com
and before you try misquoting my original post i said:
"And Mccain said he didn't care it we're there for a hundred years as long as the job is done,.."
I did NOT say that he WILL keep us there for a hundred years which sounds like what you probably read into this. first of all he won't be around that long and if he were his presidency would have been long over since. Whatever the case, sovereignty is the heart of the matter and not our way of life. I realize not everyone cares why there is so much anti-US sentiment there and I assure you it isn't entirely just because they hate democracy it's because of our militaristic presence there. precisely the reason you are defending. how would you feel if there was suddenly a large foreign army presence here? if US soil (God Forbid such a thing) had 140,000 foreign troops occupying for whatever reason--ESPECIALLY IF THE DEATH TOLL WAS SOMEWHERE NEAR 200,000???
WHO Estimates Iraqi Death Toll at 151,000 : NPR
well, you will probably argue every man, woman, and child's death was deserved...otherwise you can not support occupation. sure come back at me with some patriotic bull shit but that only means you officially don't give a FUCK. and believe it or not that's your right....:nono: we all know if this were for patriotic reasons then every single on of you would scream to have the war profiteers behind bars where they belong and angrily demand for the government to set a deadline to have our boys back home away from unnecessary death in a country far, far away that's in a region whose conflicts originated prior to 1000 B.C.E., and a people whose conquerors number more than our presidents and still retain their age old conflicts.
so my fellow Roman conquerors no we talk about the rest of the world that we happen to distrust? your question was who will deal with them?
Near 200 B.C.E., northern and western Europe was very backward, war ridden, and ruled by war lords, disease, and religious fanatics. Rome came along and conquered them for the next 700 years. At the end of that 700 years when Rome herself declined what happened? Europe fell right back into tribal warfare, religious fanaticism, and death to the notion of Athenian democracy! Why? Because all the ideas for advancement that Rome IMPOSED were not something borne of the people she conquered. So it took another 700 full years of very little change in way of thought for the Magna Carta to arrive in 1215 A.C.E. where the king's divine right to unchallenged rule was taken, and another 500 years after that for self rule and the AMERICAN IDEALS of which you spoke to be borne voluntarily! To me it seems you are trying to say what it took western civs 1200 years to evolve into out of their own consciousness can be ****** onto the unfriendly backward third world nations? I totally disagree with that as I think we shouldn't use force at all because force will only discredit the ideals you are trying to represent. And we all know it isn't to defend Americans that we're there otherwise why did we spend most of 2003-2006 trying to figure out why the hell we went there??
It's how we deal with Russia, China, Iran, Korea, India, Pakistan, South America and new unfolding crises that concern me more. Who will deal with these pragmatically yet preserve our American ideals? That's the question we should be asking, not reflecting on fucking sound bites.
So far an intellectual or diplomatic approach has been viewed as weak whereas a warlike or aggressive approach has been seen here as patriotic. So my question to you is how do you think we should approach these other sovereign nations? as dirty harry or as andy taylor lol. dirty harry was a cool ass movie but i wouldn't want him for president. with the republicans in office i really don't see any change which means more armed conflicts in the future..
handigrl said:Respectfully, this is a soundbite world we live in.
The reality is the only way to deal with Russia, China, Iran,Korea, Pakistan, and South America is to get the hell out and quit meddling in other peoples business.
Position our troops around the southern border, and begin rebuilding our nations infrastructure and making us energy independent for real. This will create more jobs and put this country back on the path it was originally founded.
I know you don't like soundbites, but McCain on one hand states over and over again about stacking the Supreme Court with Judges who will limit themselves to what the founding fathers intended in the Constitution.
The founding fathers didn't believe on the country meddling in the affairs of others!
So much of our money, resources, and finest young men and women are wasted on meddling in the affairs of other countries and in the end doing nothing but setting up the conditions for the next war.
Eisenhower knew what he was talking about when warning of the "military industrial establishment"!
I know you are proud of the service and sacrifice of your sons as we all should be too.
well said!!!:clap::clap::clap::clap:
blkoralslaveboy said:It's not a misquote and you especially would know that. Here's the little "sound byte". YouTube - McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me"
and later still he defended his statement on Larry King:
McCain defends '100 years in Iraq' statement - CNN.com
and before you try misquoting my original post i said:
"And Mccain said he didn't care it we're there for a hundred years as long as the job is done,.."
That's still a misquote and still out of context,lol. Did you watch the video that you are linking with or read the article? lol
blkoralslaveboy said:I realize not everyone cares why there is so much anti-US sentiment there and I assure you it isn't entirely just because they hate democracy it's because of our militaristic presence there. precisely the reason you are defending. how would you feel if there was suddenly a large foreign army presence here? if US soil (God Forbid such a thing) had 140,000 foreign troops occupying for whatever reason--ESPECIALLY IF THE DEATH TOLL WAS SOMEWHERE NEAR 200,000???
WHO Estimates Iraqi Death Toll at 151,000 : NPR
well, you will probably argue every man, woman, and child's death was deserved...otherwise you can not support occupation. sure come back at me with some patriotic bull shit but that only means you officially don't give a FUCK. and believe it or not that's your right....:nono: we all know if this were for patriotic reasons then every single on of you would scream to have the war profiteers behind bars where they belong and angrily demand for the government to set a deadline to have our boys back home away from unnecessary death in a country far, far away that's in a region whose conflicts originated prior to 1000 B.C.E., and a people whose conquerors number more than our presidents and still retain their age old conflicts.
Actually, you're assuming that I support occupation when I never said any such thing. As a matter of fact, I'm ardently opposed to it partially due to the reasons you state. That doesn't bely the fact that out of context misquotes serve no purpose but to muddy the waters and weaken your case. It also doesn't bely the fact that both Obama and Mccain will maintain a presence in Iraq as long as the Iraqi government and people permit it. No matter how much you wish otherwise.
blkoralslaveboy said:so my fellow Roman conquerors no we talk about the rest of the world that we happen to distrust? your question was who will deal with them?
Near 200 B.C.E., northern and western Europe was very backward, war ridden, and ruled by war lords, disease, and religious fanatics. Rome came along and conquered them for the next 700 years. At the end of that 700 years when Rome herself declined what happened? Europe fell right back into tribal warfare, religious fanaticism, and death to the notion of Athenian democracy! Why? Because all the ideas for advancement that Rome IMPOSED were not something borne of the people she conquered. So it took another 700 full years of very little change in way of thought for the Magna Carta to arrive in 1215 A.C.E. where the king's divine right to unchallenged rule was taken, and another 500 years after that for self rule and the AMERICAN IDEALS of which you spoke to be borne voluntarily! To me it seems you are trying to say what it took western civs 1200 years to evolve into out of their own consciousness can be ****** onto the unfriendly backward third world nations? I totally disagree with that as I think we shouldn't use force at all because force will only discredit the ideals you are trying to represent. And we all know it isn't to defend Americans that we're there otherwise why did we spend most of 2003-2006 trying to figure out why the hell we went there??
So far an intellectual or diplomatic approach has been viewed as weak whereas a warlike or aggressive approach has been seen here as patriotic. So my question to you is how do you think we should approach these other sovereign nations? as dirty harry or as andy taylor lol. dirty harry was a cool ass movie but i wouldn't want him for president. with the republicans in office i really don't see any change which means more armed conflicts in the future..
Now you're assuming that I want to use force to deal with the world's problems because I simply raised the issues of this potential problem areas? Far from it. They are problem areas and foreign policy must be formulated to deal with them after the vacuum of the last 8 years. HOw you interpret my raising the issue as some kind of call to arms is beyond me. The object of a sound foreign policy should be to attain your goals without the use of force in my opinion. Since we are still the richest most powerful country in the world, we have a responsibility to ourselves and the world, like it or not.
Incidentally, perhaps you should study up on just how non-aggressive Obama really is. He called for incursions into Pakistan sovereign territory over 1 year ago and continues to do so today. Personally I do agree with that stance but if you think those are the words or actions of someone that agrees with your stated philosophies, you don't know your own candidate.
Will & Eve said:Don't believe everything you read about American politics....a lot of this stuff is dubiously sourced on both sides.
Dubiously sourced as in Reagan tripled tax revenue and decreased taxes ??
RoSquirts said:That's still a misquote and still out of context,lol. Did you watch the video that you are linking with or read the article? lol
Actually, you're assuming that I support occupation when I never said any such thing. As a matter of fact, I'm ardently opposed to it partially due to the reasons you state. That doesn't bely the fact that out of context misquotes serve no purpose but to muddy the waters and weaken your case. It also doesn't bely the fact that both Obama and Mccain will maintain a presence in Iraq as long as the Iraqi government and people permit it. No matter how much you wish otherwise.
Now you're assuming that I want to use force to deal with the world's problems because I simply raised the issues of this potential problem areas? Far from it. They are problem areas and foreign policy must be formulated to deal with them after the vacuum of the last 8 years. HOw you interpret my raising the issue as some kind of call to arms is beyond me. The object of a sound foreign policy should be to attain your goals without the use of force in my opinion. Since we are still the richest most powerful country in the world, we have a responsibility to ourselves and the world, like it or not.
Incidentally, perhaps you should study up on just how non-aggressive Obama really is. He called for incursions into Pakistan sovereign territory over 1 year ago and continues to do so today. Personally I do agree with that stance but if you think those are the words or actions of someone that agrees with your stated philosophies, you don't know your own candidate.
fair enough..... but again i don't know why you consider that a misquote. anyways, obama isn't perfectly in line with what i believe you're right...but again we are talking of comparisons aren't we?
RoSquirts said:Dubiously sourced as in Reagan tripled tax revenue and decreased taxes ??
Reagan's voodoo economics (not my words, but a Papa Bush sound bite/lol) trickled down on the little man. I think he needed saw palmeto cause it was a very weak stream that trickled down on the little man, and most of that urine remained with the upper class cause they just couldn't find it a possibility to relieve themselves.
It was for him a lucky time when the dot com revolution (internet) was beginning to take off which had nothing to do with him (he was lucky to be in the right place at the right time) as far as increasing tax revenues while reducing taxes.
Reagan was the grand father to exploding budget deficeits. He began what Baby Bush finished! That is government on the credit card!
He rebuild the US Military on the credit card, just as Bush has done with the war.
Look at where we are now.
The Right wing has done their damnedest to build Reagan into something of a hero which he never was in any way of his life or Presidency. The Right wing has felt so threatened and isolated by the glorified images of John Kennedy, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, etc... .
One aspect of Reagan doing in the little guy strikes home to me. My father works for the US POSTAL Service. He works under what they call the Civil Service Retirement Plan. Reagan viewed someone working under Civil Service and working a second job as double dipping.
So in order to cut the little guy out of his social security and keep it for the government, Reagan signed into law the "WINDFALL ELIMINATION PROVISION".
This means that if you are covered by Civil Service and work a second job paying social security taxes when you retire you will only recieve 40 percent of what social security you have earned! If you have worked more than 20 years under social security you will have earned 45 percent and goes up 5 percent each additional year.
However, every other person in this country who works for a company paying a pension continues to be able to draw their pension and social security.
When my father retired he only got 40 per cent of what he earned in social security from working a second job. There are hundreds of thousands if not millions affected by this today.
Reagan himself was drawing a Federal Pension, a State of California Pension, a Sreen Actors Pension, and social security up till he died.
I apoligize for getting a little off track but just wanted to point out the unfairness and inequities of the budget games that went on with Reagan (the Reverse Robin Hood who took from the poor and middle class to give to the rich).
As you so eloquently stated: "Reagan tripled tax revenue and decreased taxes"; but you ignore the nationa debt that was passed along to our children and their children who will pay the bills for Reagan.
A lot of people were sqeezed and screwed by Reagan while the Rich got richer. The bullshit about him defeating communism is just that!
Reagan just maxed out the government credits and we had more reserves, however, when he left the credit remained for us to repay at a later date, and was maxed out under Baby Bush.
Lets face it the real reason counter to what the flag wavers and spinners say is that our finest young people are fighting and dying in Iraq right now because of "big oil" and the fact that this country is so far in debt to China and Saudi Arabia and the rest of the world we are held hostage and it has so much to do with what Reagan did or didn't do.
Last note is it was Reagan who "cut and run" when in lebannon several hundred of our US Marines were blown to bits in a terrorist bombing.
They made fun of Clinton shooting a missle or two, but that's what Reagan did. In fact it is a belief held by many that when the Marines were blown up in Lebannon that was in fact the beginning of the lead up to "911', due in large part to Reagans running away!
Last edited by a moderator:
Josetta said:McCann could die in office and sexy Mrs Palin would become President of the United States of America automatically.
So your vote should be based on whether she has the skills to take America where it should be going.
If you don't give your vote to Barrick, then you should be ready to kneel and kiss her feet and pledge your allegiance for some radical changes when she holds the "ultimate power". She is keeping quiet because she has a few secrets to spring on us all later on.
O'Bammy is the meat puppet of liberal media and entertainment industry Jews.
toni said:O'Bammy is the meat puppet of liberal media and entertainment industry Jews.
You sure are a bastion of intelligence?
I guess that makes McSame the dead meat puppet of the conservative (Fix News and Talk Radio) media and bigoted folks like yourself who elected Bush.
handigrl said:You sure are a bastion of intelligence?
I guess that makes McSame the dead meat puppet of the conservative (Fix News and Talk Radio) media and bigoted folks like yourself who elected Bush.
You have a lot of room to talk liberal zombie attack the two media sources that aren't ingrained in the far left socialist-communist hybrid political ideology. this is so typical of the liberal mind set, bigoted, elitist and hopelessly immature.
toni said:You have a lot of room to talk liberal zombie. Now go give george soros a blow job, if you can find his dick.
Next time you do Rush Lintball make sure he takes his viagra first otherwise youll have to lick out his fat asshole again!
handigrl said:Next time you do Rush Lintball make sure he takes his viagra first otherwise youll have to lick out his fat asshole again!
That is such an immature response. Once again I am right!!!!
toni said:That is such an immature response. Once again I am right!!!!
What's the difference between Sara Palin and George Bush?
Lipstick! rofl
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
-
About usSlutwives.com has been around in various forms since 1996, right around the birth of the adult web. We're still striving to be the best community we can be and we need YOU to make it happen. Post your hottest cuckold and interracial moments and enjoy the company of like-minded people!
- Legal information
-
