Catbox
forgiveness
+505|7021
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la … 0983.story


"The president-elect has told some Democrats that he expects to take heat from parts of his political base but will not be deterred by it.


Aside from Clinton and Gates, the roster of possible Cabinet secretaries has included Sens. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) and Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.), who both voted in 2002 for the resolution authorizing President Bush to invade Iraq, though Lugar has since said he regretted it.

"It's astonishing that not one of the 23 senators or 133 House members who voted against the war is in the mix," said Sam Husseini of the liberal group Institute for Public Accuracy."

""There's so much Obama hero worship, we're having to walk this line where we can't directly criticize him," he said. "But we are expressing concern."

Which way will he go...?"
Love is the answer
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6715|'Murka

^ That is one of the creepiest things I have ever seen.

*shudder*
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6715|'Murka

racist
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
beerface702
Member
+65|6997|las vegas
any president who wears his pant's a size to small will be a failure.

it is proven

Last edited by beerface702 (2008-11-20 04:34:58)

m3thod
All kiiiiiiiiinds of gainz
+2,197|6976|UK
His trousers are cut correctly.  Just above the ankle.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6595|Éire

usmarine wrote:

"more of the same"


"change we can beleive in"





lulz
Remind me again who you voted for?
JahManRed
wank
+646|6932|IRELAND

m3thod wrote:

His trousers are cut correctly.  Just above the ankle.
Is that a Muslim thing?
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7066

Braddock wrote:

Remind me again who you voted for?
you think i bought into that shit?  i wasnt gay for obama like most of the world.  sorry.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6709|North Carolina
This is the American government we're talking about.

You don't vote for the antiwar candidate vs. the hawk candidate.  You vote for the guy who's less of a hawk.  It's less war vs. more war, not no war vs. more war.

The military industrial complex would never allow an antiwar candidate to be elected.  The general public wouldn't support one anyway.  Ron Paul is the closest thing we've had to an antiwar president in the last 50 years or so, and he didn't have a chance in hell of getting elected.
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6715|'Murka

The military industrial complex would never allow an antiwar candidate to be elected.
Illuminati.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6979|Canberra, AUS

FEOS wrote:

The military industrial complex would never allow an antiwar candidate to be elected.
Illuminati.

1st Tinfoil Hat Division
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6709|North Carolina

FEOS wrote:

The military industrial complex would never allow an antiwar candidate to be elected.
Illuminati.

Name me one antiwar president we've had since WW2.  Name me a high profile antiwar candidate we've had since WW2 other than Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, or Mike Gravel.

While it is true that antiwar candidates don't typically get the support of the general public, don't you think that might have something to do with military interests and how they've manipulated the media and managed to secure a lot of lobbying influence?

It's not a conspiracy theory.  It's fucking reality.
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6715|'Murka

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

The military industrial complex would never allow an antiwar candidate to be elected.
Illuminati.

Name me one antiwar president we've had since WW2.  Name me a high profile antiwar candidate we've had since WW2 other than Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, or Mike Gravel.
Maybe you coiuld name a high profile candidate first...

Turq wrote:

While it is true that antiwar candidates don't typically get the support of the general public, don't you think that might have something to do with military interests and how they've manipulated the media and managed to secure a lot of lobbying influence?
No. I don't. I think it has more to do with their policies writ large than their specific antiwar position.

Turq wrote:

It's not a conspiracy theory.  It's fucking reality.
That's the thing with conspiracy theories...they're reality to those who believe them.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6709|North Carolina

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:


Illuminati.

Name me one antiwar president we've had since WW2.  Name me a high profile antiwar candidate we've had since WW2 other than Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, or Mike Gravel.
Maybe you coiuld name a high profile candidate first....
So you see my point, eh?

FEOS wrote:

Turq wrote:

While it is true that antiwar candidates don't typically get the support of the general public, don't you think that might have something to do with military interests and how they've manipulated the media and managed to secure a lot of lobbying influence?
No. I don't. I think it has more to do with their policies writ large than their specific antiwar position.
So, if Obama had taken an isolationist stance on foreign policy but had kept the rest of his platform the same, you really think he would've won?
imortal
Member
+240|6969|Austin, TX

Turquoise wrote:

So, if Obama had taken an isolationist stance on foreign policy but had kept the rest of his platform the same, you really think he would've won?
Yup. He yelled "Hope!" "Change!" and "Believe!"   He was young and energetic.  People voted for him because of who he was, not what his policy positions were.  Well, other than giving money to poor people and making it so they did not have to pay thier mortgages, right?
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6715|'Murka

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


Name me one antiwar president we've had since WW2.  Name me a high profile antiwar candidate we've had since WW2 other than Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, or Mike Gravel.
Maybe you coiuld name a high profile candidate first....
So you see my point, eh?
No, I don't. You listed those three as examples of "high profile antiwar candidate(s)". If that's the best you've got, you've got nothing to support your argument.

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Turq wrote:

While it is true that antiwar candidates don't typically get the support of the general public, don't you think that might have something to do with military interests and how they've manipulated the media and managed to secure a lot of lobbying influence?
No. I don't. I think it has more to do with their policies writ large than their specific antiwar position.
So, if Obama had taken an isolationist stance on foreign policy but had kept the rest of his platform the same, you really think he would've won?
It's possible...particularly since domestic issues were at the forefront of the election on Nov 4th, not foreign policy.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6595|Éire

usmarine wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Remind me again who you voted for?
you think i bought into that shit?  i wasnt gay for obama like most of the world.  sorry.
"Celebrate good Obama c'mon... it's Obama Obama!"

Of course... everyone else who voted for Obama was totally gay for him except you.
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|6994|Tampa Bay Florida

FEOS wrote:

The military industrial complex would never allow an antiwar candidate to be elected.
Illuminati.

President Eisenhower

what a no good anti military tin foil hat wearing motherfucker that guy was... oh wait

Last edited by Spearhead (2008-11-23 13:59:01)

Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6709|North Carolina

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:


Maybe you coiuld name a high profile candidate first....
So you see my point, eh?
No, I don't. You listed those three as examples of "high profile antiwar candidate(s)". If that's the best you've got, you've got nothing to support your argument.
So the lack of major candidates that are antiwar doesn't mean anything in this discussion?
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6715|'Murka

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


So you see my point, eh?
No, I don't. You listed those three as examples of "high profile antiwar candidate(s)". If that's the best you've got, you've got nothing to support your argument.
So the lack of major candidates that are antiwar doesn't mean anything in this discussion?
Only if the only position we elect our leaders on is their antiwar stance. If you want to vote for a one-dimensional candidate, go right ahead.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6715|'Murka

Spearhead wrote:

FEOS wrote:

The military industrial complex would never allow an antiwar candidate to be elected.
Illuminati.

President Eisenhower

what a no good anti military tin foil hat wearing motherfucker that guy was... oh wait
Who said anything about Ike?

I fully realize he warned about the growing power of the MIC, but to argue that the MIC controls who runs for elections is tinfoil hat worthy, to say the least. That's nowhere near what Ike was saying.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6853|San Diego, CA, USA
Thought this article was good for this post...maybe the War on Terror will become popular with the "in" crowd now?

Greg Gutfeld wrote:

So Al Qaeda's No. 2 leader - there always seems to be an endless supply of them, somehow - aimed a racial slur at President-elect Barack Obama in a message released Wednesday, basically calling him a "house negro."

It wasn`t just Obama, however that the terrorist smeared– but also Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice. Those last two names, however, will not raise the ire of anyone in the media – for being black and Republican makes that slur perfectly acceptable.

But here`s the real news: al-Zawarhri`s blast finally makes it okay for folks on the left to support the war on terror. I mean, if there`s anything as awful as bombing us, it`s being mean to Obama. Calling him names, really, is the equivalent to denigrating the image of Mohammed – something that usually leads to death threats and flags stabbed into dying director`s chests.

In my mind, Al-Qaeda has made a horrible misstep – for instead of claiming victory as the Republican Party is vanquished due to Bush-Hitler`s misdeeds, they chose to make an enemy of a man who, by all accounts, is simply adorable. They`ve done the worst thing possible: They not only kicked a puppy - they kicked our puppy.

And for that, they`re in for a whole heap of trouble. I anticipate a disappointed shake of the head by our newly appointed leader very soon.

And if you disagree with me, then you sir are worse than Hitler!
Source: WEDNESDAY'S GREGALOGUE: OBAMA'S WAR ON TERROR BEGINS.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6709|North Carolina

FEOS wrote:

Spearhead wrote:

FEOS wrote:


Illuminati.

President Eisenhower

what a no good anti military tin foil hat wearing motherfucker that guy was... oh wait
Who said anything about Ike?

I fully realize he warned about the growing power of the MIC, but to argue that the MIC controls who runs for elections is tinfoil hat worthy, to say the least. That's nowhere near what Ike was saying.
So you really think someone can win the presidency without the support of one of the most powerful lobbies in America?
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7066

hmmm...my pictures were deleted.

some post a pic of palin pls since that is acceptable.
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6715|'Murka

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Spearhead wrote:


President Eisenhower

what a no good anti military tin foil hat wearing motherfucker that guy was... oh wait
Who said anything about Ike?

I fully realize he warned about the growing power of the MIC, but to argue that the MIC controls who runs for elections is tinfoil hat worthy, to say the least. That's nowhere near what Ike was saying.
So you really think someone can win the presidency without the support of one of the most powerful lobbies in America?
There is no Military Industrial Complex lobby. Doesn't exist.

Or were you referring to another lobby without actually naming it?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard