The Next President of the USA will be?

[Hermit]

Hi all,

Does anyone remember the dip-doodles in the both houses of Congress who went along with this?

So how in the heck is anyone,regardless who you vote for and cheerlead for the next POTUS,going to change a God damn thing,...

KB

You make a good point, KB. Thus,.. in looking for someone "to change a God damn

thing", one might reasonably look to someone who didn't.. well.. "go along with this".

..eh?

"Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.

The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don't oppose all wars.

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.

I don't oppose all wars.

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.

I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income - to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him. But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight.

Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not - we will not - travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain."

~ Barack Obama, October 2002

[reminder: the invasion of Iraq was launched on March 20th, 2003]

Barack Obama was right.

Barack Obama opposed the invasion of Iraq.. before it began.

Barack Obama opposed the invasion of Iraq.. for all the right reasons.

Barack Obama had the courage to oppose the invasion of Iraq while others followed GWB off the cliff.

Barack Obama had the foresight and wisdom that members of Congress, including John McCain, lacked.

Barack Obama opposed the invasion of Iraq long before the pundits deemed the invasion a tragic mistake.

Barack Obama showed thoughtfulness, breadth and depth of vision, political courage, and.. leadership.

If there's anyone who might actually "change a God damn thing"..

Barack Obama has proven himself to be a better bet than anyone else.

[Pb Derigable]

You make a good point, KB. Thus,.. in looking for someone "to change a God damn

thing", one might reasonably look to someone who didn't.. well.. "go along with this".

..eh?

[reminder: the invasion of Iraq was launched on March 20th, 2003]

Barrack Obama was right.

Barrack Obama opposed the invasion of Iraq.. before it began.

to bad his opinion didn't count because he was not a senator yet, hell even the Chicago city council voted against it.

Barrack Obama opposed the invasion of Iraq.. for all the right reasons.

He opposed it because he wanted to become president, even if most Americans considered the war a success, no one is going to fault him for being against it.

Barrack Obama had the foresight and wisdom that members of Congress, including John McCain, lacked. to bad he wasn't a member of congress, which makes his foresight a chance bet

Barrack Obama showed thoughtfulness, breadth and depth of vision, political courage, and.. leadership. Yeah, he showed thoughtfulness, breadth and depth of vision, political courage, and.. leadership to be opposed to it so he can be president

If there's anyone who might actually "change a God damn thing"..

Yep he wants God Damn America

So Obama is oppose to this war, but i have yet to see another terrorist act on U.S. soil. so i guess he is oppose to my safety

[Mattmc1973]

So Obama is oppose to this war, but i have yet to see another terrorist act on U.S. soil. so i guess he is oppose to my safety

I started jogging last year, and no terrorist attack has happened since then. If you want to send me 'thank you' cards for keeping you safe, I'll send you my address.

[Hermit]

So Obama is oppose to this war, but i have yet to see another terrorist act on U.S. soil. so i guess he is oppose to my safety

[you been hittin the crack pipe again, Pipeboy? ]

According to your illogic..

if we can just keep al Qaeda engaged in war abroad forever..

terrorists won't ever have a chance to attack us on US soil.

..right?

thousands of US deaths and maimings (troops) are ok with you,..

as long as those deaths and injuries don't take place on US soil.

..right?

3,000 American civilian deaths on 9/11 is unacceptable to you but 85,000 Iraqi

civilian deaths and 4 million displaced Iraqis is perfectly acceptable to you.

..right?

the fact that Obama's position of opposing the Iraq invasion was the wise

and correct position,.. has absolutely no relevance to you whatsoever.

..does it?

Oh,.. one more..

You never tire of saying foolish things.

..do you?

Edited May 10, 2008 by Hermit

[Hermit]

I started jogging last year, and no terrorist attack has happened since then. If you want to send me 'thank you' cards for keeping you safe, I'll send you my address.

Thank you for keeping us safe, Matt!

You're a real American patriot.. nay.. HERO, dude!

cheers!

Run, Matt, run!

[Electrophile]

I started jogging last year, and no terrorist attack has happened since then. If you want to send me 'thank you' cards for keeping you safe, I'll send you my address.

It's a thankless job you have, protecting us from terrorists. How do you find time to do it?

[Pb Derigable]

[

if we can just keep AL Qaeda engaged in war abroad forever..

terrorists won't ever have a chance to attack us on US soil.

..right?Yes, soldiers are their to protect us not sit on their ass.

thousands of US deaths and maimings (troops) are OK with you,..

as long as those deaths and injuries don't take place on US soil.

..right? Yes, are you kidding? God made Soldiers so i could worry about something other than terrorist attacks.

3,000 American civilian deaths on 9/11 is unacceptable to you but 85,000 Iraqi

civilian deaths and 4 million displaced Iraqis is perfectly acceptable to you.

..right?Yes, because the 4,088,000 people you just pointed out, only 3,000 are Americans. The reason we have an military is to protect the citizens of the United States.

the fact that Obama's position of opposing the Iraq invasion was the wise

and correct position,.. has absolutely no relevance to you whatsoever.

..does it? It was wise because it was politically correct. He wanted to be president ever since he had that meeting in Bill Ayers house. Hell Hermit, I didn't think we should've went at the time 5 years ago, but after i found more about the facts, i realized that this would be good.

Foolish things are only said by people who claim others say foolish things.

KoolAid

Mix

1 cup of Sugar

1 cup of Bullshit

1/2 cup of white frosting

1/2 cup of black frosting

1 Koran

1 cups of speeches that talks about hope, but no answers.

and 1 pastor whom you sat in his church for 20 years and claim you fell asleep.

[Pb Derigable]

I started jogging last year, and no terrorist attack has happened since then. If you want to send me 'thank you' cards for keeping you safe, I'll send you my address.

Thank you

If we can only get Obama to atleast do somthing as little as that.

but he's playing basketball.

[Uncle Bill]

It's no coincidence that that much of the support for the youngest and least experienced candidate comes from the youngest least experienced voters. Anyone who had been around the block a few times can see through the "change" "hope" "not the same old politics as usual" BS easily because we've seen it all before, over and over. Fortunately when it comes time to vote these voters historically have better things to do than vote.

I recognize some people from this thread in the crowd

[Pb Derigable]

It's no coincidence that that much of the support for the youngest and least experienced candidate comes from the youngest least experienced voters. Anyone who had been around the block a few times can see through the "change" "hope" "not the same old politics as usual" BS easily because we've seen it all before, over and over. Fortunately when it comes time to vote these voters historically have better things to do than vote.

It's funny how we haven't even brought up his drug use yet.

and im the one who is supposedly smoking crack, while obama did.

[Uncle Bill]

It's funny how we haven't even brought up his drug use yet.

and im the one who is supposedly smoking crack, while obama did.

Did he admit to crack? I've read he admitted pot and snorting powdered coke (as have I).

[Uncle Bill]

[Pb Derigable]

Did he admit to crack? I've read he admitted pot and snorting powdered coke (as have I).

Well i guess you can't knock it until you tried it, thats why i support the military, unlike Obama who goes completely against that rule.

Yeah i had friends who tried it 5 years ago, I haven't talk to them in 5 years.

[Max Wall]

Hahahaha

[Rhodey]

While out on a Sunday drive in the wrong part of town.

[bigstickbonzo]

It's funny how we haven't even brought up his drug use yet.

and im the one who is supposedly smoking crack, while obama did.

He never smoked crack. He snorted cocaine.

And so what? He's admitted it. How many politicians on both sides of the fence have done hard drugs, abused alcohol, coherted prostitutes, stolen money and never been caught? More than we both would want to know.

The fact that he looks back at that point in his life and admits he was confused about where his life was going so he turned to experimenting with drugs before realizing his potential is just as admirable as anyone who gets a second chance.

Shit, before it was demonizied and made illegal by the US Government, it was quite common for marijuana to be smoked in the White House. Right up until the early part of the 20th Century. And society didn't frown upon it. Why? Because it hadn't been demonizied yet.

[zepyep]

Hi all,

You make a good point, KB. Thus,.. in looking for someone "to change a God damn

thing", one might reasonably look to someone who didn't.. well.. "go along with this".

..eh?

Hi Hermit!

Your missing my point,not the one on the top of my head,see that a mile away,..

It is this,if anyone thinks that someone is going to be POTUS,walk right in and 'change' the way things are done in D.C. ,well "You got another thing coming."

Your correct,he didn't go along with this,did that stop it from happening?Many other Dem's did and that is the reason this country is trying to stuff 10lbs of s*** in a 5lbs bag.Both sides have no to blame but themselves.

Let's look at Patrick Deval,Governor of Commonwealth of Massachusetts,and Obama's political brother in arms.For years we elected a GOP as the Governor to 'balance' the Dem's control of Becon Hill,we the people thought he could get things done being a Dem himself,.....wrong!All he found was the brick wall,and can't get a majority of his fellows to 'change' the way things are done.Senator Obama will find,if elected that same wall while in office.He,like Deval has to find a way to get not only his own party in line with his ideas but the GOP as well.No POTUS has ever been elected without the other party and independents going along for the ride,...

Thus,it takes many and not just one to 'change' things,for better or worse,...

In my view Senator Obama,like Deval has the appeal that they are 'outsiders' who can 'change' things,because they not the same old,same old,reality bites when you claim the office.

To all:thanks for a well thought out,civil discussion.

KB

[Mattmc1973]

It's a thankless job you have, protecting us from terrorists. How do you find time to do it?

Oh, and there have been no terrorist attacks since little Matthew was born. Is he the greatest hero in American history? Yes...yes he is.

[~Bonnie~]

It's funny how we haven't even brought up his drug use yet.

and im the one who is supposedly smoking crack, while obama did.

Good ol' Dubya did cocaine in his day. In fact, he has quite the history of sex, drugs, and rock'n'roll in his past. Didn't stop him from getting elected!

And really, how many people in this country can honestly say that they have not at least tried some sort of illegal substance? Whether it be drinking underage, or taking prescriptions that don't belong to them, or actually trying pot, cocaine, LSD, etc.

[Electrophile]

And really, how many people in this country can honestly say that they have not at least tried some sort of illegal substance? Whether it be drinking underage, or taking prescriptions that don't belong to them, or actually trying pot, cocaine, LSD, etc.

Me, for one. I haven't touched a drug, the only prescription meds I've used were prescribed to me and I didn't drink before I turned 21. I didn't want to become a cliche, which is what so many people I went to school with became. That and I'm not easily swayed by peer pressure.

[~Bonnie~]

Me, for one. I haven't touched a drug, the only prescription meds I've used were prescribed to me and I didn't drink before I turned 21. I didn't want to become a cliche, which is what so many people I went to school with became. That and I'm not easily swayed by peer pressure.

That's great that you never have!

The point is this, though. Take your high school for example. How many kids did you know that were completely drug-free like yourself? Now, how many kids do you know that weren't?

[Hermit]

Hi all,

Hi Hermit!

Your missing my point,not the one on the top of my head,see that a mile away,..

It is this,if anyone thinks that someone is going to be POTUS,walk right in and 'change' the way things are done in D.C. ,well "You got another thing coming."

Your correct,he didn't go along with this,did that stop it from happening?Many other Dem's did and that is the reason this country is trying to stuff 10lbs of s*** in a 5lbs bag.Both sides have no to blame but themselves.

Let's look at Patrick Deval,Governor of Commonwealth of Massachusetts,and Obama's political brother in arms.For years we elected a GOP as the Governor to 'balance' the Dem's control of Becon Hill,we the people thought he could get things done being a Dem himself,.....wrong!All he found was the brick wall,and can't get a majority of his fellows to 'change' the way things are done.Senator Obama will find,if elected that same wall while in office.He,like Deval has to find a way to get not only his own party in line with his ideas but the GOP as well.No POTUS has ever been elected without the other party and independents going along for the ride,...

Thus,it takes many and not just one to 'change' things,for better or worse,...

In my view Senator Obama,like Deval has the appeal that they are 'outsiders' who can 'change' things,because they not the same old,same old,reality bites when you claim the office.

To all:thanks for a well thought out,civil discussion.

KB

I hear ya, KB. Its goes without saying, though (doesn't it?), that no one person can completely change the "business as usual" (lobbyist influenced) politics in Washington entirely by himself. However, for there to be any chance of that kind of change taking place, the top executive in Washington (the POTUS) has to make change a priority. In addition to the POTUS making changing the system a priority, he also needs majorities in the House and Senate so his agenda can be advanced. ..or he needs to be able to appeal to enough "moderates" from across the aisle to get them to join his agenda and support his policies. If you look at what Obama did in helping to bring about change to Illinois' death penalty laws [*click*] you can see that he IS able to bring people together toward meaningful compromise.

As POTUS, Barack Obama may not be able to drastically change the "business as usual" in Washington politics, but then again.. maybe he can. He has staked his candidacy on the claim that he intends to try. If you don't ever try, it's guaranteed you won't succeed. I support Obama's desire/intent to try to change the business as usual politics in Washington. The incredible support he's been getting all throughout the country suggest that people are sick and tired of lobbyists influencing government policy-making.

Even if he has but a small impact on "business as usual" politics in Washington, Obama will without a doubt bring change; he most certainly WILL chart a change of course policy-wise. There is absolutely no doubt that Obama's policies will be very different than George Bush's. Obama's policies will be more in line with the values and principles of the democratic (liberal) party. He will chart a new course on Iraq and foreign policy in general; health care; economics/tax policy; education; immigration; energy; the environment; and national security. Obama will re-establish the civil liberties of American citizens that Bush has infringed upon; and he will reverse course on torture. His policies will benefit the American working/middle class, not corporations and the ultra rich at the expense of the middle class.. as George Bush's policies have.

One way or another,.. Obama WILL bring change.

[Electrophile]

That's great that you never have!

The point is this, though. Take your high school for example. How many kids did you know that were completely drug-free like yourself? Now, how many kids do you know that weren't?

I went to a Catholic, all-girls HS so there were a lot of goody-goodys. My two best friends for example. I'm know there were girls who did things they weren't supposed to, because we'd hear about locker checks coming up with various substances. That said, I didn't personally know them. I didn't hang out with the underclasses.

[Hermit]

It's no coincidence that that much of the support for the youngest and least experienced candidate comes from the youngest least experienced voters. Anyone who had been around the block a few times can see through the "change" "hope" "not the same old politics as usual" BS easily because we've seen it all before, over and over. Fortunately when it comes time to vote these voters historically have better things to do than vote.

Not only are you mistaking cynicism for wisdom, you are also (conveniently?) failing to recognize that Barack Obama has not only brought in millions of energized young voters, he has also garnered broad support among people with college and post-college educations. In other words, Obama appeals both the most energized and hopeful among us and to the most educated, most critically analytical thinking people among us.

More Of The Same McCain appeals to jaded, cynical, hopeless (or 'anti-hope'?) old farts

and to those who wouldn't recognize a critical analytical thought if it bit them on the nose.

Obama supporters, for example, are smart enough see through the "gas tax

holiday" BS that you undoubtedly fall for time and time again, Uncle BillyBoy.

[Hermit]

Yes, soldiers are their to protect us not sit on their ass.

You think we can sustain perpetual war, do you?

You think it'd be desirable that we sustain perpetual war, do you?

[Most people would prefer that our troops not have to go into battle.]

Yes, are you kidding? God made Soldiers so i could worry about something other than terrorist attacks.

Your concern for the safety and well-being of US troops is.. touching.

Everytime I think you cant possibly say anything

more stupid than what you've already said.. you do.

US troops are "made by God" to die and

get maimed so you don't have to worry?

You, sir, are a dolt.

Yes, because the 4,088,000 people you just pointed out, only 3,000 are Americans. The reason we have an military is to protect the citizens of the United States.

In protecting US citizens, you give no consideration whatsoever to the impact (in deaths, maimings, broken families, displacements, etc) on the citizens of other nations, eh?

If you're being serious, you represent the very worst of America.. nay.. the very worst of humanity. If you're joking, you're an embarrassment to yourself.. and to America.

It was wise because it was politically correct.

You are delusional, Pipeboy,.. or ignorant.

..or both.

It was not politically correct in October 2002 to oppose the invasion of Iraq. There was fairly broad support for the invasion.. support that was garnered through fear mongering and that was rooted in zealous "patriotic" fervor. Those who opposed the invasion were smeared, by the Bush admin, as being unpatriotic. Barack Obama's position was a position of political courage. He went against the political grain. He spoke the truth. He was right.

Obama's position was right not because it was

'politically correct', but because.. it was.. right.

btw.. are you ever gonna learn how to use quote tags?

Its so simple that even you and your one brain cell should be able to handle it.

Erm.. then again.. it is you we're talking about, huh?

Edited May 10, 2008 by Hermit