If Obama is elected president...

[ImWithStupid]

This is interesting...

 

Obama's Trip Backfires; McCain Surges to 4-Point Lead in USA Today/Gallup Poll

 

Monday, July 28, 2008 9:35 PM

 

A surprising poll released Monday confirms Sen. Barack Obama's worst nightmare: he actually lost ground to Sen. John McCain after a global trip meant to buck up his sagging credentials in foreign and military policy.

 

The USA Today/Gallup poll has McCain leading Obama by four points, 49 percent to Obama's 45 percent, among likely voters.

 

Just last month, the same poll had McCain trailing by six points to the neophyte U.S. senator.

 

Among registered voters, McCain was just three points behind Obama -- a statistical dead heat.

 

Newsmax.com - Obama's Trip Backfires; McCain Surges to 4-Point Lead in USA Today/Gallup Poll

 

Unfortunately, I feel that no matter who wins, America loses. I just believe one is worse than the other.

[ImWithStupid]

This is still funny...

 

[attach=full]2019[/attach]

[RoyalOrleans]

Unfortunately, I feel that no matter who wins, America loses. I just believe one is worse than the other.

 

I wonder that if Obama were to lose to McCain, especially in a close margin, if he'd cry, scream, kick, whine, bitch, and moan like Al Gore?

[phreakwars]

This is still funny...

 

[attach=full]2020[/attach]

 

Even funnier is the fact that FDR was a Democrat. So you know whatever idiot came up with that picture doesn't know a damn thing about history.

.

.

[ImWithStupid]

Even funnier is the fact that FDR was a Democrat. So you know whatever idiot came up with that picture doesn't know a damn thing about history.

.

.

 

I was kinda thinking that when I first saw the picture too, but it somewhat went along with the Mad TV vid that posted.

[phreakwars]

Republicans trying to paint Democrats as spineless, it's all it is. Here's an interesting factoid... The last Democrat to take the heavily Republican state of Nebraska, was Johnson... who in turn... did what? Sent troops to NAM.

 

So what do we have, FDR, LBJ, GWB all war Presidents. The only difference, aside from the political partys, is GWB...

 

LIED

 

and sent troops in to a false war. And had the audacity to COMPARE his fake war to a war that was needed.

 

Then, had the nerve to call the people who could see through his BS plot... unpatriotic, and spineless Liberals.

 

HA !

.

.

[eddo]

Even funnier is the fact that FDR was a Democrat. So you know whatever idiot came up with that picture doesn't know a damn thing about history.

.

.

 

Bender, can you please explain what you mean?

 

The pic is obviously satire based on anti-war sentiments nowadays, and the satirical application to the Pearl Harbor attacks.

[ImWithStupid]

Republicans trying to paint Democrats as spineless, it's all it is. Here's an interesting factoid... The last Democrat to take the heavily Republican state of Nebraska, was Johnson... who in turn... did what? Sent troops to NAM.

 

So what do we have, FDR, LBJ, GWB all war Presidents. The only difference, aside from the political partys, is GWB...

 

LIED

 

Three words. Gulf of Tonkin.

 

The particulars of the incidents of early August 1964, as reported by the Johnson administration, were crucial to gaining the legislative authority President Johnson sought, which came in the form of the Tonkin Gulf Resolution. At the time and for some years afterward, the United States government took the position that it had done nothing to provoke a naval engagement in the Tonkin Gulf between North Vietnamese and U.S. warships. The Johnson administration also maintained that it had acted with restraint, refusing to respond to an initial North Vietnamese attack on August 2, 1964, and reacting only after North Vietnam made a second naval attack two nights later. Both of these assertions turned out to be misleading.

 

In fact the United States at the time was carrying out a program of covert naval commando attacks against North Vietnam and had been engaged in this effort since its approval by Johnson in January 1964.

 

In fact the United States at the time was carrying out a program of covert naval commando attacks against North Vietnam and had been engaged in this effort since its approval by Johnson in January 1964.

 

Essay: 40th Anniversary of the Gulf of Tonkin Incident

 

You know the old saying, "How do you tell when a politician is lying? Their lips are moving"

.

.

.

[ImWithStupid]

Bender, can you please explain what you mean?

 

The pic is obviously satire based on anti-war sentiments nowadays, and the satirical application to the Pearl Harbor attacks.

 

I think he was saying that since the President was a Dem at the time, the Dems wouldn't be protesting what happened.

 

Kind of like the majority of the Repubs now.

[phreakwars]

Bender, can you please explain what you mean?

 

The pic is obviously satire based on anti-war sentiments nowadays, and the satirical application to the Pearl Harbor attacks.

Sure, it's trying to insinuate that the 3 Democrats pictured would show no guts when it came to retaliation back then. I say they would. It's trying to make a comparison of the reasoning for war back then to the reasoning of war in this day and age. It fails miserably. Anybody with any historical knowledge on the whole Pearl Harbor situation knows that, "HIPPY LIBERAL" or not, FDR did what he thought needed to be done to secure our best interests.

 

Granted, in MY honest opinion, FDR was a traitor. He didn't have Amerucka on his side BEFORE Pearl Harbor, had knowledge of the attack that was going to take place, and simply let it happen. Effectively murdering and sacrificing innocent American lives just to gain support for the war..

 

I find his tactics disgusting, but the end justification outweighed the means.

.

.

[ImWithStupid]

Sure, it's trying to insinuate that the 3 Democrats pictured would show no guts when it came to retaliation back then. I say they would. It's trying to make a comparison of the reasoning for war back then to the reasoning of war in this day and age. It fails miserably. Anybody with any historical knowledge on the whole Pearl Harbor situation knows that, "HIPPY LIBERAL" or not, FDR did what he thought needed to be done to secure our best interests.

 

Granted, in MY honest opinion, FDR was a traitor. He didn't have Amerucka on his side BEFORE Pearl Harbor, had knowledge of the attack that was going to take place, and simply let it happen. Effectively murdering and sacrificing innocent American lives just to gain support for the war..

 

I find his tactics disgusting, but the end justification outweighed the means.

.

.

 

and used it as a means to get what he really wanted, which was a reason to go to war with Germany.

[phreakwars]

Three words. Gulf of Tonkin.

 

 

 

Essay: 40th Anniversary of the Gulf of Tonkin Incident

 

You know the old saying, "How do you tell when a politician is lying? Their lips are moving"

.

.

.

 

And as a result, what happened? People who were opposed to the war, who demonstrated against it, who hated the government for it, all labeled "UNPATRIOTIC HIPPY LIBERAL WIMPS"

[phreakwars]

and used it as a means to get what he really wanted, which was a reason to go to war with Germany.

And by that time, it had become clear, that the war was needed, support for it actually GREW.. no potesters there to say any different. Although, I'm pretty sure if there were protesters, they would have been called "UNPATRIOTIC LIBERALS" as well.... or possibly COMMIES.

.

.

[ImWithStupid]

And as a result, what happened? People who were opposed to the war, who demonstrated against it, who hated the government for it, all labeled "UNPATRIOTIC HIPPY LIBERAL WIMPS"

 

I was just saying that all three of the war Presidents that you named, manipulated the situation to go to war. It's too bad that this type of historical atrocity keeps happening.

[phreakwars]

and used it as a means to get what he really wanted, which was a reason to go to war with Germany.

Not to spin this into conspiracy, but doesn't it make you wonder... what could GWB have done to "INSPIRE" America into coming together, line up at the recruitment offices, and have kids begging to be let in to go fight an enemy? Much like what happened after PH was bombed. Furious Americans threw down their plows and joined the army to fight the evil bastards who dare invade our land.

 

Somehow though, in 2003, the REAL enemy was substituted AFTER the troops were already there, a new objective was given to "liberate the oppressed", not kill the enemy.

 

How could you NOT be pissed off at your government about this?

.

.

[RoyalOrleans]

Republicans trying to paint Democrats as spineless, it's all it is. Here's an interesting factoid... The last Democrat to take the heavily Republican state of Nebraska, was Johnson... who in turn... did what? Sent troops to NAM.

 

So what do we have, FDR, LBJ, GWB all war Presidents. The only difference, aside from the political partys, is GWB...

 

LIED

 

and sent troops in to a false war. And had the audacity to COMPARE his fake war to a war that was needed.

 

Then, had the nerve to call the people who could see through his BS plot... unpatriotic, and spineless Liberals.

 

HA !

.

.

 

Ask any soldier fighting over there if this is a fake war!

[RoyalOrleans]

And by that time, it had become clear, that the war was needed, support for it actually GREW.. no potesters there to say any different. Although, I'm pretty sure if there were protesters, they would have been called "UNPATRIOTIC LIBERALS" as well.... or possibly COMMIES.

.

.

 

Liberal had a different meaning in those days.

[ImWithStupid]

Another Obama flip flop...

 

June 20, 2008

Obama: no offshore drilling

 

At a stop in Jacksonville today, Sen. Barack Obama plans to tell reporters that he continues to support the federal ban on off-shore drilling. His Republican rival, Sen. John McCain, said this week he would like to lift the ban and let states decide whether to drill.

 

“And when I am President, I will keep the moratorium in place and prevent oil companies from drilling off Florida’s coasts,” Obama says. “That’s how we can protect our coasts and still make the investments that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and bring down gas prices for good.”

 

Obama: no offshore drilling

 

Five weeks later when popular opinion says so...

 

Obama shifts on offshore oil drilling

 

By MIKE GLOVER, Associated Press Writer

1 hour, 20 minutes ago

 

ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Friday he would be willing to support limited additional offshore oil drilling if that's what it takes to enact a comprehensive policy to foster fuel-efficient autos and develop alternate energy sources.

 

Shifting from his previous opposition to expanded offshore drilling, the Illinois senator told a Florida newspaper he could get behind a compromise with Republicans and oil companies to prevent gridlock over energy.

 

Obama shifts on offshore oil drilling - Yahoo! News

 

Anyone who thinks this guy is anything but a politician, who will say anything to get elected, is a lemming.

[Old Salt]

Five weeks later when popular opinion says so...

Hmmmm. That sounds sorta familiar.

[ImWithStupid]

Hmmmm. That sounds sorta familiar.

 

You mean like this flip-flop?

 

John McCain says he won't raise taxes

 

By CHARLES BABINGTON

The Associated Press

Wednesday, July 30, 2008; 12:07 AM

 

WASHINGTON -- After upsetting some conservatives by signaling an openness to higher payroll taxes for Social Security, Republican John McCain gave the simplest of answers Tuesday when asked if he would raise taxes as president.

 

"No," McCain said sternly when the question was put to him by a young girl at a meeting in Sparks, Nev.

 

Despite previous vows not to raise taxes of any kind, McCain had caught some Republicans by surprise by suggesting the opposite.

 

Speaking with reporters on his campaign bus on July 9, he cited a need to shore up Social Security. "I cannot tell you what I would do, except to put everything on the table," he said.

 

He went a step farther Sunday on ABC's "This Week," in response to a question about payroll tax increases.

 

"There is nothing that's off the table. I have my positions, and I'll articulate them. But nothing's off the table," McCain said. "I don't want tax increases. But that doesn't mean that anything is off the table."

 

That comment drew a strong response from the Club for Growth, a Washington anti-tax group. McCain's comments, the group said in a letter to the Arizona senator, are "shocking because you have been adamant in your opposition to raising taxes under any circumstances."

[hugo]

At some point you are going to have to either cut entitlements or raise taxes or a combination of both. Liberal immigration policies would also help.