Obama or McCain

[Oscar Namechange]

With an interest in U.S politics, i have just read this in "The Sun" newspaper August 26th by "Fergus Shanahan".

Quote" It's January 21st, 2009, & the 44th president of The United States, Barack Obama has been office one day. Iran nukes Israel. Over to you Mr President.

You can nuke Iran. If you do that, the russians will threaten to nuke America. You can do nothing. In which case the russians will laugh at you & roll more tanks into Eastern Europe.

And by the way, the Taliban have just taken power in Pakistan & seized it's nuclear weapons. Your instructions please, Mr President.

Is this all too fanciful? No. Anyone who thinks Barack Obama is a messiah to heal the world is in the grip of serious delusion."

Quote " I said just now that Europe has seen Obama as a charismatic fresh face who could woo the birds out of the trees. Remind you of anyone?

In America, Tony Blair would be elected by a landslide. He's the one British politician they all know & they still love him.

He and Obama--and David Cameron-- are soulmates with their glib platitudes.

Look at Blair's ludicrous Labour conference soundbite. "We are the change- makers."

Look at Obama's favourite catchprase; We are the ones we have been waiting for."

Look at a David Cameron favourite slogan; "It's time for change."

What does any of this piffle mean in hard terms to people having their houses repossessed, their jobs axed and their power cut off?

Here at home we have a habit of being seduced by smoothie politicians serving their own ambitions.

Americans are more hard-headed about picking their leader.

They like honesty, plain speaking & courage.

So where does this leave America? The election will be close. Most votors don't make up their minds until after the big conferences, and it's McCain's turn next week.

Obama has a dream. But what exactly is it?"

Join the debate at thesun.co.uk/columnists

[shelbell]

oscar;964182 wrote: With an interest in U.S politics, i have just read this in "The Sun" newspaper August 26th by "Fergus Shanahan".

Quote" It's January 21st, 2009, & the 44th president of The United States, Barack Obama has been office one day. Iran nukes Israel. Over to you Mr President.

You can nuke Iran. If you do that, the russians will threaten to nuke America. You can do nothing. In which case the russians will laugh at you & roll more tanks into Eastern Europe.

And by the way, the Taliban have just taken power in Pakistan & seized it's nuclear weapons. Your instructions please, Mr President.

Is this all too fanciful? No. Anyone who thinks Barack Obama is a messiah to heal the world is in the grip of serious delusion."

Quote " I said just now that Europe has seen Obama as a charismatic fresh face who could woo the birds out of the trees. Remind you of anyone?

In America, Tony Blair would be elected by a landslide. He's the one British politician they all know & they still love him.

He and Obama--and David Cameron-- are soulmates with their glib platitudes.

Look at Blair's ludicrous Labour conference soundbite. "We are the change- makers."

Look at Obama's favourite catchprase; We are the ones we have been waiting for."

Look at a David Cameron favourite slogan; "It's time for change."

What does any of this piffle mean in hard terms to people having their houses repossessed, their jobs axed and their power cut off?

Here at home we have a habit of being seduced by smoothie politicians serving their own ambitions.

Americans are more hard-headed about picking their leader.

They like honesty, plain speaking & courage.

So where does this leave America? The election will be close. Most votors don't make up their minds until after the big conferences, and it's McCain's turn next week.

Obama has a dream. But what exactly is it?"

Join the debate at thesun.co.uk/columnists


This is a great article, and actually right on the mark. Most papers and news channels in the US are so obviously in the tank for Obama that they skew the truth hoping to get Obama elected.

[Oscar Namechange]

shelbell;964668 wrote: This is a great article, and actually right on the mark. Most papers and news channels in the US are so obviously in the tank for Obama that they skew the truth hoping to get Obama elected.


That's why Britain is worried Shellbell.:-5

[Oscar Namechange]

More from "Fergus Shanahan" The Sun" Newspaper 26th August (In America )

HAVE YANKS RUMBLED THEIR OWN TONY BLAIR?

"Being President demands more than the Tinsletown gloss and X factor hero worship on offer this week. America's commander-in-chief has to make appallingly hard decisions that impact on us all. This calls for experience and judgement.

Obama's experience is limited to a relentless persuit of his own political ambitions. He's barely been a senator five minutes. His judgement can be suspect, as when he wouldn't condemn his local priest for wildly accusing Obama's opponents of racism.

He waffles. When his plain-speaking Republican rival, the Vietnam war hero John McCain, is asked a tricky question he bluntly says yes or no.

Obama gives a hair-splitting lawyer's answer designed to avoid upsetting anybody. Trying to be all things to all voters is fatal, and you can see the consequences for the "unstoppable" Obama express.

Six months ago you couldn't get a price on him losing. Not now".

I have been taken aback by the number of people here who tell me they DON'T think he will win.

So what's changed?

First, Russia's brutal steamrollering of Georgia. It put Obama on the spot. His first response was seen as weak, asking Russia to show restraint. He soon started talking tougher, but the damage was done.

Obama's triumphalist European tour including a mass rally in Berlin, played well in London and Germany but dismayed voters in America".

BIGGER STAGE THAN LUTHER KING ( FERGUS SHANAHAN )

Obama has hired a football stadium for his coronation as Democrat candidate on thursday night.

The convention hall wasn't big enough for a man of ambitions. Seventy-five thousand delegates and media will cram into Invesco Field, home of the Denver Broncos.

Like everything Obama does , this is carefully stage managed.

Thursday marks the 45th anniversary of black civil rights leader Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech. Obama dreams of going one better and giving the first prime-time speech of a black President-elect.

Doubtless to the worshippers in the stadium it will be thrilling, moving, emotional.

But what if Americans sitting at home see it as self-serving, vain and premature?

Obama's rival McCain observed : "I would rather wait until i was elected President before acting Presidential.

Europe saw a charismatic, uplifting young man offering a better way than Bush.

America saw pride before a fall"

[Snidely Whiplash]

Actually, our new messiah lord Obama is a genius...!!!!!! He's the only politician I've ever heard that when it comes to answering important questions where the answer will have serious effects on us all can take both sides of the road at the same time, and answer almost any question yes and no all at the same time and make it sound like he's an intelectual god...

Theres a new youtube video made by some dude in UK for Obama, called American prayer or something like that, has all the big stars in it, and they are actually saying this prayer looking at posters and images of Obama... It's quite bizzarre to say the least.... There are people out there that actually seem to see this empty head in an empty suit as some sort of god or god inspired savior sent to save the country and world.....?

Nice topic, very good...!

[gmc]

Correct me if I'm wrong but did Obama not vote against the Irag war? To stand up and vote against the consensus in politics suggests a strength of character lacking in many of his colleagues in the senate.

posted by oscar

With an interest in U.S politics, i have just read this in "The Sun" newspaper August 26th by "Fergus Shanahan".


the sun is one of rupert murdochs rags so balanced viewpoints are not exactly to be expected. Page three is the only bit worth reading. always has a couple of good points to make. (:yh_rotfl)In 1997 labour and Tony Blair were wonderful according to the sun. Used to be a tory rag, became a labour one now it's not so sure. labour are finished as a political party in the short term so it will probably be the boy david fom now on.

[Oscar Namechange]

gmc;965248 wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong but did Obama not vote against the Irag war? To stand up and vote against the consensus in politics suggests a strength of character lacking in many of his colleagues in the senate.

posted by oscar



the sun is one of rupert murdochs rags so balanced viewpoints are not exactly to be expected. Page three is the only bit worth reading. always has a couple of good points to make. (:yh_rotfl)In 1997 labour and Tony Blair were wonderful according to the sun. Used to be a tory rag, became a labour one now it's not so sure. labour are finished as a political party in the short term so it will probably be the boy david fom now on.


As a citizen of the 51st state of America,-Great Britain, I abide by my right to the 5th amendment.

[shelbell]

gmc;965248 wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong but did Obama not vote against the Irag war? To stand up and vote against the consensus in politics suggests a strength of character lacking in many of his colleagues in the senate.

posted by oscar



the sun is one of rupert murdochs rags so balanced viewpoints are not exactly to be expected. Page three is the only bit worth reading. always has a couple of good points to make. (:yh_rotfl)In 1997 labour and Tony Blair were wonderful according to the sun. Used to be a tory rag, became a labour one now it's not so sure. labour are finished as a political party in the short term so it will probably be the boy david fom now on.


Obama claims to be a man that can cross party lines, yet he is the most liberal Senator in the Senate. His new VP canidate is the 3rd. John McCain has shown he can cross the lines between dems and repub's, which has angered some of his constituants, but he believes in unity. So many "rags" in the US are in the tank for Obama...I think the last count for the New York Times is 1 negative story on him for every 10 positive stories on him. That's the way most papers are in the US are. Some are fair and run fair articles on both of the canidates, but most of them are Obama supporters. Even most of the TV news channels are pressing Obama down our throats. Most polls are showing McCain as moving up in the polls and Obama losing points.

I don't want a president just because he can speak passionately off of the teleprompters.

[shelbell]

Good post Oscar!

[Oscar Namechange]

Obama chose Senator Joe Biden as his running mate, or VeeP as they call the vice president.

He'a a very ordinary Joe because not even Americans know much about him dispite being a politician for 30 years.

Perhaps he was "Biden" his time.

Picking an old timer hardly resonates with Obama's message of youthful change although, as Reagan proved, age is no barrier to successful leadership.

But here's the crazy thing about the election.

Obama's weakness is foreign affairs. He's picked Biden because he's a foreign expert.

And wars make or break Presidents.

So if Obama DOES win then the key questions on going to war are decided by a silver haired bloke nobody has heard of.

Surely the person who can turn the planet into ashes should have his own grasp of foreign Issue's?

[guppy]

this is a good post Oscar..i think McCain will win by a landslide..how this will affect the U.S. is anybodys guess..our country is floundering as it is.

[shelbell]

Actually Oscar, Biden isn't that unknown. He was a presidential canidate in 1988. He ended up having to drop out of the race because of plagerism in his speeches.

[Oscar Namechange]

MADGE HITLER JIBE AT McCain

FURY OVER GIG PHOTO'S

Madonna sparked a political furore yesterday--- by comparing US presidential candidate John McCain to Adolf Hitler.

Images of the nazi leader flashed up with McCain and Zimbabwean dictator Robert Mugabe as Madge kicked off her "Sticky and sweet" world tour.

Mr McCain's Republican campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds was furious and took a swipe at rival presidential hopeful Barack Obama.

He said yesterday, "The comparisons are outrageous, unacceptable and crudely divisive all at the same time.

"It clearly shows that when it comes to supporting Barack Obama, his fellow celebrities refuse to consider any smear or attack off limits".

Madge, 50, showed the images on saturday in Cardiff as she sang get stupid.

McCain flashed up with the tyrants and images of destruction and global warming. Towards the end of the song, pictures of Beatles legend John Lennon, former US vice-president Al Gore, Mahatma Ghandi and democrat rival Obama appeared on screen.

The McCain campaign have tried to portray Obama, 47, as a celebrity with little substance. In one t.v. advert his image is put alongside Paris Hilton & Britnet Spears.

Hilton, 27, was so hurt by the advert she filmed her own spoof ad and called McCain, 71, "an old man"

By Paul Thompson.

[Oscar Namechange]

shelbell;965345 wrote: Actually Oscar, Biden isn't that unknown. He was a presidential canidate in 1988. He ended up having to drop out of the race because of plagerism in his speeches.
Originality not Biden's strong point then?:sneaky:

[Oscar Namechange]

gmc;965248 wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong but did Obama not vote against the Irag war? To stand up and vote against the consensus in politics suggests a strength of character lacking in many of his colleagues in the senate.

posted by oscar



the sun is one of rupert murdochs rags so balanced viewpoints are not exactly to be expected. Page three is the only bit worth reading. always has a couple of good points to make. (:yh_rotfl)In 1997 labour and Tony Blair were wonderful according to the sun. Used to be a tory rag, became a labour one now it's not so sure. labour are finished as a political party in the short term so it will probably be the boy david fom now on.


Hi gmc, it is exactly Obama voting against the Irag war that worries me. Think not of the situation now in the aftermath of Iraq. Think back to the time when it's dictator was gassing his own people & was a serious threat to the west. I feel Obama would have sat on the fence chewing it over while more death & destruction was meted out to us all. God Bless Lady Thatcher. She'd had told Obama how to do things.

As for your comments RE: the "rag" the "Sun". I personally don't go by the political side of a newspaper when reading it or should they change their views. I go strictly by the intelligence of the writer who wrote the piece. Sure, it does not mean the rest is garbage. If Jeremy Clarkson had written it, i'd not have posted it. "Fergus Shanahan" has had an ability to tell it like it is whatever the subject & give us the facts. Don't condemn the colomnist by what you call the "rag"

[Bryn Mawr]

oscar;965801 wrote: Hi gmc, it is exactly Obama voting against the Irag war that worries me. Think not of the situation now in the aftermath of Iraq. Think back to the time whem it's dictator was gassing his own people & was a serious threat to the west. I feel Obama would have sat on the fence chewing it over while more death & destruction was meted out to us all. God Bless Lady Thatcher. She'd had told Obama how to do things.

As for your comments RE: the "rag" the "Sun". I personally don't go by the political side of a newspaper when reading it or should they change their views. I go strictly by the intelligence of the writer who wrote the piece. Sure, it does not mean the rest is garbage. If Jeremy Clarkson had written it, i'd not have posted it. "Fergus Shanahan" has had an ability to tell it like it is whatever the subject & give us the facts. Don't condemn the colomnist by what you call the "rag"


Firstly, Saddam was gassing his own people in the 1980s when he was the darling of the west and our bulwark against the monsters of Iran - we knew it was happening and turned a blind eye whilst giving him the weapons to carry on the war on our behalf. This does not justify invading Iraq twenty years later - it is being used as an excuse when all other excuses have been proven false.

Secondly, could you explain to me how he was a serious threat to the west as you claim? What was he threatening and how?

It is to Obama's credit that he stood up and said NO when all about him were toeing the government line and backing an illegal invasion.

[gmc]

oscar;965801 wrote: Hi gmc, it is exactly Obama voting against the Irag war that worries me. Think not of the situation now in the aftermath of Iraq. Think back to the time whem it's dictator was gassing his own people & was a serious threat to the west. I feel Obama would have sat on the fence chewing it over while more death & destruction was meted out to us all. God Bless Lady Thatcher. She's had told Obama how to do things.


He was gassing his own people back in the 1980's when he was still good buddies with the US and no one did anything at the time. No one did anything when he destroyed the south of the country putting down a rebellion in the immediate aftermath of the gulf war.

Iraq was not a credible threat to the west and had nothing to do with 911. That much was obvious to anyone with half a brain. It would haver made more sense to invade Saudi Arabia (where the terrorists actually came from) It was an excuse to go after the oil and will go down in history s one of the biggest foreign policy disasters in american history. Better to hit back at the right people is it not. It takes a lot of moral courage to stand up and disagree with the herd.

The thing that really appals is that we got suckered in to it as well. Tony Blair is one of the biggest disasters to hit british politics.

To quote from Robin Cook's resignation speech

We cannot base our military strategy on the assumption that Saddam is weak and at the same time justify pre-emptive action on the claim that he is a threat.

[Oscar Namechange]

Bryn Mawr;965806 wrote: Firstly, Saddam was gassing his own people in the 1980s when he was the darling of the west and our bulwark against the monsters of Iran - we knew it was happening and turned a blind eye whilst giving him the weapons to carry on the war on our behalf. This does not justify invading Iraq twenty years later - it is being used as an excuse when all other excuses have been proven false.

Secondly, could you explain to me how he was a serious threat to the west as you claim? What was he threatening and how?

It is to Obama's credit that he stood up and said NO when all about him were toeing the government line and backing an illegal invasion.


As you said Bryn--1980's-- getting on 30 years ago. The politics changed over that time. As for a threat to the west, have you forgotton 9/11? I'm sure America hasn't!!

[Bryn Mawr]

oscar;965831 wrote: As you said Bryn--1980's-- getting on 30 years ago. The politics changed over that time. As for a threat to the west, have you forgotton 9/11? I'm sure America hasn't!!


And what has 9/11 to do with Saddam Hussain or Iraq?

Remember, the US Government Commission set up to investigate the matter found no links between Saddam and Al-Quaeda and no evidence that Iraq funded the terrorists or gave them any aid whatsoever.

9/11 was not committed by Iraq so why use it to justify invading them?

[Oscar Namechange]

Firstly Byrn, the downfall of Sadam was through one thing & one thing only----SADAM himself. Wheather The Blair Government was correct or incorrect about the prescence of weapons of mass destruction, it was only down to Iraq's boast that they had them that put Sadam in the position he was.

When weapon inspectors tried countless times to communicate with the man & put the west minds at rest by going into Iraq & checking it out, Sadam objected, time & time again. He made himself suspicious.

Intelligence was coming through that Sadam was being seen to be moving all manor of arms etc around the country.

Even when threatened with sanctions & embargo's, the man still refused to co-operate. He's rather let the babies of his land starve of food & medical supplies than play ball with the U.N.

Secondly, Intelligence reported that Taliban, Al Queda, & all manor of suspected terrorists were being given safe haven in Iraq as well as Syria, Pakistan & India.

The two latter already building their nucleur weaponry.

[Oscar Namechange]

Sorry Brn, i forgot to add that i find your answer a little hypocritical. If you regard the Iraq war as illegal. How do you discribe Iraq originally & illegally steamrollering into Kuwait, the whole reason for Desert Storm under The Bush senior administration? Was that not it'self all about the Iraqi's control of Kuwait oil fields?? or and any military personnel Iraq could control? How would you explain Iraq's illegal bombing of scud missiles on Isreal?

Do we really all sit back & let these dictators grow & grow in strength until it really is too late?:mad:

[gmc]

[QUOTE=oscar;966209]Firstly Byrn, the downfall of Sadam was through one thing & one thing only----SADAM himself. Wheather The Blair Government was correct or incorrect about the prescence of weapons of mass destruction, it was only down to Iraq's boast that they had them that put Sadam in the position he was.

When weapon inspectors tried countless times to communicate with the man & put the west minds at rest by going into Iraq & checking it out, Sadam objected, time & time again. He made himself suspicious.

Intelligence was coming through that Sadam was being seen to be moving all manor of arms etc around the country.

Even when threatened with sanctions & embargo's, the man still refused to co-operate. He's rather let the babies of his land starve of food & medical supplies than play ball with the U.N.

Secondly, Intelligence reported that Taliban, Al Queda, & all manor of suspected terrorists were being given safe haven in Iraq as well as Syria, Pakistan & India.

The two latter already building their nucleur weaponry


You really need to do some reading you about this, basically you are talking a load of rubbish. Start with the report from the 911 commission and take it from there.

The funniest bit is the suggestion that india would be sheltering muslim terrorists. Why on earth would they do that?

[shelbell]

gmc;965809 wrote:

Iraq was not a credible threat to the west and had nothing to do with 911.


We know that Bin Ladin was the master mind and the money behind 911, He was in Iraq. Saddam was harboring a whole terrorist organization...so, how does that make Iraq a non credible threat that had nothing to do with 911?

[shelbell]

oscar;966209 wrote:

Secondly, Intelligence reported that Taliban, Al Queda, & all manor of suspected terrorists were being given safe haven in Iraq as well as Syria, Pakistan & India.

The two latter already building their nucleur weaponry.


What I don't get is how Pakistan is one of our allies, yet they won't let us in to get Bin ladin. We are still capturing top terrorists in Iraq...I see that as a threat. I haven't heard that India was involved with sanctuary for the terrorists or that they were building nukes. I do know that Iran is a huge threat along with North Korea...they are both getting nukes ready, and Iran just wants to take Isreal off the map, and they claim that there are no gays there(that's because they kill them) and that the Holocaust never happened.

I think McCain is the only one strong enough to handle these threats. Obama wants to go talk to them...yeah, like he's the only one that will try this. If these muslim terrorists hate us and want to wipe us out, talking is not the way to handle it, they just want to kill us.

[gmc]

shelbell;966656 wrote: We know that Bin Ladin was the master mind and the money behind 911, He was in Iraq. Saddam was harboring a whole terrorist organization...so, how does that make Iraq a non credible threat that had nothing to do with 911?


After all that has happened how anyone can still believe saddam had anything to do with 911 is completely beyond me. The money was from saudi. the actual terrorists were saudi, saudi is the homeland of wahibism.

Try reading your own governments reports on it all.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/Index.html

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec5.pdf

It does not appear that any government other than the Taliban financially supported al Qaeda before 9/11, although some governments may have con=tained al Qaeda sympathizers who turned a blind eye to al Qaeda’s fund-raising activities.121 Saudi Arabia has long been considered the primary source of al Qaeda funding, but we have found no evidence that the Saudi govern=ment as an institution or senior Saudi officials individually funded the organ=ization. (This conclusion does not exclude the likelihood that charities with significant Saudi government sponsorship diverted funds to al Qaeda.)


Al Qaeda appears to have relied on a core group of financial facilitators who raised money from a variety of donors and other fund-raisers, primarily in the Gulf countries and particularly in Saudi Arabia.115 Some individual donors surely knew,and others did not,the ultimate destination of their dona=tions.Al Qaeda and its friends took advantage of Islam’s strong calls for char=itable giving, zakat.These financial facilitators also appeared to rely heavily on certain imams at mosques who were willing to divert zakat donations to al Qaeda’s cause.116

Al Qaeda also collected money from employees of corrupt charities.117 It took two approaches to using charities for fund-raising. One was to rely on al Qaeda sympathizers in specific foreign branch offices of large, international charities—particularly those with lax external oversight and ineffective inter=nal controls, such as the Saudi-based al Haramain Islamic Foundation.118 Smaller charities in various parts of the globe were funded by these large Gulf charities and had employees who would siphon the money to al Qaeda.119

In addition,entire charities,such as the al Wafa organization,may have wit-tingly participated in funneling money to al Qaeda. In those cases, al Qaeda operatives controlled the entire organization, including access to bank




Terrorists are not national governments and you don't defeat them by invading countries that had nothing to do with it. Currently the US is the most powerful military nation on the planet. The idea that muslim extremists are going to invade take over or pose a credible military threat is so ludicrous it's laughable.

Going into afghanistan would at least have made sense and maybe they would have caught bin laden. Conspiracy theorists suggest he was deliberately allowed to escape- believe that or not if you want. Attacking saudi or at least cutting off all diplomatic ties would have made sense as well.

[Accountable]

shelbell;964668 wrote: This is a great article, and actually right on the mark. Most papers and news channels in the US are so obviously in the tank for Obama that they skew the truth hoping to get Obama elected.
I had the Democratic (big D, way different from the adjective) convention streaming yesterday and saw the host of Face the Nation (old guy, I forget his name) dancing to the music at the end of one of the speeches. Of course he gave up hiding his bias toward the left long ago.

[Oscar Namechange]

shelbell;966662 wrote: What I don't get is how Pakistan is one of our allies, yet they won't let us in to get Bin ladin. We are still capturing top terrorists in Iraq...I see that as a threat. I haven't heard that India was involved with sanctuary for the terrorists or that they were building nukes. I do know that Iran is a huge threat along with North Korea...they are both getting nukes ready, and Iran just wants to take Isreal off the map, and they claim that there are no gays there(that's because they kill them) and that the Holocaust never happened.

I think McCain is the only one strong enough to handle these threats. Obama wants to go talk to them...yeah, like he's the only one that will try this. If these muslim terrorists hate us and want to wipe us out, talking is not the way to handle it, they just want to kill us.


Away to go Shellbel--- spot on.

gmc-- apologogies for my ignorance--after all, i am a "SUN" reader--touche:yh_rotfl:yh_whistl:yh_whistl

[gmc]

oscar;966708 wrote: Away to go Shellbel--- spot on.

gmc-- apologogies for my ignorance--after all, i am a "SUN" reader--touche:yh_rotfl:yh_whistl:yh_whistl


Read the sun just don't read that to the exclusion of everything else or believe what it says. I also read the sun I just don't buy it-two minutes free read and a linger over page three at the newsagents I find to be ample.

[Lon]

oscar;965329 wrote: Obama chose Senator Joe Biden as his running mate, or VeeP as they call the vice president.

He'a a very ordinary Joe because not even Americans know much about him dispite being a politician for 30 years.

Perhaps he was "Biden" his time.

Picking an old timer hardly resonates with Obama's message of youthful change although, as Reagan proved, age is no barrier to successful leadership.

But here's the crazy thing about the election.

Obama's weakness is foreign affairs. He's picked Biden because he's a foreign expert.

And wars make or break Presidents.

So if Obama DOES win then the key questions on going to war are decided by a silver haired bloke nobody has heard of.

Surely the person who can turn the planet into ashes should have his own grasp of foreign Issue's?


Give me a break-------the only Americans that don't know who Joe Biden is are the Americans that read nothing more than the comic strips that reflect their own lives.

[Lon]

shelbell;965291 wrote: Obama claims to be a man that can cross party lines, yet he is the most liberal Senator in the Senate. His new VP canidate is the 3rd. John McCain has shown he can cross the lines between dems and repub's, which has angered some of his constituants, but he believes in unity. So many "rags" in the US are in the tank for Obama...I think the last count for the New York Times is 1 negative story on him for every 10 positive stories on him. That's the way most papers are in the US are. Some are fair and run fair articles on both of the canidates, but most of them are Obama supporters. Even most of the TV news channels are pressing Obama down our throats. Most polls are showing McCain as moving up in the polls and Obama losing points.

I don't want a president just because he can speak passionately off of the teleprompters.


Momma-------I haven't yet decided who I am going to vote for, but with all due respect, everything that you have posted about Obama is right off the Right Wing Blogs, Rush Limbaugh etc. Do some thinking on your own and seek out other opinions. As for a landslide for McCain? Better rethink that one too.

[ButterflyPrincess]

great article.



I am still unsure who i want to vote for..

I think Obama is gonna get it though.

[Oscar Namechange]

To gmc, i aplogise if my memory is not as sharp as yours re The past history of IRAQ, that's probably due to my being in school when it all happened.

The post i put on was a debate regarding the question Obama or McCain as i am intersted in what the American members had to tell me that i was not getting in the papers here.

I did not open a debate on Iraq as i have my own views on that one as i'm sure you have. That's called living in a democratic society with the freedom of speech & opinion.

As for the "Sun", just to put the recored straight-- my husband buys it just to look at page three & do the crossword. If i have finished reading my "Daily Mail", "Daily Express", "Telegraph" & "The Times", then i have a look. Most of it i instantly dismiss as garbage but i have found the article by "Fergus Shanahan" that sums up what i think & i believe it to be well researched & written. He is not writing it from England, he is out in America, TALKING TO AMERICAN PEOPLE. That's what good colomnists do isn't it?

I'd gladly do a swap with you. You have Gordon Brown back--we'll vote McCain.:p:p:p

[gmc]

oscar;967097 wrote: To gmc, i aplogise if my memory is not as sharp as yours re The past history of IRAQ, that's probably due to my being in school when it all happened.

The post i put on was a debate regarding the question Obama or McCain as i am intersted in what the American members had to tell me that i was not getting in the papers here.

I did not open a debate on Iraq as i have my own views on that one as i'm sure you have. That's called living in a democratic society with the freedom of speech & opinion.

As for the "Sun", just to put the recored straight-- my husband buys it just to look at page three & do the crossword. If i have finished reading my "Daily Mail", "Daily Express", "Telegraph" & "The Times", then i have a look. Most of it i instantly dismiss as garbage but i have found the article by "Fergus Shanahan" that sums up what i think & i believe it to be well researched & written. He is not writing it from England, he is out in America, TALKING TO AMERICAN PEOPLE. That's what good colomnists do isn't it?

I'd gladly do a swap with you. You have Gordon Brown back--we'll vote McCain.:p:p:p


His article alludes to the invasion of iraq and the fallout from it. You can't discuss international politics or the presidential election without it being a factor. What the next president does matters a great deal. Good columnists do talk to people some of them only listen to those that reinforce their own viewpoint.

While you may have been at school some of the soldiers fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan today were also at school others were in the process in the process of being born. It's hardly ancient history, you probably have a few of your contemporaries sitting in a bunker right now. I don't know if you have any kids but if you do the odds are if you do and they join the army the wars they get involved in will stem from what is happening now. Just as there are many mothers with children in 1990 who have those same sons out there now. Being at school might have been an excuse for not being interested in what is going on but what happens next will affect you considerable. I'm sorry but believing India is a harbourer of islamic terrorists is funny.

You can read most of the papers on line and access media from all around the world- I tend to cherry pick on line and haven't actually bought a paper for years. If you live in a free country you have a duty to hold the government to account for what they do. The information is out there it's no big secret have a look at the 911 report.

Domestically I don't care two hoots who gets elected president but his foreign policy affects me considerably. Warfare is no fun, having an american president winding up the russians is no fun either.

Gordon Brown will probably lose his seat at the next election.

[Oscar Namechange]

:yh_rotflgmc;967210 wrote: His article alludes to the invasion of iraq and the fallout from it. You can't discuss international politics or the presidential election without it being a factor. What the next president does matters a great deal. Good columnists do talk to people some of them only listen to those that reinforce their own viewpoint.

While you may have been at school some of the soldiers fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan today were also at school others were in the process in the process of being born. It's hardly ancient history, you probably have a few of your contemporaries sitting in a bunker right now. I don't know if you have any kids but if you do the odds are if you do and they join the army the wars they get involved in will stem from what is happening now. Just as there are many mothers with children in 1990 who have those same sons out there now. Being at school might have been an excuse for not being interested in what is going on but what happens next will affect you considerable. I'm sorry but believing India is a harbourer of islamic terrorists is funny.

You can read most of the papers on line and access media from all around the world- I tend to cherry pick on line and haven't actually bought a paper for years. If you live in a free country you have a duty to hold the government to account for what they do. The information is out there it's no big secret have a look at the 911 report.

Domestically I don't care two hoots who gets elected president but his foreign policy affects me considerably. Warfare is no fun, having an american president winding up the russians is no fun either.

Gordon Brown will probably lose his seat at the next election.
I bow to your greater imtelligence gmc--but--get you and your hissy fit!:yh_glasse:yh_hugs

[Accountable]

Lon;966812 wrote: Give me a break-------the only Americans that don't know who Joe Biden is are the Americans that read nothing more than the comic strips that reflect their own lives.
Yup. Ran for President a couple of times. Really admirable guy. Few politicians of higher character.

[Oscar Namechange]

Accountable;967423 wrote: Yup. Ran for President a couple of times. Really admirable guy. Few politicians of higher character.
I bet you a bag of cheese that you never heard of Gordon Brown or his political career all the time Blair was in office:p:p

[Accountable]

oscar;967755 wrote: I bet you a bag of cheese that you never heard of Gordon Brown or his political career all the time Blair was in office:p:p
Kraft American slices good for you?

[Oscar Namechange]

Accountable;967766 wrote: Kraft American slices good for you?
Nah, i prefer a good ol english slice of mature cheddar. Now, name me something worthwhile that Gordon Brown has done?:wah::wah::wah:

[Oscar Namechange]

THE DOWNFALL OF OBAMA?

Another great article from the "SUN" newspaper today from the lovely "Lorraine Kelly"

"I wonder how many Democrats watching Hillary Clinton's barn-storming speech at their convention in Denver asked "what have we done?"

Why on earth did Obama snub Hillary and not choose her as his running mate?

With Hillary on the ticket, he would have almost certainly ensured victory and the chance to be the first black President.

It just doesn't make any sense.

The long drawn out battle between Obama and Hillary was a nail-biter and she emerged with as many millions of supporters as he has.

Those disgruntled Hillary fans are out there hemming and hawing about now giving their vote and their support to Obama.

They feel cheated that their candidate was first of all, so narrowly beaten, but then has been cast adrift.

This was Obama's chance to completely unite his party, but instead of Hillary he chose gaffe prone Joe Biden, a man so bereft of idea's he stole a speech by Neil Kinnock (old British Labour man), and passed it off as his own.

Hillary is a brilliant operator and it is always far cannier to keep your friends close, but your enemies closer because, for all the sweet words, Obama and Hillary will never be anything other than deadly foes.

If Obama fails to win the presidency, Hillary will be ready and willing to do battle again in four years time ( if Obama doesn't blow the planet to Kingdom come). And this time, i don't think she'll be pipped at the post."

[Accountable]

oscar;967816 wrote: Nah, i prefer a good ol english slice of mature cheddar. Now, name me something worthwhile that Gordon Brown has done?:wah::wah::wah:
No, no, I'm conceding! :yh_worshp "Worthwhile" is an adjective that has completely different definitions in your politics and mine. Hell, it has completely different meanings among my own countrymen.

[Accountable]

oscar;967824 wrote: And this time, i don't think she'll be pipped at the post."Pipped?

[Oscar Namechange]

Accountable;967828 wrote: No, no, I'm conceding! :yh_worshp "Worthwhile" is an adjective that has completely different definitions in your politics and mine. Hell, it has completely different meanings among my own countrymen.


"conceding--Thats when your losing your hair, right? "Pipped" --one of those English old fashioned euphemisms meaning "Re-count" Something Bush knows all about.:wah::wah::wah:

[Oscar Namechange]

So Accountable-- What exactly has Gordon Brown done?? You didn't answer the question. No, you can't have lick Bush's boots, we all know that one.:wah::wah: Does any of my fellow Englishmen know either as it's a mystery to me.:-5:-5

[gmc]

oscar;967359 wrote: :yh_rotfl

I bow to your greater imtelligence gmc--but--get you and your hissy fit!:yh_glasse:yh_hugs


You flatter yourself. I was trying to politely point there are ample sources of information on the internet of you care to look. Ignorance might be an excuse when you were at school but if you are going to now support your country being involved in a war and accept that your contemporaries are being killed supposedly for your benefit you could at least take the time to find out a few things about how the situation has come about. If you can't be bothered to do so that's your right but it's rather sad to see. That you seem to be unaware that India is not a muslim country is a fairly damning indictment of the english education system or your own inattention while at school.

posted by oscar

Nah, i prefer a good ol english slice of mature cheddar. Now, name me something worthwhile that Gordon Brown has done?


He and Tony Blair have probably destroyed the labour party as a viable political force for the short to medium term. Some no doubt consider that a good thing. I was sad to see maggie do the same thing to the Tory party. We need good opposing political parties in this country not the sad pathetic state of affairs we have now. Course I'm not one of your fellow englishmen having had the good fortune to be born in scotland.

posted by accountable

Pipped?


In a race being beaten by a small margin at the finishing post having led most of the way.

[Bryn Mawr]

oscar;966209 wrote: Firstly Byrn, the downfall of Sadam was through one thing & one thing only----SADAM himself. Wheather The Blair Government was correct or incorrect about the prescence of weapons of mass destruction, it was only down to Iraq's boast that they had them that put Sadam in the position he was.


When did Saddam boast that he had weapons of mass destruction? He repeatedly denied it and the weapons inspectors and intellegence services backed him up.

oscar;966209 wrote: When weapon inspectors tried countless times to communicate with the man & put the west minds at rest by going into Iraq & checking it out, Sadam objected, time & time again. He made himself suspicious.


The weapons inspectors had fairly open access to all they asked for - when they didn't find anything it was the politicians who screamed foul.

oscar;966209 wrote:

Intelligence was coming through that Sadam was being seen to be moving all manor of arms etc around the country.


Care to provide some evidence for that?

oscar;966209 wrote:

Even when threatened with sanctions & embargo's, the man still refused to co-operate. He's rather let the babies of his land starve of food & medical supplies than play ball with the U.N.


The sanctions were in place and killing children for years before the WMD debacle.

oscar;966209 wrote:

Secondly, Intelligence reported that Taliban, Al Queda, & all manor of suspected terrorists were being given safe haven in Iraq as well as Syria, Pakistan & India.


Could you provide evidence of that - the intelligence services have specifically stated that there is no evidence of links to Al-Qaeda or any other terrorist organisation.

oscar;966209 wrote:

The two latter already building their nucleur weaponry.


India and Pakistan have had nuclear weapons for decades - nothing to do with Iraq though.

[Bryn Mawr]

oscar;966389 wrote: Sorry Brn, i forgot to add that i find your answer a little hypocritical. If you regard the Iraq war as illegal. How do you discribe Iraq originally & illegally steamrollering into Kuwait, the whole reason for Desert Storm under The Bush senior administration? Was that not it'self all about the Iraqi's control of Kuwait oil fields?? or and any military personnel Iraq could control? How would you explain Iraq's illegal bombing of scud missiles on Isreal?

Do we really all sit back & let these dictators grow & grow in strength until it really is too late?:mad:


Have I said that Desert Storm was illegal? Saddam was slapped down for that ten years before the invasion of Iraq - using that to justify 2003 is like justifying an invasion of Germany in 1960.

We did not sit back and allow Saddam to grow and grow - we force fed him with weapons and training and gave him all the support he asked for until he ceased to be useful to us.

[Bryn Mawr]

shelbell;966656 wrote: We know that Bin Ladin was the master mind and the money behind 911, He was in Iraq. Saddam was harboring a whole terrorist organization...so, how does that make Iraq a non credible threat that had nothing to do with 911?


When was Bin-Laden being sheltered in Iraq? Afghanistan yes, Sudan yes, but when Iraq?

[Oscar Namechange]

shelbell;965345 wrote: Actually Oscar, Biden isn't that unknown. He was a presidential canidate in 1988. He ended up having to drop out of the race because of plagerism in his speeches.
I have just read in our papers that Biden also nicked a speech word for word off our Labour Leader "Neil Kinnock" Good god, has he been around that long?? He must be a dinosaur. I add also that "Neil Kinnock" is one of Britains most famous failed politicians so Biden must has been deluded as well.

[Oscar Namechange]

shelbell;966656 wrote: We know that Bin Ladin was the master mind and the money behind 911, He was in Iraq. Saddam was harboring a whole terrorist organization...so, how does that make Iraq a non credible threat that had nothing to do with 911?


Good point. I notice that gmc did not answer the questions of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait or bombing of Isreal.

[Bryn Mawr]

oscar;968855 wrote: Good point. I notice that gmc did not answer the questions of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait or bombing of Isreal.


No, but you put those questions to me and I did answer them - how's about answering my responses?