Statement makes no sense. You are very much trying (though failing, because the facts show otherwise) to back up saddam by suggesting he had no control over an area where al qaida had a terrorist training camp. Not only that, but I also sourced that the Iraqi government arrested several members, then immediately released them, THEN gave them information that Jordan was after them and knew where they were. As such, you were wrong, as usual. You're just not man enough, as usual, to admit it. Heh, the though of GRIM...GRIM!!! being wrong? Oooohhhh! You have no facts. I've sourced mine. You are incapable as you continue to illustrate. Opinions and "liberal feelings" are not facts. Now you are just assuming, on behalf of al qaida. How sad that you've come this far Non responsive. To think, you could have taken the time to source something, but alas, you take the lazy way out again. More liberal opinion without substance. As it stands, still, you've sourced nothing. Not one thing, despite the fact I have sourced arguments that refute your nonsense opinions. Hmm, now we're resort to the "everyone knows" as a way to source material for opinions. What a shame! Aww, that's the sweetest thing you've ever done for me! Now watch, there will be another reply, followed by a lame excuse that you read my comment, but were not logged in, and had to respond So predictable! All you had to do was offer intelligent debate by offering sources to back up your opinions and counter mine. But nope, that's too much for GRIM. If you disagree with GRIM, this is what happens. Some things never change. Let me know when you change your mind, big boy
muslim terrorists need to stop bombing everywhere....they are a problem in every corner of the world.
Why would you take a statement about terrorists and try and twist it to apply to all Muslims? You want to conflate the two. The majority of Muslims want nothing more than to live in peace with their families.
You are right man, and what do they get? Bombs on their homes, or bulldozed down because of a new illegal settlement, or sanctions.
Obama is one of the best public speakers ever. When I listen to him speak he has me awestruck. It does not matter if his speeches have no substance (hope, Change) or If I know he cannot deliver on what he is saying (invading Pakistan). The man can speak. He could sale heaters to terrorist in the Iraqi desert. Obama will be your next President of the United States of America if he does not win by a landslide I will be shocked. McCain has no chance. source
Homebiz, I've asked before - it's clear you're not a fan of Obama, but why the histrionics? And now I'll ask a new question: Was this thread title really critical to your contentions: "Obama could work 4 anyone brain washing suicide bombers..." ?
I listened to Obama last night and was moved by what he said. Last night he was amazing. Clinton moved me a little bit not like Obama, Obama is the best ever. He will be the next President. His speech won a large # of votes. the polls have been running 50/50 in the past and now as the election is approaching Obama will increase the margin to 60/40 or greater. The "suicide bombers" reference was made to the fact that when he speaks, most folks believe and will do what he states.
Obama is a very good speaker. I'm not going to debate that. But I do think it will be yet another close race this coming election. If the Democrats would put a moderate in as their candidate then they would easily win. But Obama is one of the most liberal (if not the most) liberal senator. They are basically making the same mistake they made 4 years ago. Ignoring the evangelical conservatives. Most of them will never vote for Obama because some of his far left wing stances. We'll see another close race this year.
What liberal? What far-left stances? Obama has voted right along with Clinton and McCain pretty much the entire way. You can say that he is perceived a liberal, or perceived to be far left, but there is nothing he has done in his time in office, that makes him any different from any other rank and file Democrat who has enabled the Bush Administration for the last 2 years. I'm not kidding. Go look up his voting record vs. McCain. If they didn't look different, you would swear they were the same politician. I'm trying to stay out of politics and philosophy while focusing on economics. But your comments about how liberal Obama is, just shows how disconnected many voters are from the actual record of the candidates, and how much it relies on stereotyping and preconceived ideas. Russ Feingold is the most liberal Senator, bless his soul. There is a guy who takes risks legislatively and tries to do what he believes is right, not what his handlers or lobbyists tell him to do (like Biden, Clinton, McCain, Obama). I don't always agree with him, but his heart (if not his head) is in the right place.
On this issue, I stand with Barry Goldwater, in considering the Christian Right to be one of the most destructive influences on American politics in decades - for both true conservatism, and for the country. If he loses because of the Christian Right's votes, so be it. A few Goldwater Quotes: In response to Jerry Falwell's pontification on the nomination of Sandra Day O' Connor to the Supreme Court ("Every good Christian should be concerned"), A few more: To the right wing of the Republican party, shortly before his death: (All from Wiki, but commonly known). The Christian Right has so perverted the conservative cause that the libertarian presidential candidate, Bob Barr, has stood for declaring which religions are "right" and which "wrong" for American servicepeople to practice, and believing it is the federal government's job to declare what is, or isn't, a true marriage (he has since (conveniently) apologized to the Libertarian community for his authorship/sponsorship of the "Defense of Marriage Act"; as with his complete, what I would say, magical reversal on legalization of marijuana, etc.). I sincerely hope we return to a land where Christian faith follows Christ's dictum: And quits trying to use the instruments of governmental power to dictate theology as a matter of public law. They are two entirely separate realms. @ Homebiz: OK. You are free to create any thread you would like, to say what you would like, of course. But after seeing a spate of threads along these lines ("Clinton's nomination was stolen from her," "Will Obama be assassinated?," etc.), just seems to me like you're reaching, personally.
I have said time and time again that if people want the same as Bush vote Obama. Obama talks about change (its only talk) but he will be more of the same. The voters had a chance to vote for a change during the primaries and blew it again. Every 4 years its the same type of men getting the nominations.
Obama is a hell of a speaker. Does that matter? yeah, it probably does. In politics, image is everything. Well... $ 2.
I am not a Clinton fan but I will give her this; she had fresh ideas and really wanted a change not just talking about it like Obama. When she would win states but the super delegates committed to Obama I felt that it was cheating. (I know its not). I am concerned about Obama well being. Obama is getting more threats than any candidate in recent history. Last but not least, Obama can flat out give a speech. Simply the best. Gtec blew out the water on that.
Maybe in your mind he did, that's about the extent of it. It's not shocker you have a hard on for Gtech, with the way you post being pretty close to the crap he posts as well. NOWHERE does Obama say he plans on invading Pakistan. http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=941939&highlight=invade+pakistan
And the reply to that would be. "Splitting hairs. The definition of his statement is invading, whether he says the actual word or not. Most people would know this." No "hard on" from me. I am not going to defend gtec he can do that if he wishes. I will say that the conspiracy theory mumbo gumbo everyone talks about has no facts but yet is quoted as the gospel.
I have never seen someone give so many back-handed compliments. Homebizseo thinks he is fooling everyone with his threads. He is plainly one of the most anti-Obama posters here. I guess he just does not see how transparent his posts on this forum truly are. There are so many reasons not to vote for Obama, and yet he has not mentioned a single one. All he does is posts these absurdly titled threads giving a platform for him and others to posts their anti-Obama rhetoric. Anyone who is paying attention sees the same thing. Personally, I find it rather pathetic.
The definition is NOT invasion. We have had this dance before, you can 'focus' on an item in multiple ways w/o invasion.
Obama has made some votes in line with McCain, and handed Bush a gift-wrapped present with his vote on FSA. Other than these, I don't see the comparison "McBama" "Bamabush" as standing up, across a good many issues - a side by side on votesmart, for instance, yields a very different picture. Which states did she "win," but the superdelegates committed to Obama?