Biden predicts “an international crisis” if Obama elected US President

No problem. Now can sara come out and play? You do not want to understand that Biden has been around for a long time. sara on the other hand is an unknown. Mccain nominated miss Alaska out of the blue. people gave her a chance and supported her until she opened her mouth and all that crap came out. she could not make a complete sentence. and then mccain started to hide her. It is that hiding that enhanced her image as airhead.

 

My advice to you is to take your own advice. No amount of copy/paste is going obscure what's been going on lately. Mia, Debunked, Homebiz (accusing of calling you a traitor when he/she didn't), Myself (accusing me of calling you a loon when I did no such thing), Bogart and one more to add to the list, but I can't mention their name because they sent a PM about how they were getting fed up with what you are doing as well.

I say once more, perhaps the problem isn't everyone else? Or, at least perhaps the problem isn't all the other non-Obama supporters?

 

I don't know whether anyone else can see the irony - Mia calls Obama "a guying learning to rape 9-year old girls," and Wade's desire is that this turns a good deal of attention, a sort of referendum, on my personal character.

If anyone cares about this, they are free to investigate for themselves. I know I make it a point to rely on what's on the page itself, and I try to post accordingly, so I hope anything I say is freely discoverable, by the curious. Not interested in endless rounds, as I said, and certainly not interested in another diversionary spat off the topic of Biden's comments.

 

An unspoken problem in the War in Iraq and Afghanistan is that the Bush adminisistration entered into these 2 wars with not enough resources.

It has been incredibly apparent for years, especially in Iraq. Once the initial fighting with the Iraqi was over, we never had the troop levels to establish peace and prevent or quash an uprising. Ultimately things got worse and worse. We couldn't secure the borders--not enough troops. In fact we used mercenaries taking the role of troops for the first time in our modern history.

Time and again various military experts spoke to the problems that our troops faced. It became patently evident. Soldiers stays in combat were extended. More and more reserves and guard were cold up.

Inside the administration, prior to the "surge" an enormous conflict arose. Essentially the members of the Joint Chiefs said that we didn't have the troops to man a "surge" (an increase in ground soldiers in Iraq) without creating great risks elsewhere. Bush decided to override that advice.

Subsequent to that period, we face the same problem today. Generals in Afghanistan are calling for more troops on the ground and we can't deliver them.

We simply don't have the troop levels.

Of more striking importance, the Joint Chiefs declared that the only way they could achieve the numbers necessary to meet all needs would be a draft. That has never been on the plate within the administration.

On a different level as the Iraq war proceeded and violence from IEDs got worse and worse, the administration and the Pentagon were slow to speed up the necessary weaponry and protection to meet the dangers of IED's. Congressmen from both parties pushed through and demanded and got defensive armour and expenditures on various types of weaponry that ultimately cut down on the deaths and injuries caused by IED's. Of course at its earliest Rumsfeld made his outrageous statement when questioned about armour for protection against IED's...stating you go to war with the army you have.

Clearly this administration has underfunded and underprepared with regard to the war in Iraq.

While we have extended stays way beyond past experience, initial promises and guidelines at its peak, I believe the US had something between 550-580,000 troops in Vietnam. It was because of the draft. Something not utilized now. Moreover in 1969 Johnson instituted a tax surcharge. It was to pay for the war. It turned out to be one of the 4-5 only times in roughly the past 45-50 years where the US has not run a budget deficit.

Read the latest book by Woodward to get a look inside the Pentagon with regard to troop numbers.

It a crazy fallacy to think that this administration has fully supported this war effort. In my mind, having gone into Iraq, right wrong or whatever it shows a blatent disregard for trying to win the war with adequate resources.

I suppose this topic is too delicate for any politicians in either party to blast it out in the open. The logical alternative to the current volunteer military is a draft, something that virtually no politicians will consider.

Regardless we obviously and simply don't have the troop levels to fight the two wars we are fighting. We always did in the past. We simply won't discuss a draft.

I'm not advocating a draft, I'm simply pointing out what is obvious in our inability to staff the two wars.

 

Mia's comment from February has nothing to do with your actions of late. As best I can tell, it's simply a deflection introduced for "shock" value in order to obscure yet another attack on a non-Obama supporter. Mia, Debunked, Homebiz (accusing of calling you a traitor when he/she didn't), Myself (accusing me of calling you a loon when I did no such thing), Bogart and one more to add to the list via PM.

I bid you farewell Paul. I hope things work out well for you.

 

The "shock value" is to call Obama a "guy learning to rape 9 year old girls" because "you are certain" he is a "Muslim."

The "shock value" is to say you believe with all your being in the American ideal, and would then say Muslims, as a people, may not participate in the national political process to begin with.

The "shock value" is to continue to insist you have certain "knowledge" of Obama as an Islamic terrorist plant ready to overthrow the United States government on assuming the presidency.

The "shock value" is to continue to say Obama is a traitor to his country, on zero evidence.

The"shock value" is to continue all the way through to today, to refer to Obama's eloquent and seminal speech on race as "race hate" speech.

The "shock value" is to call Powell's endorsement as simply "because he's black," having nothing to do with the close to 10 minutes of specifics on Meet the Press as to why he was endorsing Obama's candidacy, after months of careful consideration.

The "shock value" is to smear those of us - whether we served in uniform, or not - as disgraces and traitors to our country should we believe the war in Iraq was the wrong war to make.

It goes on, into near infinity. My taking issue with these things isn't what's wrong. My posting reasons, with facts in support, with poster's comments, and links to those comments so that anyone curious may see for him or herself what the reality of the thing is, isn't what's wrong. What's wrong are the things themselves.

As I don't think anyone here gives a flying fuck, to be honest, about any of this, I am very happy to wish you well, as well, Wade, and leave it at that.

 

I can't understand it. I like Biden. He was my candidate of choice at the beginning of the primary period. I still like him.

He obviously has the ability to say stuff that continuously becomes "foot in the mouth" fodder for commentary.

His entire statement speaks to a totally different perspective then the partial statement taken out of the entire context.

Of historical note. I think Kennedy had characteristics similar to Obama. He was from the Senate, hadn't served for a very long time, wasn't noted as a big deal within the Senate, had the kinds of "change" characteristics that Obama carries and was relatively young.

Early on in his presidency he faced Kruschev in a meeting. He came out of it acknowledging at least in private that he didn't do well in the meetings.

Subsequent to that Kruschev escalated the Cold War. Not only had he planted missiles in Cuba aimed at the US but he sent the Russian Navy to defend them once the US discovered them.

We were very close to a Nuclear confrontation. There had never been nor was there ever a period in which the US and USSR were as close to a nuclear confrontation as that moment in time.

In meetings with advisors, military, etc. the overwhelming advice to Kennedy was to move forward militarily. He didn't. He sent his brother, Bobby into separate negotiations. Ultimately the US pulled nukes out of Turkey and the USSR pulled nukes out of Cuba.

No mushroom clouds.

I believe, as General Powell spoke, that Obama has the capacity to take in the advice from his experienced people and make good judgements going forward.

Frankly within 6 months of a new presidency and in this turbulent period it would surprise me if something didn't occur internationally that would test whoever is president.

 

Stop wasting your time, it's always the same bunch, they don't like anyone that is different to them, black, brown, asian or whatever they just say it indirectly, call it what you like, xenophobia, ultra-nationalism or racism, they wont change no matter how much you preach so it is best to let them dwell in their own ignorance with their 3rd grade type smears and logic.

 

He allowed people to be trained to overrun Cuba but didn't provide the air support needed, the result is the bay of pigs, which resulted in Cuba allowing Russia to place a nuclear bomb on the island pointed at us, which almost lead to the end of the world. Yeah, the presidency shouldn't be an on the job training course, I guarantee you that no one will test McCain if he was president since they already think he is a bit crazy

 

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=QON6SSMLcC8

 

Nothing worse than an envious has been who had no real talent to start with.

I'm going to write a song called "The 38th Parallel" about the reasons why assholes like this can sit in relative freedom and safety, pondering and writing songs about how much better the world would be without America.

 

It amusing that the one poster that gives condolence is a known anti-American. Birds of a feather.

Yeah Right. I don't think it would have looked good for Powelll to say "I'm am voting for Obama because he is black and I do not want to be remembered as an Uncle Tom". The follow up sentence could be even better. After month of discussing my deal with the anti-christ "I am also endorsing Obama in exchange for a job."

 

Wade, and any others that grope along the corner of your political landscape, here's your clue that this member has again called me an "anti-American." While you were telling me that Mia "has been a friend of yours for years" on the forum, and you've apparently been "hurt" that I have called him on his crap, you also took pains to call me a liar, several times, respecting this member, above.

Congratulations - you must be very proud. "Character."

Based on posts like the above, I don't believe Biz can take a leak unassisted, yet he would presume to divine something of the mind of Colin Powell, beyond what the man himself had to say respecting his deeply considered endorsement. Hell, ya, bub - The former Secretary of State and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff hopes that "'cuz he's black, and so is Obama, he'll be getting a job." Brilliant, as usual.

 

He still had all those other reasons to chose from

 

I agree with Gtech. There are always good arguments against war and seldom are there good arguments for war. I've argued the virtues of the war on this forum mainly because no one else was while there were many critical voices of the war. I've never had a problem with people who are against the war, only the tactics that some of them use to make their argument and maybe the anti-american agenda that I thought was driving it. You're not one of those who's tactics I've ever had a problem with and I don't sense any anti-Americanism in your posts. Grim and I seemed to have set aside our differences even before he was banned and I hope it stays that way. Maybe you and biz should try the same?

 

Logic, thank you for the post - I really appreciate you saying what you said. However it may come off, I do hate web spats - they are beyond useless, and ridiculous, since none of us really know each other beyond the paltry virtual conversations we have here. I am really happy to hear you and Grim have set aside the troubles with each other. I know in the past, in my time, Gtech himself was someone with whom I fought, and made peace, until this unfortunate turn. Guerilla was another, and I am very happy to say we have dropped that one, and my exchanges with him have been nothing but extremely rewarding since. I don't enjoy the fight, and would rather learn from folks very far from my position.

That said, I don't appreciate being called a traitor/disgrace to my country/anti-American, and I don't appreciate being called a liar when I point it out. I see a certain sense of wagons circling, Gtech has spoken of this forum in terms of "alliances," and this is just something I don't get.

Anyway, yeah, it would be nice if all of us got along, and by saying that, I'm not being flippant. My comment on Ncz-Nate's thread this morning was sincere, and not intended to be saccharine - I love our country, I love our species, and lately, not sure why, just how wrenched with enmity our globe has become has gotten to me in a pretty profound way.

 

A passive government will never stand in the modern world. War is necessary and should be avoided when possible, with that being said, it takes a low life to talk crap about those that have served in the fight against terror and those fighting in the war now. The ones that spread the most crap flip out when they are confronted with what they are. I wish you could see the hate I get with the gray reps or even with the PM's. When people are wrong they are wrong and just result to name calling.

The liberal views that are pushed in the forum are dangerous to the sovereignty of the United States of America. Those same twisted views will be the downfall of the US if the push to the left continues.

 

Goddamn, you really are a tragic person, Biz. You would call me a traitor to my country, an "anti-American" and a disgrace, and, now, a "low life who talks crap about vets who have served" - though I am a veteran, over 30 years ago, and other than that, my thoughts on vets are pretty well known around these parts. In case not, a mere sampling:

or, another thread:

The greatest loyalty I can show to my country is to want it to do the right thing, and in that I can only be guided by my conscience; and the greatest love I can show for my fellow service people is to want that their lives are treated with the highest level of stewardship for the sacrifices they are willing to make. It has informed me since the morning I entered boot, in 1978, and it has never left me since.

And with this, now, you've truly earned my contempt. I'll have to ascribe your ignorance to having limited capacity, youth, or some other deficiency that would bring you to play fire with the notion of another's "loyalty," as you do here, online. I'd suggest to you that you simply shut your hole about who is, and who isn't a "good American." Or proceed to make it ever clearer, your true self.

 

You keep bringing up traitors and vets and I can not find where it is. Just because you state your views on a subject does not make it correct. Some of your views are dangerous. Where is the traitor quote.


It is clear that Biden thinks Obama is not qualified and by his own greed he has teamed up with someone that he thinks is woefully under qualified.

 

Gtech, NPT knows he's on ignore, he knows I am sick of the constant attacks, baiting and and banter, which is why he is on ignore.

That said, he continually attempts to stalk, attacks and otherwise get under my skin by making out of context posts, and quoting me in threads I am not even involved in where he knows I am not able to defend myself. Its his calling card. I'm not certain what the problem is, or what sicko mindset has caused him to go off the deep end like this, but I am tired of it.

NPT is allowed to run around and make these false claims, wise cracks and insinuations unchecked for some reason. It really needs to stop. The ignore button may keep me from having to see the constant attacks, but it does not stop the quoting of that postsers posts, or the emails, PM's and messenger comments I get from other DP members telling me what this guy is doing.

My advice at this point is that he take a look in the mirror for once, or at the very least revisit this post: http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=483389

I think this may have been the turning point in NPT's behavior.

Look who the first poster is after that:
http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=4548729&postcount=2

And look who else posted:
http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=4584084&postcount=21

Prior to that post, you spent most of your time in affilate marketing, sanbox, blogging, link development and of course teasing us with your culinary abilities. You were fun, well spoken and balanced.

Something happened. I don't know what, but I pray daily since that post that you receive the help and guideance you need.

In the interim, if the forum management is going to keep you around, I would appreciate a modicum of respect, as I am sure others would as well.

I get more comments and concerns about your posts and attitude than I've seen from any other member in over 10 years on DP. That's a long time. Longer than any moderator even. I've seen pretty much everything in that time. I've just never seen something like this allowed to continue for so long.

Its sad.

At the very least do us all a favor and stick to your word: http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=483389