Barack Obama is the 44th President of the USA

[Simon]

They brought the beer...

 

B

And it was REAL beer....not like that pi$$ you Yanks try to pass off as beer in the US.

[k9sar]

On Obama.....

 

Like it or not, the US is not an island. The US cannot sustain itself without imports and support of other countries. With that said, foreign policy is important. That was something the Shrub administration overlooked. This is where Obama, in my opinion, will excel. In repairing relations outside the US, he'll be able to better the lives of those residing within it. Negotiations will be far more favourable for the US if they're leader isn't stepping on everyone else's toes. Aid (when needed) will come in much faster, and with more backing, if the US shows a better tolerance and acceptance (as a country) for the rest of the world.

 

I agree with the theory. let's just hope it becomes fact.

 

and we won't even mention the mexico fence that he supports. *wink*

[Simon]

just having a civil conversation. Nothing like the old days, huh?

 

It's kinda weird.

[Simon]

I agree with the theory. let's just hope it becomes fact.

[k9sar]

IF that's the case (and it's a big if) that Iraq did have WMD's, I can see the idea. But there's a double standard. Why should the US be the only ones that have them? Does Iraq not have the right to defend themselves? It's not like the US will listen to the UN if (when?) the time comes to use them, at least, not if someone like Bush (and/or his administration) is involved.

 

The attacks against the Kurdish people are far from an 'if'. Again, it was theorized that their activities involved possible nukes and a continuation of chemical weapons programs even after they were told to stop (and I don't have the historical details on that 'stop' event but I know it occurred). Anyway... the main difference between Iraq and the US with respect to WMDs is that the major superpowers use them as a deterrence while other countries believe they are simply a first strike capability and would not hesitate to use them (like N. Korea... they scare me). Also, having WMD's of any kind in the hands of a country of people who believe that death is an honor and salvation... that also scares me.

The US is not the only country to have nukes and although we have done research in the chemicals used in chemical weapons, it was not to produce the weapons, it was to understand them and protect from them.

Hopefully, the time will never come where a nuclear war is started. Russia, the US, and I think even China believe that a nuclear war is a life-ending event. The problem lies with those who have nukes (or can get them or make them) who believe that they can survive a nuclear war.

 

 

ps. good question. It's obvious that you are thinking rather than just arguing.

Edited November 5, 2008 by k9sar

[unccpathfinder]

And it was REAL beer....not like that pi$$ you Yanks try to pass off as beer in the US.

 

 

ok so I lied about staying on topic...Don't go callin me no yankee (yes i know thats what the world refers to us as).

 

but where I come from I'm now considered a hippie and where i live now considers me a redneck but i damn sure aint no yankee ...whats wrong with a lil keystone or busch? I mean it is the only water you can buy in an aluminum can

[Simon]

I agree with the mentality portion of what you just wrote. It scares me as well.

 

The basis of my argument still remains. You used words like "possible" nukes. There was no proof, and yet a country was destroyed in the search, all because one country thought it was right. What gives the US that right? The UN did not agree to that war, and Bush's administration tried desperately to twist words in order to have their initiatives fit into the definitions set out by the UN for preemptive self-defense.

 

While the United States will constantly strive to enlist the support of the international community, we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense by acting pre-emptively against such terrorists, to prevent them from doing harm against our people and our country…

-Shrub

 

Why? Why can the US throw out the rulebook? What makes Shrub (and the administration)less of a terrorist?

[k9sar]

Well, I gotta ring in here. I read everyones comments so far, and I have to say, WOW. Now, I was raised in a Republican family with the traditional values. Over the last decade, I have watched the Republican ideas to into the trash. The party is weak. Very weak now. People need to start believing that there is something bigger going on. I have come to the conclusion that all presidents since Bush Sr., have all been puppet. Heck, maybe all presidents have been puppets. I worry that BHO will lead us deeper into Socialism. OUr government will grow bigger (have you heard about the private military that BHO wants to create to protect us?), taxes will increase, and it will get even harder to grow a small business. He even said it himself that he "wants to spread the wealth around". Didnt they try that in the USSR? Umm, isnt that part of Communism?

Oh yeah, the other big story to go with this campaign is how much money was spent by BHO. Do some light research and you will find, as did I, that most of BHO contributions were from BANKS! Big Banks! Even banks that are part of the Federal Reserve! Glad we bailed them out.

Hey Canadians!!! Have you heard of the push for a North American Union? Look it up. This is not just the U.S. pushing for this. If you every hear about this, you need to fight it. As a proud American, I want to keep my country seperate from others. Its just a matter of pride. They are even talking a about a common currancy like in Europe. They want to unify us all so there can be a world government! Whoever said that Americans are underinformed, was right! Have you ever seen the movie Idiocracy? If that doesnt portray what our world will be like some day, its scary to think.

Do I think McCain was better? Not really, but he lost. Ok, before I get off my soapbox, I will say this......As a American, I will support my president as any good American should. We should support America better in general. All citizens of any and all countries should be proud of were they live! Take the time to stay informed and fight for the right people to lead our countries. Dont let these puppets continue to fool you!

 

God bless all people of the World......and God Bless America!

 

The president is a figurehead, not a ruler. That is how our govenrnment is structured.

 

As for Obies money... My parents just got back from a cruise to St Thomas and other ports near there. At one of the locations, there were 2 huge luxury yachts that are owned by the democratic national party and they are used for fundraising. Obie has been there quite a bit according to the locals. Want to raise money? grab some banking bigwigs and fly them out for a nice little boat ride.

 

I generallya gree with your post but just wanted to add my 2 cents of what I learned.

[Simon]

ok so I lied about staying on topic...Don't go callin me no yankee (yes i know thats what the world refers to us as).

 

but where I come from I'm now considered a hippie and where i live now considers me a redneck but i damn sure aint no yankee ...whats wrong with a lil keystone or busch? I mean it is the only water you can buy in an aluminum can

My apologies. Not meant to offend. I will henceforth make reference to Americans.

[k9sar]

... Too bad you will still feel aftershocks of his terrible policy long after he is gone.

 

peopel keep talking about his terrible policy..

 

he had lots of policies. Which do you speak of? The one that responded to ana ttack on our homeland or the one that has me paying hundreds of dollars less in taxes than before his administration?

 

Personally, while I do believe GBW made some stupid decisions, I would love to feel the effects of his tax policy far into the future. Unfortunately, that won't happen with Obie.. he's gonna raise my taxes and spread the wealth to the poor in the way of handouts to a group of people who have pretty much demonstrated an inability to earn wages themselves.

[unccpathfinder]

My apologies. Not meant to offend. I will henceforth make reference to Americans.

 

 

Far from offended...just pokin' fun...I've never been one to get upset b/c I got called a name b/c i've been called them all including yankee (by boy down in Louisiana)

 

Southern born, tried and true swore there were 2 places i'd never live CA and NY...as you can see I'm in CA and the folks aren't all that bad out here. Now I still stand by NY but mostly NYC and anywhere up north that has a "yankee accent" you know your (New York, Boston and Wisconsin) b/c the accent just chills my spine...I hated it when my buddy came back from NYC every Xmas b/c his parents would always pick it up and keep it for a couple months

[Precise1]

as you can see I'm in CA and the folks aren't all that bad out here.

 

Gee, thanks!!

 

B

[k9sar]

I agree with the mentality portion of what you just wrote. It scares me as well.

 

The basis of my argument still remains. You used words like "possible" nukes. There was no proof, and yet a country was destroyed in the search, all because one country thought it was right.

 

If you have a restaurant that is setup with deep friers, little baggies with pictures of chikens on them, and the grease smells of fried chicken, you would make the assumption that they serve fried chicken even if you do not find any there cause billy-bob is hiding in the dumpster out back with a bucket of chicken. Iraq has the facilities and materials to build nuclear weapons. They have chemical plants that are configured to develop chemical weapons yet they claim to only be making fertilizer. Traces of chemical weapon residue was found on more than a couple warheads that were captured during the push to Baghdad. The actions of the Iraq military and government were that of a group trying to hide and deceive others about their intentions and activities. so I say 'possible nukes' because nobody made public any actual seizure of nuclear weapons (carefully worded since there are many things that remain classified regardless of the inquisition into the intelligence gathered in Iraq).

Also, the US was not the only country to believe this was happenning (ref Spain, the UK, etc). If it was, the UN would have laughed and brushed us off and no other countries would have taken part in the festivities.

 

What gives the US that right? The UN did not agree to that war, and Bush's administration tried desperately to twist words in order to have their initiatives fit into the definitions set out by the UN for preemptive self-defense.

 

The UN actions were developed over a period of time, not just because the US wanted to force the issue. And the 2002 decision by the UNSC was unanimous. After all the jerking around for a year or so, the support fo the UN was less than before and that's when I believe Bush overstepped his bounds and declared that we have the right to take action to assure our national security and started the attack. Do I think it was a wrong action? no, but I think GWB should have pursued clarification and gather supprot back from the UN rather than just throw his arms up and go anyway.

 

Just a clarification. I have my beliefs concerning the presence or absence of nukes or chems in Iraq and the intended use of them upon existance. My beliefs are based on information that I had access to that was not disclosed to the general public and was most likely not disclosed fully in the 911 hearings.

 

Let's just say for a moment that there were WMDs found and it was kept secret. The presidents job is to protect the people of our nation and, if he believes the disclosure of this information would reveal our intelligence collection abilities and subsequently eliminate our effectiveness in the collection of that intelligence, he must do his job and take the fall on behalf of his country. Perhaps this is what happened... perhaps not.

 

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions.

[sammyb33]

The one that responded to ana ttack on our homeland or the one that has me paying hundreds of dollars less in taxes than before his administration?

 

 

Ok let me ask you this. How do you expect our government to actually make money? Lower taxes so we can just what? Print more money to pay for this "conflict" we are in? Print money to help pay for the future of our country's (the childrens) education? Where are we supposed to find this money? How can we have a supportive government that does not have a way to generate money for itself? Please tell me how that is supposed to work.

 

One policy i would have liked to see work in the Bush administration was the no child left behind act, but what that did was promise funding from the national gov't, which never went through, so the states gov'ts adjusted their budgets accordingly. But that money never arrived, we got into a meaningless war and the money that was allotted for the policy dried up, and so the schools took the hit. I saw this a lot locally talking to local officials and could see programs that had to be cut in our schools three or four years ago and have yet to have the money supplied to them to bring these things back.

[Trainman]

Here is a good view of this from a Canadian perspective, where hockey is king:

 

 

Hockey for John McCain

 

Hockey is a game that respects tradition and is watchful of those who aim to “improve” it.

 

John McCain understands that hockey is a dangerous pursuit, and no amount of visors can change that fact. If you’re not willing to sacrifice a few teeth for the cause, feel free to move to badminton and see how you like it there.

 

Before you cast your vote today, just remember that, if given the chance, fanatics like Sean Avery and Jarkko Ruutu would destroy everything that hockey holds near and dear to its heart.

 

As such, hockey needs a leader who will protect its Second-Amendment right to bear arms.

 

It needs a leader who understands that enforcers are peacemakers, not warmongers.

 

It needs a leader who will stand tall against the proliferation of Patrick Kaleta.

 

It needs a leader who will give you Donald Brashear when you pry him from his cold, dead hands.

 

John McCain is committed to ensuring that the men of hockey are the best, most capable fighting force in all of sports.

 

If elected, he’ll scrap the instigator penalty that’s for years allowed rogue players to operate with impunity. These enemies of the game must be held accountable, and, occasionally – unpleasant as it may be for some of us – force is the only way to accomplish that goal.

 

Finally, Mr. McCain will put an end to the frivolous hooking and holding penalties that only serve to tax the pace of the game. He believes that hockey needs less regulation, not more.

 

Hockey for Barack Obama

 

Hockey is in dire trouble in the United States. You can join Mr. Obama and choose to solve hockey’s problems or, like Mr. McCain, you can bury your head in the sand and pray they fix themselves.

 

During eight years of President George W. Bush’s leadership, hockey suffered unimaginable hardships. These hardships continue in places like Atlanta and Columbus and Nashville and Miami and Los Angeles.

 

Make no mistake – hockey is under attack from ruthless, foreign raiders to the north. Without a leader who’s willing to take meaningful action on the economy, countless American jobs will be ripped from the heartland and relocated to third-world locales like Hamilton and Winnipeg.

But this is not just an election that’s concerned about the economic state of the game. It’s about the game itself, and how the game represents itself in the global community.

 

Barack Obama believes that hockey should stand as a beacon for cooperation and sportsmanship, not thuggery.

 

Of course, Mr. McCain will tell you that hockey needs fewer rules, not more. Well, sir, with all due respect, perhaps you’d like to tell that to Brandon Sutter, a young man with his whole career ahead of him who’s being forced to recover from the type of violence that’s come to epitomize the sport we love.

 

Mr. McCain, we’ve seen what happens when hockey is left entirely to its own devices, and now we’re saying, no more.

 

No more head shots. Elect Mr. Obama and they will be phased out by 2010.

 

No more clutching and grabbing. Every player, fast or slow, small or big, deserves the opportunity to skate freely.

 

Mr. Obama believes that hockey is a great sport, but he understands that the world is an ever-evolving place, and that hockey needs to change with it.

 

(This article appeared in Tuesday's print edition of The Province.)

[5523Pathfinder]

Ok let me ask you this. How do you expect our government to actually make money? Lower taxes so we can just what? Print more money to pay for this "conflict" we are in? Print money to help pay for the future of our country's (the childrens) education? Where are we supposed to find this money? How can we have a supportive government that does not have a way to generate money for itself? Please tell me how that is supposed to work.

 

Well, first of all you need to know how money is made. The Federal Reserve is who prints our money. Whats funny is that the Fed is not actually a Government controlled body. The Fed is made up of private banks who base our economy on elasticity (S/P), check out the federal reserve act and how it was created. You will not be happy.

For every one dollar that is actually backed by the gold standard, 1000 bills are printed. They believe that most of the money is actually going to sit in a bank and not actually spent. Wanna guess how we paid for the Bailout contract? Yeah, its basicly made out of thin air. Dont worry though. When you pay your Federal Income tax every year, guess what it pays off? Yep, it pays back those banks who printed the money in the first place, not pumped back into the government.

You want to figure out how the governement is supposed to pay for stuff? You need to put the money back into the hands of the people, not the banks or the government. We are supposed to control the goverment, not the other way around.

You can also find out how schools are paid for(Property Taxes), and roads(state taxes) and others just by doing a little research. Careful, you may not like what you find.

[Simon]

If you have a restaurant that is setup with deep friers, little baggies with pictures of chikens on them, and the grease smells of fried chicken, you would make the assumption that they serve fried chicken even if you do not find any there cause billy-bob is hiding in the dumpster out back with a bucket of chicken. Iraq has the facilities and materials to build nuclear weapons. They have chemical plants that are configured to develop chemical weapons yet they claim to only be making fertilizer. Traces of chemical weapon residue was found on more than a couple warheads that were captured during the push to Baghdad. The actions of the Iraq military and government were that of a group trying to hide and deceive others about their intentions and activities. so I say 'possible nukes' because nobody made public any actual seizure of nuclear weapons (carefully worded since there are many things that remain classified regardless of the inquisition into the intelligence gathered in Iraq).

Also, the US was not the only country to believe this was happenning (ref Spain, the UK, etc). If it was, the UN would have laughed and brushed us off and no other countries would have taken part in the festivities.

Fair enough. I realize the general public has not been privy to all the information in this situation. I do wonder, however, why finding WMD's would have been kept from them. It would have justified the whole thing for some people.

 

The UN actions were developed over a period of time, not just because the US wanted to force the issue. And the 2002 decision by the UNSC was unanimous. After all the jerking around for a year or so, the support fo the UN was less than before and that's when I believe Bush overstepped his bounds and declared that we have the right to take action to assure our national security and started the attack. Do I think it was a wrong action? no, but I think GWB should have pursued clarification and gather supprot back from the UN rather than just throw his arms up and go anyway.

 

Which, to me, is an act of terrorism on it's own. What's the UN there for?

 

Just a clarification. I have my beliefs concerning the presence or absence of nukes or chems in Iraq and the intended use of them upon existance. My beliefs are based on information that I had access to that was not disclosed to the general public and was most likely not disclosed fully in the 911 hearings.

 

Let's just say for a moment that there were WMDs found and it was kept secret. The presidents job is to protect the people of our nation and, if he believes the disclosure of this information would reveal our intelligence collection abilities and subsequently eliminate our effectiveness in the collection of that intelligence, he must do his job and take the fall on behalf of his country. Perhaps this is what happened... perhaps not.

 

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions.

I agree with the motivation to do something in the wake of 9/11. To go into Afghanistan to find Bin Laden, I agree 100% with. That part I wouldn't question. Iraq was not the propagators of those attacks.

Edited November 5, 2008 by Simon

[Kittamaru]

To be blunt...

 

If Obama does 10% of what he claimed / wants to do (and with the dems controlling the house and senate as well now it should happen) Then our country will come out a winner. Yes, just a mere 10%...

[Precise1]

To go into Afghanistan to find Bin Laden, I agree 100% with.

Which we seem to have failed miserably at...

 

B

[Simon]

Which we seem to have failed miserably at...

 

B

Agree with that as well. Though, it doesn't, in my opinion, change the importance, or relevance of the mission.

 

What it does do, in my opinion again, is put further doubts into people's minds regarding the relevance of going into Iraq. It's almost like the playground mentality. One bully gets beat on by another, so because he can't win that fight (or in this case, find the perpetrator) goes and finds someone else to beat on to show his power.

 

It almost seemed like they got to the point where they said "Sh!t, Bin Laden's gone, and we haven't done anything. Let's go beat up on Iraq to show our population that we're doing something."

[k9sar]

Fair enough. I realize the general public has not been privy to all the information in this situation. I do wonder, however, why finding WMD's would have been kept from them. It would have justified the whole thing for some people.

 

as an example... When the forces were moving north towards Baghdad, they were succeptable to attack from any number of nasty things. At that point, Hussein's biggest weapon was the support of his followers. They backed him and trusted him as a leader and Hussein still believed that he could win (for lack of better term). He claimed that he had no WMD and his followers believed him. Suppose the forces discovered WMDs.

Now there are 2 options... tell everyone or not.

If they tell everyone, Hussein loses face with his people and his support and leadership is gone

At that point, he has nothing to lose so he can crack open a can of chemical whoopass and cut loose.

He would still lose but he would take out a boatload of folks with him.

Remember, at this point, he still believes in his followers to prevail.

Now, if we hide the fact that we found stuff... what is the result there? We can appropriately supply our troops with masks and preventative gear (we did) and we have Hussein who still thinks his secret is safe and his support lives on. Effectively, this keeps our troops safe from WMD attack cause Hussein doesn't want to show all his cards and lose the support of his followers.

As the troops strategically eliminate the threats along the way, by the time Hussein realized that his butt is in deep trouble, he does not have the capability to launch any kind of significant attack.

 

maybe this was the case... maybe it wasn't. He's dead and the world may never know.

 

Which, to me, is an act of terrorism on it's own. What's the UN there for?

 

technically not. It is an unsupported violent act but not with the intent to create a sense of terror. The ruling by the UN to disarm 'or else' was more of a terroristic act than the actual invasion. Just a terminology thing. I'm not arguing that it was justified or not.

 

I agree with the motivation to do something in the wake of 9/11. To go into Afghanistan to find Bin Laden, I agree 100% with. That part I wouldn't question. Iraq was not the propagators of those attacks.

 

no, they were not but they were believed to be a source of resources for future attacks which were clearly threatened at the time. The attacks on NYC and DC were not an isolated plan, they were part of a big picture and, through forceful intervention and quality intelligence gathering, most of the other activities were thwarted before taking place. It was known that there were several future targets planned including some local to me. Much of the information used to prevent future strikes came from captured documents etc during the invasion of Iraq. So no, they may not have had anything to do wioth the planning and execution of the 9/11 attacks but they provided haven for those who did and could have provided resources as well. The attack on Iraq was somewhat preemptive, not totally reactive.

[k9sar]

Which we seem to have failed miserably at...

 

B

 

It would not be the case if we could go in with the forces that we would like. Working with the Afghan government, we have limitations on the size of the force we can send in to tromp around their country. It's that way with may countries in which we have troops.

 

and he's a slippery little bugger. Playing that hidey-hole thing like they did in viet-nam. Looking back in time, we are approaching like the british in the revolutionary war while the ones we hunt are hiding in the trees, bushes, tunnels and caves (like the colonial forces back then)

 

Perhaps it's time to break ranks and ferret that SOB out.

[Simon]

as an example... When the forces were moving north towards Baghdad, they were succeptable to attack from any number of nasty things. At that point, Hussein's biggest weapon was the support of his followers. They backed him and trusted him as a leader and Hussein still believed that he could win (for lack of better term). He claimed that he had no WMD and his followers believed him. Suppose the forces discovered WMDs.

Now there are 2 options... tell everyone or not.

If they tell everyone, Hussein loses face with his people and his support and leadership is gone

At that point, he has nothing to lose so he can crack open a can of chemical whoopass and cut loose.

He would still lose but he would take out a boatload of folks with him.

Remember, at this point, he still believes in his followers to prevail.

Now, if we hide the fact that we found stuff... what is the result there? We can appropriately supply our troops with masks and preventative gear (we did) and we have Hussein who still thinks his secret is safe and his support lives on. Effectively, this keeps our troops safe from WMD attack cause Hussein doesn't want to show all his cards and lose the support of his followers.

As the troops strategically eliminate the threats along the way, by the time Hussein realized that his butt is in deep trouble, he does not have the capability to launch any kind of significant attack.

 

maybe this was the case... maybe it wasn't. He's dead and the world may never know.

technically not. It is an unsupported violent act but not with the intent to create a sense of terror. The ruling by the UN to disarm 'or else' was more of a terroristic act than the actual invasion. Just a terminology thing. I'm not arguing that it was justified or not.

no, they were not but they were believed to be a source of resources for future attacks which were clearly threatened at the time. The attacks on NYC and DC were not an isolated plan, they were part of a big picture and, through forceful intervention and quality intelligence gathering, most of the other activities were thwarted before taking place. It was known that there were several future targets planned including some local to me. Much of the information used to prevent future strikes came from captured documents etc during the invasion of Iraq. So no, they may not have had anything to do wioth the planning and execution of the 9/11 attacks but they provided haven for those who did and could have provided resources as well. The attack on Iraq was somewhat preemptive, not totally reactive.

Fair on all accounts (pending further discussion, see below). Again, you've got more information that I do, I'm sure, so I take your word on a few things.

 

On the comment I made regarding Bush being a terrorist....I realize his motives were different than those of Bin Laden, and in the traditional sense of the word, he's not a terrorist. With that said, going against the direct UN ruling is not different than Saddam doing the same with the WMD's (or ability/wherewithal to make the same). The fact of the matter is, neither listened. A UN sanctioned war on Iraq would have happened....as I agree that Iraq wasn't going to budge. That's what the US should have waited for, as they would have had the full support of the alliance, and would have had an easier time accomplishing their goals. To go around the UN, they've made themselves look no better in the global eye.

[k9sar]

Fair on all accounts (pending further discussion, see below). Again, you've got more information that I do, I'm sure, so I take your word on a few things.

 

On the comment I made regarding Bush being a terrorist....I realize his motives were different than those of Bin Laden, and in the traditional sense of the word, he's not a terrorist. With that said, going against the direct UN ruling is not different than Saddam doing the same with the WMD's (or ability/wherewithal to make the same). The fact of the matter is, neither listened. A UN sanctioned war on Iraq would have happened....as I agree that Iraq wasn't going to budge. That's what the US should have waited for, as they would have had the full support of the alliance, and would have had an easier time accomplishing their goals. To go around the UN, they've made themselves look no better in the global eye.

 

yep. could have / should have been handled differently.

 

hey... on a side note... I just saw on CNN that 2/3 of the french army has already surrendered to Obama fearing that 'his homies were gonna bust a cap in them'

[Simon]

yep. could have / should have been handled differently.

 

hey... on a side note... I just saw on CNN that 2/3 of the french army has already surrendered to Obama fearing that 'his homies were gonna bust a cap in them'

LMFAO. Fo' shizzle!