Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In

Quote# 34023

Barack Obama - Aside from his being a big lip N and a Muslim he is just plain skinny and he aint all that attractive so people wouldnt watch him. What he says dont make any sense at all and IMHO he is a one trick pony who shot his wad in Nevada and got nothin left.

Lynelle, Republican Faith 20 Comments [1/23/2008 12:11:26 PM]
Fundie Index: 2
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1
Katsuro

FFS Obama is NOT a Muslim! Also, are you saying people shouldn't vote for him because he's thin and you don't find him attractive? Yes, those really are the important political issues here, you prick.

"What he says dont make any sense at all" with Lynelle's grammer I find that statement particularly ironic.

1/23/2008 12:57:56 PM

aaa

Maybe it's because Lynelle is one-issue voter.

1/23/2008 3:12:10 PM

Frank

Maybe Lynelle would prefer it if the Democrats were running Gore?

1/23/2008 3:54:44 PM



So, apart from a liar(Obama is not a muslim)or misinformed and racist, now shallow?. Now politics are decided on the basis of how "cute" the candidate is?. In that case, don't blame those who voted Kennedy. He was hot, even if he was a jerk.

1/23/2008 3:57:25 PM

Pickle

Big lipped N? Why are racists such panty-waist these days?
'Com annn! You could have at least said moon cricket.

To be honest, if you're not voting for him because of him not being cute, that's the least of the reasons you shouldn't be voting for him.

Personally, he looks too much like Urien from Street Fighter 3: Third Strike.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=mqS8LdNODoU <- do we really want this as president? (maybe the US can regain some respect. CRUSH, KILL! AEGIS REFLECTOR!)

1/23/2008 5:03:09 PM

Yama the Space Fish

Lynelle is no prize pig herself.

1/23/2008 5:37:39 PM

Amanda

What does his appearance have to do with whether or not he's a good president? So his skin colour affects his abilities to solve problems and help out his country?

1/24/2008 2:08:36 AM

Athar

Yeah what we need is an albino president someone so white he glows with an inner radiance. That'll achieve a lot!

1/24/2008 11:32:10 AM



http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp

Obama isn't Muslim.

1/24/2008 5:49:53 PM

Old Viking

A thoroughgoing analysis from a Republican political expert.

1/24/2008 9:10:44 PM

D

Uh, isn't this a joke site?

1/25/2008 4:10:19 AM

Ken1971

'cause Abraham Lincoln was just so fucking HOT!


1/25/2008 4:17:58 AM

Reverend Davidius

you know the ladies LOVED Washington with or without his wooden teeth and that his favorite pass time was mumbling in the moss

1/26/2008 6:17:06 AM

Um.

Ah, intelligent political discourse...

1/27/2008 3:59:42 PM

Florens

Even if he happened to be a Muslim, that shouldn't mean anything.

". . . no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

- Article VI, U.S. Constitution

1/29/2008 2:23:53 AM

Kristy

@ #417231
Seems you are left wondering if this person has ANY redeeming qualities too.

"he is just plain skinny and he aint all that attractive so people wouldnt watch him"
So, Lynelle, who DOES win the swimsuit competition with you??

1/31/2008 6:23:57 PM

Seiber

...racism aside, I think he's kinda pretty.

2/1/2008 2:55:27 AM

Joey

The man's name is Baraka (Arab) Mohammed Hussein Obama.
_____________________________________________________
Barack Obama’s Speech on Iraq - 2002

Good afternoon. Let begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.
The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil.
I don’t oppose all wars.

(Is this posthumous approval? Perhaps because he is part black, Obama approves of the Civil War, a war that freed the slaves. He ignores the fact that the purpose of this war was to preserve the Union and not to free the slaves. Four hundred thousand died in this war. So Baraka (Arab birth name), was this truly a “dumb” war now that your personal interest (slavery) has been removed as the cause?)

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton’s army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.
I don’t oppose all wars.

(Actually, many Americans opposed getting into this war. The only reason you aren’t against it is that it was a Democrat (FDR) that deliberately got us into it. Oh yes and being against that war wouldn’t help you get elected to anything.)

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again.

I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

(This is an old trick. It’s called ‘damning with faint praise’. I truly doubt that the crowd was filled with patriots. Nevertheless, if Perle and Wolfowitz are “arm-chair weekend warriors”, what’s Baraka Mohammed Hussein Obama? Far as I can see, he is not in the war and he is commenting on the war, so isn’t HE as much an “arm-chair weekend warrior” as Perle or Wolfowitz? I’d say so.)

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Roves to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

(Hold on again, Baraka. First, looking back in time, the median income level in the United States has risen just about every year for the last fifteen years or more. So I’m afraid you are full of it. Second, why is Karl Rove any more of a political hack than you are? You are both in the business of politics. You both belong to a party. You both follow party leadership. So why aren’t you also a ‘political hack’?

And why is the Iraq war a distraction from rising uninsureds? We have always had some uninsured. Short of a national health care system – which would be hugely expensive – there will always be some that are not insured but who can get treatment in hospital ER’s. That has been true under both Republican and Democratic Administrations.
As to the ‘rise in poverty’ about which you speak, what numbers do you have to support that and isn't it possible that NAFTA, signed by Bill Clinton, cost us many manufacturing jobs? And who exactly was it that was distracted and from what corporate scandal and aren’t there always scandals in life no matter who the President is?
Oh yea, the stock market did go down the month you gave this dumb speech but it went up for the next four years. So you were wrong again. Talk is soooo cheap.)

That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

(Here we go again. “A dumb war”. A “rash” war. Says who? Is that Baraka’s personal point of view? Who is Baraka Mohammed Hussein Obama anyway? I never heard of him before a year ago. And a war “not based on reason but on passion?”
Wow. I am really impressed. Who’s reason? Who’s passion? And who told you Baraka, that you know best? In 2002, you were an Illinois Senator about whom it could have correctly been asked: who the hell is he, without getting any answer. Why should I believe you KNEW back then what reasons or passions were involved in going to war any more than any other war we have engaged in? Senator you make a better preacher than leader. Were you in the inner council back then? Of course you weren’t, you were part of an anti-war group. You have NO idea what you are talking about.)

Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

(Yes, yes, yes. We agree with all those things. The man is a bad man with too much power and too much potential to harm us and the rest of the world. Getting rid of him only can make the world a better place. That’s what Baraka said back then. But hold it, here comes the zinger.)

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

(It’s not easy to be on both sides of every issue but this man is definitely trying. Now Senator, how exactly did YOU know all these things which appear to be at variance with most of the world’s intelligence services of the day? What did you know at that time that no one else knew? Were you hanging with Saddam? Were you over in Iraq doing a personal evaluation in 2002? Come on, fess up. NO imminent threat to his neighbors? No threat to the United States with WMD? A failing military? YOU knew all this???

You say, “contain him until like all petty dictators he falls away into the dustbin of history”. YO OBAMA, don’t you know some dictators maintain control of their countries for their entire lives i.e. Russia, China, Hati, Argentina, Cuba etc etc? Do you really think the best way to handle abject cruelty is to stand by and wait for it to crumble in the dustbins of history? What about slavery? It lasted thousands of years. It goes on today. In America, the elimination of slavery was the unexpected benefit of THE CIVIL WAR WHICH KILLED 400,000 BOYS. You can’t have forgotten already. You just took credit for it a page ago.)

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the middle east, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

(Really, and couldn’t that have been said about ALL our wars? Don’t they all inflame someone. Is that a reason for not doing what has to be done?
As to how long we have to stay in Iraq with “unknown consequences” whatever that means, following WWII, we stayed in both Germany and Japan for decades to help them re-establish democracy. I suppose we also faced those nefarious “unknown consequences’ back then too. But it seems to have worked out fine.

As to international support, who were you referring to? What friends did we alienate? What countries are not our friends here in 2007 that you thought we were going to lose back in 2002?

We did what we thought we had to do. As do most countries. Think of our closest allies over the years. England, Ireland, France, Germany, Spain, Greece? Which one is not our friend now because of the war. And if you dare say they didn’t support us, you need to be punched out. First, liberals made the war as unpopular as they could which did sway the uninformed. Second, many of the European countries were doing business with Saddam and with Arab countries and THAT’S why they didn’t want to jump in. It was about business, not values. Not only that, but France, Germany and Russia got most of their oil from Iraq and were part of the UN ‘oil for food’ program which turned out to be riddled with graft. Move on Baraka, you don’t know what you are talking about. But then, why would you? All you were in 2002, was a small town Senator from Illinois with a big mouth. Not much has changed.

By the way, which of our ‘friends’ around the world must we consider in our decisions? John Kerry wanted to go around the world seeking approval. Do you think we should do that?
Who among our friends is beyond reproach in their dealings with the rest of the world. Which country asked us for permission before they acted in their own interests? Was it Colonial Great Britain that had colonies all over the world, which sent its Navy into the Suez Canal and half way around the world to fight in the Falken Islands? How about Nazi Germany? The North African French? Communist Russia? Communist China? How about militaristic Japan that bombed us without ever once asking our permission? Which one Mr. Obama? Which of our ‘friends” did with us what you suggest we do with them? Ask permission? At some point nations act in their own self-interests. If you had any foreign experience, you’d know that. They have each taken military action without asking our support. Sometimes they acted and then desperately needed our help to bail them out i.e. two world wars, but they didn’t ask our permission or seek our counsel beforehand. US blood lies all over the European Continent where our boys left home and went into a foreign land to rescue our allies. Too bad they couldn’t remember how they wanted us to invade Europe to save them, when we went into Iraq. They at least could have identified with the Iraqi people living for decades in terror. Too bad Mr. Baraka Mohammed Hussein Obama couldn’t remember all that when he gave this dumb stump speech.

PS It is now 2007 and al Queda is beaten in Iraq and there have been few successful attacks on US or US friends since 2002. None of those direct predictions of Obama’s held water. He was wrong then and he is wrong now. The Reverend works best from the pulpit where no one would take him seriously.)

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

(Dumb as determined by this world authority on smart and dumb wars – an authority in own mind anyway – Baraka Obama – the preacher man.)

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

(Jackass, we are doing all of those things. How would you know anything about it since you are not invited to any intelligence briefings or intra-departmental meetings? You were an outsider at the time and one who never had accomplished anything on the world scene. By the way, I strongly believe – just my own personal belief – that Mr. bin Laden is dead today, dead and buried, and we are still here.

As to how to fight al Queda, what a joke. You wanted to coordinate intelligence? The same intelligence service that along with seven of the worlds best, said Saddam was a threat and was developing WMD? That intelligence? You wanted to coordinate them back in 2002? And of course they were uncoordinated for decades waiting for you to show up and straighten everybody out. Whew.)

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

(No, no, no. You can’t get away with that nonsense Mr. Obama. The UN inspectors failed miserably over and over again. And you have NOTHING to say about what Russia does or doesn’t do. Or China or almost anyone else. And we can ‘t ENFORCE a non-proliferation treaty if certain countries thumb their noses at us. What exactly can we do when you keep advocating not getting involved. Shall we INVADE THEM??? Punish them? Yea right. Oh yes, wasn’t it you who later (2007) was to say you would go into Pakistan (invade an ally?) and do the job if they didn’t do more about finding the dead Mr. bin Laden? That was you, wasn’t it?

As for arms merchants, stop lying to the folks. Every nation is the world is either a seller or a buyer of military equipment. We are no different. Or maybe you can arrange for all the world to abolish their militaries and destroy all their arms. That would be a good thing.
And exactly – and I mean exactly – are you going to ensure that Pakistan and India don’t go to war and use their nuclear weapons? Let’s hear your plan.)

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

(My, my, my – that is interesting. You said STOP OPPRESSING THEIR OWN PEOPLE. Would that be Saudi Arabia, and Egypt and Jordan and Kuwait and Dubai and countries like that who are friendly to us? And exactly how will you do this in a better way that Mr. Bush or Mr Clinton before you have done it? What do you bring to the table that we can look at? Oops - nothing but a sermon. It’s so easy to give a sermon, Sir, but so hard to actually do anything.
The nations you mentioned are sovereign states and don’t take kindly to outsiders coming in and telling them how to handle their internal disputes. And by the way, you seem passionate on this subject. Does that mean you feel the governments of these countries are in the wrong? Do you have a dog in this fight, Mr. Obama? If so, how come? Are you a Muslim or an American? On one hand you say butt out, then you say get involved. And which oppressed people? Could you be referring to the Brotherhood in Egypt – the fundamentalist radical Muslims???)

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn’t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

(And what policy would that be when environmentalist that you support Sir, are against drilling for oil where we HAVE oil thereby forcing us to send 400 Billion dollars each and every year out of our country? And what policies favor oil companies exactly? What is the oil policy that you have in mind and what specifically is your plan to ‘wean us off Middle Eastern Oil?” Did Bill Clinton know about this policy when he was in office and if so, why didn’t he use it? Do you really think hounding Exxon and Mobil will do any more than drive them out of this country as so many others have been driven out? If so, you are naïve beyond words. No matter where the big oil companies are located, we still need their oil and will need it for another two decades. You need to brush up on your facts. After all, all your speeches won’t always be to kids who don’t know any better. As for alternative fuels, we are trying a lot of things most of which won’t make it and that includes Ethanol from corn. From sugar beets maybe, from corn in America no. It's not quite as easy as you infer which is why Presidents of both parties have failed to get it resolved for years. It’s a very tough problem and trust me, you wouldn’t do it any better. Hard headed businessmen don’t listen to sermons without facts to back them up. Only the uninformed do. Lucky for you.)

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.
The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not – we will not – travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.

(Sermonizing again. Fine. But only you, Mr. Obama and your Party have deemed their sacrifices to be in vain. You see you praise with one hand and rip with the other – the typical tools of a demagogue. But then its so much easier to see in hindsight and so much easier to cast aspersions than ever to do anything, that I can’t blame you for taking the cheap shots. You are running for president now. So much for intolerance. You do have a point about ignorance since so many people listen to you and think you know what you are talking about which you do not. Corruption and greed are staples of the human condition. Just like being a phony is when you say you don’t take special interest money but you did two years ago. The bible says “the poor will always be with us” and from poverty comes despair. Yet America had the best fed and housed poor of any country in the world. We aren’t doing enough, I agree, but we are far from the worst. Baraka, we both know you haven’t the slightest idea how to accomplish any of the things you rail about. But then you don’t have to, the people are born suckers for an Evangelist, and that’s what you are – and all that you are.)

They didn’t name you Baraka Mohammed Hussein Obama for nothing.

Joey

http://journals.aol.com/chonors686/JoeyPage1






2/14/2008 3:26:13 AM

Joey

The man's name is Baraka (Arab) Mohammed Hussein Obama.
_____________________________________________________
Barack Obama’s Speech on Iraq - 2002

Good afternoon. Let begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.
The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil.
I don’t oppose all wars.

(Is this posthumous approval? Perhaps because he is part black, Obama approves of the Civil War, a war that freed the slaves. He ignores the fact that the purpose of this war was to preserve the Union and not to free the slaves. Four hundred thousand died in this war. So Baraka (Arab birth name), was this truly a “dumb” war now that your personal interest (slavery) has been removed as the cause?)

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton’s army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.
I don’t oppose all wars.

(Actually, many Americans opposed getting into this war. The only reason you aren’t against it is that it was a Democrat (FDR) that deliberately got us into it. Oh yes and being against that war wouldn’t help you get elected to anything.)

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again.

I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

(This is an old trick. It’s called ‘damning with faint praise’. I truly doubt that the crowd was filled with patriots. Nevertheless, if Perle and Wolfowitz are “arm-chair weekend warriors”, what’s Baraka Mohammed Hussein Obama? Far as I can see, he is not in the war and he is commenting on the war, so isn’t HE as much an “arm-chair weekend warrior” as Perle or Wolfowitz? I’d say so.)

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Roves to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

(Hold on again, Baraka. First, looking back in time, the median income level in the United States has risen just about every year for the last fifteen years or more. So I’m afraid you are full of it. Second, why is Karl Rove any more of a political hack than you are? You are both in the business of politics. You both belong to a party. You both follow party leadership. So why aren’t you also a ‘political hack’?

And why is the Iraq war a distraction from rising uninsureds? We have always had some uninsured. Short of a national health care system – which would be hugely expensive – there will always be some that are not insured but who can get treatment in hospital ER’s. That has been true under both Republican and Democratic Administrations.
As to the ‘rise in poverty’ about which you speak, what numbers do you have to support that and isn't it possible that NAFTA, signed by Bill Clinton, cost us many manufacturing jobs? And who exactly was it that was distracted and from what corporate scandal and aren’t there always scandals in life no matter who the President is?
Oh yea, the stock market did go down the month you gave this dumb speech but it went up for the next four years. So you were wrong again. Talk is soooo cheap.)

That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

(Here we go again. “A dumb war”. A “rash” war. Says who? Is that Baraka’s personal point of view? Who is Baraka Mohammed Hussein Obama anyway? I never heard of him before a year ago. And a war “not based on reason but on passion?”
Wow. I am really impressed. Who’s reason? Who’s passion? And who told you Baraka, that you know best? In 2002, you were an Illinois Senator about whom it could have correctly been asked: who the hell is he, without getting any answer. Why should I believe you KNEW back then what reasons or passions were involved in going to war any more than any other war we have engaged in? Senator you make a better preacher than leader. Were you in the inner council back then? Of course you weren’t, you were part of an anti-war group. You have NO idea what you are talking about.)

Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

(Yes, yes, yes. We agree with all those things. The man is a bad man with too much power and too much potential to harm us and the rest of the world. Getting rid of him only can make the world a better place. That’s what Baraka said back then. But hold it, here comes the zinger.)

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

(It’s not easy to be on both sides of every issue but this man is definitely trying. Now Senator, how exactly did YOU know all these things which appear to be at variance with most of the world’s intelligence services of the day? What did you know at that time that no one else knew? Were you hanging with Saddam? Were you over in Iraq doing a personal evaluation in 2002? Come on, fess up. NO imminent threat to his neighbors? No threat to the United States with WMD? A failing military? YOU knew all this???

You say, “contain him until like all petty dictators he falls away into the dustbin of history”. YO OBAMA, don’t you know some dictators maintain control of their countries for their entire lives i.e. Russia, China, Hati, Argentina, Cuba etc etc? Do you really think the best way to handle abject cruelty is to stand by and wait for it to crumble in the dustbins of history? What about slavery? It lasted thousands of years. It goes on today. In America, the elimination of slavery was the unexpected benefit of THE CIVIL WAR WHICH KILLED 400,000 BOYS. You can’t have forgotten already. You just took credit for it a page ago.)

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the middle east, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

(Really, and couldn’t that have been said about ALL our wars? Don’t they all inflame someone. Is that a reason for not doing what has to be done?
As to how long we have to stay in Iraq with “unknown consequences” whatever that means, following WWII, we stayed in both Germany and Japan for decades to help them re-establish democracy. I suppose we also faced those nefarious “unknown consequences’ back then too. But it seems to have worked out fine.

As to international support, who were you referring to? What friends did we alienate? What countries are not our friends here in 2007 that you thought we were going to lose back in 2002?

We did what we thought we had to do. As do most countries. Think of our closest allies over the years. England, Ireland, France, Germany, Spain, Greece? Which one is not our friend now because of the war. And if you dare say they didn’t support us, you need to be punched out. First, liberals made the war as unpopular as they could which did sway the uninformed. Second, many of the European countries were doing business with Saddam and with Arab countries and THAT’S why they didn’t want to jump in. It was about business, not values. Not only that, but France, Germany and Russia got most of their oil from Iraq and were part of the UN ‘oil for food’ program which turned out to be riddled with graft. Move on Baraka, you don’t know what you are talking about. But then, why would you? All you were in 2002, was a small town Senator from Illinois with a big mouth. Not much has changed.

By the way, which of our ‘friends’ around the world must we consider in our decisions? John Kerry wanted to go around the world seeking approval. Do you think we should do that?
Who among our friends is beyond reproach in their dealings with the rest of the world. Which country asked us for permission before they acted in their own interests? Was it Colonial Great Britain that had colonies all over the world, which sent its Navy into the Suez Canal and half way around the world to fight in the Falken Islands? How about Nazi Germany? The North African French? Communist Russia? Communist China? How about militaristic Japan that bombed us without ever once asking our permission? Which one Mr. Obama? Which of our ‘friends” did with us what you suggest we do with them? Ask permission? At some point nations act in their own self-interests. If you had any foreign experience, you’d know that. They have each taken military action without asking our support. Sometimes they acted and then desperately needed our help to bail them out i.e. two world wars, but they didn’t ask our permission or seek our counsel beforehand. US blood lies all over the European Continent where our boys left home and went into a foreign land to rescue our allies. Too bad they couldn’t remember how they wanted us to invade Europe to save them, when we went into Iraq. They at least could have identified with the Iraqi people living for decades in terror. Too bad Mr. Baraka Mohammed Hussein Obama couldn’t remember all that when he gave this dumb stump speech.

PS It is now 2007 and al Queda is beaten in Iraq and there have been few successful attacks on US or US friends since 2002. None of those direct predictions of Obama’s held water. He was wrong then and he is wrong now. The Reverend works best from the pulpit where no one would take him seriously.)

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

(Dumb as determined by this world authority on smart and dumb wars – an authority in own mind anyway – Baraka Obama – the preacher man.)

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

(Jackass, we are doing all of those things. How would you know anything about it since you are not invited to any intelligence briefings or intra-departmental meetings? You were an outsider at the time and one who never had accomplished anything on the world scene. By the way, I strongly believe – just my own personal belief – that Mr. bin Laden is dead today, dead and buried, and we are still here.

As to how to fight al Queda, what a joke. You wanted to coordinate intelligence? The same intelligence service that along with seven of the worlds best, said Saddam was a threat and was developing WMD? That intelligence? You wanted to coordinate them back in 2002? And of course they were uncoordinated for decades waiting for you to show up and straighten everybody out. Whew.)

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

(No, no, no. You can’t get away with that nonsense Mr. Obama. The UN inspectors failed miserably over and over again. And you have NOTHING to say about what Russia does or doesn’t do. Or China or almost anyone else. And we can ‘t ENFORCE a non-proliferation treaty if certain countries thumb their noses at us. What exactly can we do when you keep advocating not getting involved. Shall we INVADE THEM??? Punish them? Yea right. Oh yes, wasn’t it you who later (2007) was to say you would go into Pakistan (invade an ally?) and do the job if they didn’t do more about finding the dead Mr. bin Laden? That was you, wasn’t it?

As for arms merchants, stop lying to the folks. Every nation is the world is either a seller or a buyer of military equipment. We are no different. Or maybe you can arrange for all the world to abolish their militaries and destroy all their arms. That would be a good thing.
And exactly – and I mean exactly – are you going to ensure that Pakistan and India don’t go to war and use their nuclear weapons? Let’s hear your plan.)

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

(My, my, my – that is interesting. You said STOP OPPRESSING THEIR OWN PEOPLE. Would that be Saudi Arabia, and Egypt and Jordan and Kuwait and Dubai and countries like that who are friendly to us? And exactly how will you do this in a better way that Mr. Bush or Mr Clinton before you have done it? What do you bring to the table that we can look at? Oops - nothing but a sermon. It’s so easy to give a sermon, Sir, but so hard to actually do anything.
The nations you mentioned are sovereign states and don’t take kindly to outsiders coming in and telling them how to handle their internal disputes. And by the way, you seem passionate on this subject. Does that mean you feel the governments of these countries are in the wrong? Do you have a dog in this fight, Mr. Obama? If so, how come? Are you a Muslim or an American? On one hand you say butt out, then you say get involved. And which oppressed people? Could you be referring to the Brotherhood in Egypt – the fundamentalist radical Muslims???)

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn’t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

(And what policy would that be when environmentalist that you support Sir, are against drilling for oil where we HAVE oil thereby forcing us to send 400 Billion dollars each and every year out of our country? And what policies favor oil companies exactly? What is the oil policy that you have in mind and what specifically is your plan to ‘wean us off Middle Eastern Oil?” Did Bill Clinton know about this policy when he was in office and if so, why didn’t he use it? Do you really think hounding Exxon and Mobil will do any more than drive them out of this country as so many others have been driven out? If so, you are naïve beyond words. No matter where the big oil companies are located, we still need their oil and will need it for another two decades. You need to brush up on your facts. After all, all your speeches won’t always be to kids who don’t know any better. As for alternative fuels, we are trying a lot of things most of which won’t make it and that includes Ethanol from corn. From sugar beets maybe, from corn in America no. It's not quite as easy as you infer which is why Presidents of both parties have failed to get it resolved for years. It’s a very tough problem and trust me, you wouldn’t do it any better. Hard headed businessmen don’t listen to sermons without facts to back them up. Only the uninformed do. Lucky for you.)

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.
The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not – we will not – travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.

(Sermonizing again. Fine. But only you, Mr. Obama and your Party have deemed their sacrifices to be in vain. You see you praise with one hand and rip with the other – the typical tools of a demagogue. But then its so much easier to see in hindsight and so much easier to cast aspersions than ever to do anything, that I can’t blame you for taking the cheap shots. You are running for president now. So much for intolerance. You do have a point about ignorance since so many people listen to you and think you know what you are talking about which you do not. Corruption and greed are staples of the human condition. Just like being a phony is when you say you don’t take special interest money but you did two years ago. The bible says “the poor will always be with us” and from poverty comes despair. Yet America had the best fed and housed poor of any country in the world. We aren’t doing enough, I agree, but we are far from the worst. Baraka, we both know you haven’t the slightest idea how to accomplish any of the things you rail about. But then you don’t have to, the people are born suckers for an Evangelist, and that’s what you are – and all that you are.)

They didn’t name you Baraka Mohammed Hussein Obama for nothing.

Joey

http://journals.aol.com/chonors686/JoeyPage1






2/14/2008 3:37:38 AM



Does anyone even bother reading the wall of text above me?

3/23/2013 3:45:21 PM
1