RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events Barack Hussein Obama in '08?

Lets not play the "never was" game shall we? There's already a great deal of evidence that they were either classified like the Sarin gas stock-pile or moved to Syria as Hussein's former general claimed.

Yeah, G. Because that's Obama's ENTIRE plan. That's ALL he's ever said on the subject, or offered as a solution. Good old Republicans. Their key skill is taking quotes out of context to try and back their personal opinions...

You're right, Pro. I forgot he also plans to raise taxes on oil and gas. THAT'll drive the price down.

Fair enough. That is, as long as one of you can convince Wondy to stop quoting the same, tired useless memos as if they were the Golden Ticket of Salvation for the lies of the Bush Administration.

So, in restrospect, and out of respect for Pariah's kinder, gentler maturity as of late (you've changed man, you've changed... ), there may have been WMD's two decades ago, at some point, possibly. But, absolutely nothing like the Republicans claimed...

Whoa. It wasn't just "republicans" making that claim. Clinton, Gore, Kerry and dozens of other Democrat officials, in both the Clinton WH and Congress, all made the same claim as Bush prior to the war, namely, that Saddam either had them or was about to have them. And, further, Clinton and Gore were making that claim before Bush was even in office.

This wasn't a Republican claim. It was a bipartisan claim.

To be fair to Obama (this thread is about him, after all), he voted against the war. However, he did that largely out of a belief that diplomacy was a better alternative, not because he didn't believe the weapons were there/coming.

Still, this whole idea that "Bush LIED"(TM) gets a little ridiculous, unless you're willing to claim that the Clintons, Gore, Kerry, etc., all lied too.

Doesn't stop you from commenting on anything else.



Yes we do. If we could refine oil here it would lower costs. Same thing with off shore drilling and Alaska. If the government would pull their heads out of their asses and stop listening to groups based on hating humanity we wouldn't be in the situation we're in now.[/quote]

Its called working with people in the reserves. Its called knowing people that have been there and are there now. Fuck you.

ummm... you didn't run that through any of the approved fact-checking websites before you posted it. you know we're all sick and tired of your bitter old-fashioned republican smear tactics by now.

Okay, you're right. I concede it wasn't entirely the Repubs. But, they were the ones in power, calling most of the shots. The majority of the blame falls on their shoulders.



Really? Is that supposition, or did he actually say that?



If I'm not mistaken, I don't believe everyone else had the same level of access to all of the information Bush did. I also don't believe anyone else was able to make the big decisions he did. So no, I don't see where it's ridiculous at all...

Pretty defensive there, reax...

Please don't speak if you're not going to add something of substance to the discussion. Even rex is talking (somewhat) rationally. No one in this thread is interested in being "impressed" with your cheerleading skills right now...

whoa. pro's cranky. astounding.

I'm just dismayed at the apparent lack of short-term memory these politicians are demonstrating. they'll lampoon a guy for supporting something they voted for when they thought no one was looking and tear him a new one if he continues the policies of a previous officeholder for no other reason than the party platform changing since then. I'm sure if they were allowed to vote on their own principles they'd probably be best friends with the guy, but forbid someone go against the party line.

but they didn't invade the country based on faulty intel. they didn't say things about confirmed intel that later turned out to be lies (or "bad intel" as they say).

[quot] This wasn't a Republican claim. It was a bipartisan claim. [/quote]
but it was a republican who started the war. and it was a republican administration stacked with people who wanted to invade iraq long before 9/11.


and diplomacy probably would've been a better option. i think also building up support in the arab world would've been better than a christian army swarming in and basically fulfilling bin laden's warnings.


well there are so many other lies, and scandals, and indictments to choose from in the administration. even you have to admit that bush is a bad president, or at the very least someone who made bad choices in the people he put in place.
and again, kerry gore and clinton didn't start a war. bush did.

Don't act shocked. Like I've ever been able to tolerate your "Lookit me!" mode.



They lack short-term memory?



Who are you talking about? How does this apply to what we're discussing?

Sammitch is probably referencing reagan. sometimes i wonder if alzheimers was trying to get jodie foster's attention.

What I quoted was David Kay, the former U.N. inspector who investigated Iraq's WMD program.
David Kay said before Congress that Iraq did have a WMD program.
And that Iraq was in "material breach" of U.N bans on WMDs
And that even though there were not massive stockpiles of WMD's in Iraq, Kay said that U.S. invasion was justified. (Killer germs found in scientists' freezers, huge vats of chemical weapons, disguised as pest-contol factories, with the componedts separated but ready to be easily combined into Sarin and other chemical weapons).
And that the Iraqi state was on the brink of collapse, and that Iraq's WMD scientists and materials, without U.S. invasion, would have become "a WMD arms bazaar, on sale to the highest bidder.".

I also posted several articles and topics in recent months that show that we did find WMDs in Iraq, and that the liberal media just refuses to report it. And liberals in general just bury their heads in the sand and pretend the evidence doesn't exist.

The liberal media also refuses to acknowledge the surge was a success, or acknowledge we are winning in Iraq, or report either of these.

this is not a recent phenomena, shit with the media goes back to the sixties. case in point, fall of 1969. Dick York is mysteriously replaced by Dick Sergant on Bewitched, yet to this day all major media outlets "pretend" it's still the same Darrin.

shhh shut up. you'll get the boards shut down with talk of things best left unsaid.

it was one of those cases where the police said it was best left unsolved.

Well, well, well...

Obama advisor David Axelrod admits to ABC News that Obama was referring to his race after all when Obama said he didn't look like the other presidents printed on our currency.

Obama had previously tried to deny that he was playing the race card.


The Obamessiah lied? Impossible! That would make him "just another politician."

Obamadodd
doot doo doo doot
doot doot doo

I'm starting to become frightened by the people making Obama out to be the next Christ. There are some really balls-out blind supporters I've been running into. They actually think he's being 100% honest, 100% of the time.


Whoof.

You just described most the people in eugene.

No no no, these people bathe and have jobs.

Obama Backs Away From McCain's Debate Challenge

• Democratic candidate Barack Obama on Saturday backed away from rival John McCain's challenge for a series of joint appearances, agreeing only to the standard three debates in the fall. In May, when a McCain adviser proposed a series of pre-convention appearances at town hall meetings, Obama said, "I think that's a great idea." In summer stumping on the campaign trail, McCain has often noted that Obama had not followed through and joined him in any events. Obama's reversal on town hall debates is part of a play-it-safe strategy he's adopted since claiming the nomination

Given all the gaffes Obama makes when he goes off script, I can see why he wouldn't want to submit to an unstructured event.

Obama Flips on Oil Reserves Dip: Dem hopeful reverses field, touts tapping nation's petroleum reserve; pushes windfall profits tax to fund $1G rebate

Can somebody tell me why changing one's mind is a bad thing? All changing one's mind proves is that you're not a self-absorbed, arrogant, hard-headed ass that thinks he's right about everything regardless of facts and realistic practicality.

Honestly, the country would be a lot better off if minds could be changed after fair consideration and debate when it comes to big questions like "How do we unfuck the United States?"

Scientists change their minds on a regular basis and don't feel at all bad about it. Why? Because yeilding to the facts only betters one's self and mankind at large. If we "stayed the course" scientificly we'd still be putting leaches on people to cure herpes and syphilis.

This isn't specific to the strategic fuel reserves, just an address in general to changing one's mind.

I don't care if a politician changes his mind just so long as it was motivated by a discovery or consideration of the facts and a personal duty to the truth.



I will allow myself one cheap shot, though. "Not changing one's mind dispite facts and observable reality seems to be typical of an organization voted into power by citizens that can't grasp the concept of evolution."

As you note, I don't think saying "I've studied the issue, events have changed and, as a result, I am changing my position" is a bad thing.

I think saying whatever one thinks a particular constituency wants to hear, and changing one's postion from day to day based on political expediency is a problem.

So it is your position that he mearly says what people want to hear, and will openly contradict himself on record in order to farm public favor. I see.

I don't think the facts support this position.

actually this is a fallacy, the major scientific community only changes it's position when enough people call bullshit and shoot holes in their self made continuity, in the mean time they scuttle opposing viewpoints, and actually slander the opposition.


a good case in point is global warming, there is significant counter evidence to the entire thing yet scientist who speak out are nearly blacklisted. it serves the scientific community to have this made up crisis in order to get panicked people to fund "more study" into it.


only once people know that they are full of shit do they finally change their tune, which is real difficult since they get to make up the rules of the game....

There's never been much debate on global warming. The debate has been about the major cause of global warming.

Scientist that deny that the globe is warming are often ridiculed, true. Because that opinion is countered by the observable, and documented, fact that the earth IS warming.

However, nobody has rock solid proof either way as to the primary cause(s) and it's these points that scientists debate across the globe. No scientist has been blacklisted for proposing other causes besides manmade global warming.

It's happened before, after all. Ever wonder what happened to the ICE AGE?

Documented by record cold winters and studies that suggest a global cooling of 1 degree.

Westley just proved my point well, he thinks that scientist who present opposing evidence should be ridiculed, the fact that the average temp is lower is of no concern to him, we still must fight global warming even if it doesn't exist!

yet another flip flop:

You're an idiot.

Don't put words in my mouth. It's rude and violates my strict list of objects that belong in my mouth.

At no time did I say that a scientist should be ridiculed, I said that they are ridiculed. Graciously granting you the point.

And Global Warming does exist, as does Global Cooling. The Earth is dynamic, not static. You can deny either, warming or cooling, but it would be foolish given what we know of the history of the planet.

The planet began it's existence a burning, toxic wasteland and has cycled between what we call extreme hot, extreme cold, and temperate. It's fact.

The question is, does mankind have the impact to artificially effect these trends or accelerate\magnify their effects. That's the debate.


The proof that there's a net increase in significant warming is the north's inability to sufficiently regenerate it's frost from sea water. That cold, but not frozen, water cycles south and impacts the water flows that heat certain areas. Yes, those areas that have reported record winters, the east coast of america and the coasts of france and England to be specific.

You guys can debate me on Ecology, and I won't be ridiculing you or advocating ridiculing. But the facts are plain, the logic sound.

The earth heats, the earth cools .. it boils and freezes and everything in between. It's the "why" that you have to prove and predict. It's the why that the debate is over.

If you deny Global Climate change, you're arguing with a history as old as the planet.

But not a sock fucker.