Canuck 1963, For some time now we have endured your small minded back woods tirades, clearly not much happening up there in Canada. I have been trying to figure you out and it finally dawned on me, you are clearly involved in the criminal element. 1st you seem to have unlimited time to sit and pick at your American neighbors 2nd you use Jail jargon regularly, "It's a go" only a criminal or some one who watches way too many cop shows speaks like that.
I suspect that you are like many Canadians wanting a big piece of the American Pie, you visit but can't stay. What you fail to recognize is that your Health Care, Welfare, socialist ways are only affordable because you don't spend a nickel on defence. No you sit back and suck up the good old protection of uncle Sam. Seriously, when was the last time you folks did anything that didn't involve some kind of bogus peace loving appeasement.
So would you rather have us Canadians spend a fortune on our military and start invading countries for oil and power, destroying cultures, and promoting violence, and have the citizens of our country going bankrupt because they can't afford to to pay their medical bills, our economy fail because the people of our country can't afford to make payments on their houses because the minimum wage isn't even enough to live on?
One post.....ONE POST!!!.....and I can tell who and what you are. Amazing, ain't it?
YOU....are the exact same as these fucking retards who walk around calling Obama a "terrorist"; YOU....are the exact same as these flag-waving morons who criticize and ridicule their neighbours/allies.....while said neighbours/allies are dying in Afghanistan, and the same time give a free-pass to all of your life-long Saudi Arabian shitbags; YOU.....are the same type who CANNOT separate criticism of government vs. slamming THE PEOPLE.
And I'M a "criminal"??
Me??
A thrice-decorated law enforcement officer, and you're calling ME a "criminal"??
Gawd.....you need a slap into reality so fucking bad.
YOU (and those like YOU) are the REAL reason dolts like Bush, Cheney, McCain and Palin can draw a breath.
Ok I can only assume by your language that the educational requirements for law enforcement in Canada are little lax. But apparently they give awards for profanity likely not much else to commend.The point is, were you not to have your large well armed American neighbor next door you would likely sleep a little less soundly. If you doubt the intentions of some of the world's less democradic states, perhaps you should visit Georgia. Look everybody loves a peace keeper cute little blue helmets and all. Wouldn't wont to offend anybody. Americans don't always make the right decisions but we are not afraid to commit. It was interesting to read that the average Canadian watched the American vice presidential debate versus their own lame prime minister debate. I suspect deep down inside, you know that regardless of who you elect, it will make little to no difference. What was it your Prime Minister said "I'm embarassed to be a Canadian" People who lash out as vehemently as you often have issues of self loathing. You likely sit at home in the dark polishing your obscure little Canadian awards watching pirated hollywood productions feeling like you're getting away with something. Infact I marveled at Canada bestowing it's highest award the Order of Canada on a baby killer.
P.S to your rooting section it's HEAR-HEAR not here-here
Nothing better than watching a religious zealots nutty responses.
By the way.....that's quite the list of grievances you have against your neighbours/allies.
Got anything to say about your Arab pals? Or is it common wisdom with people like yourself who've come to expect Georgie-Boy to constantly stroke their dicks, while they've been breeding assholes who kill young Americans, for the last thirty or forty years, or so? You got any criticisms there?
Or doesen't a nation that creates these shitheels deserve your scorn?
Sad.
You really should be more concerned for your fellow citizens.
Canuck 1963, first off this an american web site and the video your are commenting on is on American politics, so it's really you who should be more concerned about his fellow citizens. Now I'm really starting to get a picture of you, you didn't touch my comment about your so-called awards so I'm going to draw a few conclusions based on your general rantings. First, anybody who swears as much as you do is likely uneducated, 2nd, if you are in law enforcement you're likely riding a desk somewhere (a rent a cop or jail guard with dreams of grandeur). I think all on this site would agree cops just don't speak like you. 3rd, I'm starting to wonder if you're even a Canadian, Canadians normally preach tolerance. You on the other hand present yourself as a violent vile racist. I mean, do you even read what you write, allow me to quote some your finer lines. " So quit making a fucking fool of yourself awready, chowder-head. You're just another fucking dolt I've dealt with in the past, give a free-pass to all of your life-long Saudi Arabian shitbags; Gawd.....you need a slap into reality so fucking bad. Why the fuck are nutjobs like yourself crawling out of the woodwork all of a sudden? Why now? and these are just a small selection of your writings from this video. Look my angry little Canadian friend I'm going to give you a little advice. First, if the Canadian educational system is all you claim, get yourself into a literacy course. Second, if the Canadian health care system is all you claim, try getting some medication for that anger problem you have. Third, get outside once in a while, you seem to spent most of your life (and likely your employer's time) on this web site, there's more to life. Enjoy the freedoms that you have, they come at a great cost to the American people. Lastly, if you just can't find something to feel good about maybe you could join a pro-choice group. you know spend your afternoons knocking heads with those who believe life is sacred. What is it you people say, oh yeah "worthless in the womb" !
And the best you could come up with, is I don't hit the return key.
As far as your reference to stupid being a race, some of Canuck's earlier (and deemed inapropriate) comments use references like "raghead".
Last time I was up in Canada I couldn't help but notice a number of your police officers wearing turbans adorned with badges . I wonder how Canuck's "multi-cultural" peers would feel about his comments.
You don't like it very much when I insult your Saudi pals.....do you?
Saudis equal good.
Canadians in general equal BAD.
First I'm a "criminal".....and now I'm a "racist"?
Are you seriously all there?
And why are you so intimidated by our health care/educationa/multi-cultural policies? I mean, jeez.....you're almost TERRIFIED of them! And when I used the term "raghead", it was in refernce to your American-murdering Saudi friends, and not towards Sikhs or Hindus (completely different culture---or were you aware of that, in your trailor-park?).
Sad, scared little person, you are.
Buuuut....seeing as how you know MORE about ME than I about YOU (mostly because I've happily shot my mouth off because I'm The Real Deal).....feel free to share of yourself.
Man, your just a dude pretending to be a dude playing another dude. Sikhs, hindus good ragheads. Saudi Arabians bad ragheads, that's it, that's all you could come up with. Nothing about my comments on your prime minister, your crime rate, the fact that canadians with the funds regularly stream over the border for first rate health care, the fact that you now have regrettably admitted to being a fat lazy unionized rent a cop.
You sign on anonymously as Canuck 1963 and now you are fishing for personal information so you can avoid the issues and attack the messenger. You're just way too much fun, nice to see you stopped swearing though, see people he can be taught. Now if he would just stick to the facts and leave the rest of his overly emotional personal diatribes out of it, this board could return to it's former glory.
Now if you will excuse me, I'm going out to mow the lawn around my trailer, I may be white but I wouldn't want the place to look trashy.
You're criticizing me for using an invented handle???
LOL!
Well....okay then. As far as the points you've outlined about my nation....fine. All are fair game. Never said we were perfect. Ever. Sure, there's LORS of room to fix what's going on up here.
Buuuuuuut............
There's one major difference between the way I express MY views and what I express them about....and the way a fucktard like yourself does it:
I zero in on a nations political machinations; YOU (and all of YOUR particular pond-dwelling scum) slam a nations entire peoples as a whole, ans with the same brush.
This is what will always give me the moral high-ground, when it comes to dumb fucks like yourself.
Canuck 1963, Once again you demonstrate that you are incapable of confronting the issues and resort to profanity, insults and threats. You're like a bad Michael Moore character, you claim the high moral ground while trying to cyber bully those who would take you to task for your misguided views.
You are the sole fool on this Glumbert stage who constantly resorts to threats, name calling and profanity. Give it up dude, you rest knowing that I likely live a significant distance away and have no way of responding to your come ons. Your constant use of prison jargon leads me to believe, that while you claim to be a "thrice decorated law enforcement officer", you've likely done some time yourself. I don't know about Canada but in America only our worst citizens (prison inmates) use language like "Fucktard, shitbag, dumb fucks, fucking dolt, shit for brains etc.
You know it's people like you that give the internet a bad name, not to mention that on some level you're representing the Canadian people in general, I trust you're aware that this site is international. But it's likely the attention you crave that motivates you to post such venomous garbage.
Shakespeare's famous quote:
"All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts"
Perhaps it's time you asked yourself what role you're trying to play on our small glumbert stage.
And because YOU are a member of the Palin-McCain supporters, you believe that to criticize you and your....ahhh....supporters as well as the two morons on your ticket, is a slap at ALL Americans (because naturally THEY and YOU represent the WHOLE)?
You hate my occupation.
You hate my hobby.
AND......you don't like my SWEARING (or my "jargon").
AND......you're bothered by me being "venomous" (although "venomous" to WHO or WHAT, exactly, you haven't made clear------go figure).
'K.
Honestly....I'm have great difficulty in keeping up with your misguided stupidity.
Lemme see if I can assist you here, awright?:
WHAT......is your lame-ass, stupid, insipid.....point?
If it will help you, you can feel free to answer in point-form, and we'll go from there.
And at least make an ATTEMPT to stay on-fucking-track.....okay?
Could also please clarify your position that no law enforcement personnel in America use profanity? If this is true, then this is something that would truly be a model to behold.
(You DO know how fucking stupid that statement sounds.....don't you?)
I will endeavour to enlighten you with some point form answers now that you have expressed a hunger for knowledge. In the interim let me present a short one act play you might enjoy:
Somewhere in rural Missouri, a hard working American sits on the front porch with his 5 year old son; as they enjoy the warm rays of the mid morning sun:
(SON) %u201CDaddy is Mr. Mc Cain an angry man?
(FATHER) Why do you ask tadpole?
(SON) I was watching a video on Glumbert and Mr. Mc Cain seemed really angry. (FATHER) Well son everybody gets angry sometimes. Mr. McCain, Mr. Obama, you, me, even mom gets angry sometimes it%u2019s OK though. What%u2019s important is that you don%u2019t have an anger problem.
(SON) OK, thanks Dad. Dad ?
(FATHER) Yes tadpole. Do you know who%u2019s really angry?
(FATHER) No son who?
(SON) The Canadians.
(FATHER) The Canadians son?
(SON) Yeah the Canadians, there%u2019s this mean man - Canuck1963 and the bad words he uses on Glumbert are scary. He keeps calling our flag the worst names.
(FATHER) Our flag son?
(SON) Yeah the Red White and Blue Dad, he says that it%u2019s a %u201Cfucktard, shitbag, dumb fucks, fucking dolt, shit for brains, religious zealot%u2026%u2026
(FATHER) Ok, Ok son calm down son let me explain.
(SON) Do you know what else he says Dad? do you? Do you? he says that we%u2019re pond dwelling scum. I didn%u2019t come from a pond daddy?
(FATHER) Of course you didn%u2019t son. Listen son there will always be small scared people like Canuck1963, that%u2019s why you have to be careful on the Internet. People like Canuck 1963 think that because we don%u2019t know where they are that they can hide and say any thing they want. You know son kind of like OSAMA hiding in his cave and releasing videos. After a while people just ignore him, that%u2019s what you should do when it comes to Canuck1963.
(SON) Daddy but why did he call us those names and say I came from pond scum?
(FATHER) Well son did you ever look at a dollar bill, on it, it says %u201Cin God we trust%u201D. Well son Canuck 1963 does not. He believes that he crawled out of a pond, and the only way he can make himself feel better is to pretend that we crawled out of a pond with scum on it so his pond seems a little better than ours. Don%u2019t worry son some Canadians make the same comparisons with our health care, school and even our Army.
(FATHER) Did you ever see the Canadian army son?
(SON) No Dad, do they even have an army?
(FATHER) Not really son. Do you remember when daddy and mommy took you to Canada?
(SON) Sure Dad, everyone was so polite, even those scary kids who tried to clean the windows on our car.
(FATHER) Do you remember where all those people were sleeping under the bridge?
(SON) You mean the homeless people daddy?
(FATHER) Exactly son, while right across the street from those people do you remember there was a tank and an old airplane sitting on a concrete pillar. Well son, that%u2019s kind of what most of their military looks like.
(SON) How come nobody tries to take their stuff daddy?
(FATHER) Well son everybody knows that we wouldn%u2019t let that happen. You see son Canada is one America%u2019s favourite charities.
(MOTHER){Yelling from porch} Come on you guys that%u2019s enough deep thought for one day it%u2019s time for church.
(SON) Daddy I%u2019m glad to be an American and not a foul-mouthed Canadian.
(FATHER) Of course you are son, of course you are.
My apologies (Canuck 1963 this is likely to be the only one you will ever get) Somehow the punctuation got garbled in the first transmission I cleaned it up for you.
Somewhere in rural Missouri, a hard working American sits on the front porch with his 5 year old son; as they enjoy the warm rays of the mid morning sun:
(SON) Daddy is Mr. Mc Cain an angry man?
(FATHER) Why do you ask tadpole?
(SON) I was watching a video on Glumbert and Mr. Mc Cain seemed really angry.
(FATHER) Well son everybody gets angry sometimes. Mr. McCain, Mr. Obama, you, me, even mom gets angry sometimes its OK though. What%u2019s important is that you dont have an anger problem.
(SON) OK, thanks Dad. Dad ?
(FATHER) Yes tadpole. Do you know whos really angry?
(FATHER) No son who?
(SON) The Canadians.
(FATHER) The Canadians son?
(SON) Yeah the Canadians, theres this mean man - Canuck1963 and the bad words he uses on Glumbert are scary. He keeps calling our flag the worst names.
(FATHER) Our flag son?
(SON) Yeah the Red White and Blue Dad, he says that it%u2019s a fucktard, shitbag, dumb fucks, fucking dolt, shit for brains, religious zealot
(FATHER) Ok, Ok son calm down son let me explain.
(SON) Do you know what else he says Dad? do you? Do you? he says that we%u2019re pond dwelling scum. I didn%u2019t come from a pond daddy?
(FATHER) Of course you didnt son. Listen son there will always be small scared people like Canuck1963, that%u2019s why you have to be careful on the Internet. People like Canuck 1963 think that because we dont know where they are that they can hide and say any thing they want. You know son kind of like OSAMA hiding in his cave and releasing videos. After a while people just ignore him, that%u2019s what you should do when it comes to Canuck1963.
(SON) Daddy but why did he call us those names and say I came from pond scum?
(FATHER) Well son did you ever look at a dollar bill, on it, it says in God we trust. Well son Canuck 1963 does not. He believes that he crawled out of a pond, and the only way he can make himself feel better is to pretend that we crawled out of a pond with scum on it so his pond seems a little better than ours. Don%u2019t worry son some Canadians make the same comparisons with our health care, school and even our Army.
(FATHER) Did you ever see the Canadian army son?
(SON) No Dad, do they even have an army?
(FATHER) Not really son. Do you remember when daddy and mommy took you to Canada?
(SON) Sure Dad, everyone was so polite, even those scary kids who tried to clean the windows on our car.
(FATHER) Do you remember where all those people were sleeping under the bridge?
(SON) You mean the homeless people daddy?
(FATHER) Exactly son, while right across the street from those people do you remember there was a tank and an old airplane sitting on a concrete pillar. Well son, that%u2019s kind of what most of their military looks like.
(SON) How come nobody tries to take their stuff daddy?
(FATHER) Well son everybody knows that we wouldn%u2019t let that happen. You see son Canada is one America%u2019s favourite charities.
(MOTHER){Yelling from porch} Come on you guys thats enough deep thought for one day it%u2019s time for church.
(SON) Daddy Im glad to be an American and not a foul-mouthed Canadian.
(FATHER) Of course you are son, of course you are
My apologies (Canuck 1963 this is likely to be the only one you will ever get) Somehow the punctuation got garbled in the first transmission I cleaned it up for you.
Somewhere in rural Missouri, a hard working American sits on the front porch with his 5 year old son; as they enjoy the warm rays of the mid morning sun:
(SON) Daddy is Mr. Mc Cain an angry man?
(FATHER) Why do you ask tadpole?
(SON) I was watching a video on Glumbert and Mr. Mc Cain seemed really angry. (FATHER) Well son everybody gets angry sometimes. Mr. McCain, Mr. Obama, you, me, even mom gets angry sometimes its OK though. What%u2019s important is that you dont have an anger problem.
(SON) OK, thanks Dad. Dad ?
(FATHER) Yes tadpole. Do you know whos really angry?
(FATHER) No son who?
(SON) The Canadians.
(FATHER) The Canadians son?
(SON) Yeah the Canadians, theres this mean man - Canuck1963 and the bad words he uses on Glumbert are scary. He keeps calling our flag the worst names.
(FATHER) Our flag son?
(SON) Yeah the Red White and Blue Dad, he says that its a fucktard, shitbag, dumb fucks, fucking dolt, shit for brains, religious zealot
(FATHER) Ok, Ok son calm down son let me explain.
(SON) Do you know what else he says Dad? do you? Do you? he says that were pond dwelling scum. I didnt come from a pond daddy?
(FATHER) Of course you didnt son. Listen son there will always be small scared people like Canuck1963, that%u2019s why you have to be careful on the Internet. People like Canuck 1963 think that because we dont know where they are that they can hide and say any thing they want. You know son kind of like OSAMA hiding in his cave and releasing videos. After a while people just ignore him, thats what you should do when it comes to Canuck1963.
(SON) Daddy but why did he call us those names and say I came from pond scum?
(FATHER) Well son did you ever look at a dollar bill, on it, it says in God we trust. Well son Canuck 1963 does not. He believes that he crawled out of a pond, and the only way he can make himself feel better is to pretend that we crawled out of a pond with scum on it so his pond seems a little better than ours. Dont worry son some Canadians make the same comparisons with our health care, school and even our Army.
(FATHER) Did you ever see the Canadian army son?
(SON) No Dad, do they even have an army?
(FATHER) Not really son. Do you remember when daddy and mommy took you to Canada?
(SON) Sure Dad, everyone was so polite, even those scary kids who tried to clean the windows on our car.
(FATHER) Do you remember where all those people were sleeping under the bridge?
(SON) You mean the homeless people daddy?
(FATHER) Exactly son, while right across the street from those people do you remember there was a tank and an old airplane sitting on a concrete pillar. Well son, thats kind of what most of their military looks like.
(SON) How come nobody tries to take their stuff daddy?
(FATHER) Well son everybody knows that we wouldnt let that happen. You see son Canada is one America%u2019s favourite charities.
(MOTHER){Yelling from porch} Come on you guys thats enough deep thought for one day it%u2019s time for church.
(SON) Daddy Im glad to be an American and not a foul-mouthed Canadian.
(FATHER) Of course you are son, of course you are
Canuck 1963, You are not seriously going to defend your profane language. Granted most of us occasionaly punctuate with common cure words. However, let's imagine this scenario
(COP) Mam would you mind stepping out of your fucking vehicle.
(Woman Driver) Have I done something wrong officer
(COP) Listen you stunned fucking dolt just get your pond scum Saudi loving ass out of the car.
(woman Driver) I do not think that you should be talking that way to me.
(COP) Listen I am not telling you again, do you know that I am a thrice decorated law enforcement officer. I'm the real deal baby. Now get your ass out of that piece of shit car before I give you a slap so fucking hard.
"Law enforcement officer"? You know, Cops just call themselves Cops. It's meter-maids and security guards that use mealy-mouthed terms like "law enforcement officer". Judging from the amount of time Canuck1963 spends here, he's really just some wanna-be desk-jockey. Or more likely, some angry, unemployed, welfare-recipient surfing the net at his local library. Get a life, Canuck1963, and stop blathering about things that don't concern you or know nothing about.
Although it does not make his rage okay, what you think is this "childlike" anger is not just because of childhood problems. He was tortured for years in war.
Republicans have generally been disappointed by Bush. He has let us down in many ways. That doesn't mean we now suddenly want a left-wing, tax raising, inexperienced communist for president.
The average Joe can get away with this shit (and more)....but when you're running for the highest office in the land.....it's a different ballgame, and a vastly different set of standards apply, in terms of conduct and behaviour, and even attitude.
I don't think these people said he was just "pointing his finger".....I think they said he actually made physical contact with their chests, while doing it.
Dunno where exactly you grew up, but where I come from, if you do that shit to anyone (or have it done to you)......that's a fucking GO. And you WILL get thumped.
So quit being such an apologist for this doddering fool.....k?
i missed the point? truly, your arrogance knows no bounds. and just where 'do you come from' mr tough guy? some provincial city full of ass-whipped pc pussies, that's where. vaya.
This is no way to behave for a boss of a small company, not to talk about being presiden of the nation with the most powerful military force in the world.
Maybe we need a president with an anger problem. George W didn't show the least amount of anger after 9/11 and is showing no anger towards the financial institutions that have brought this great country to the brink of collapse. Obama has no anger because he stepped in shit and it's been a pretty easy ride so far. McCain is not a good choice for president, not because he's angry but because he's out of touch. An angry young man who has what it takes wouldn't be such a bad thing. Am I wrong?
Yeah, you are right, everyone who does not want a raging mad man as the president of his nation (or of any powerful nation) is a pussy. No risk, no fun, pull that safety pin and juggle with some hand granades.
Its true Bug, most Republicans would actually support freeing Charles Manson, if only he would run for president. Truly there could be no more phenominal commander-in-chief.
I think McCain might be advised to cool down by his advisors, before nuking Russia. Everyone gets angry, that doesn't mean it influences your decision making on important matters.
Maybe the United States needs an aggressive Commander in Chief. Canuck 1963 you seem too critical of the United States. Take a look at the mess your own country is in. Canada censorship is unbelievable. Get an afterlife, you talk too much.
I think I just changed my mind about mccain. i just read a news story of him shooting craps in Puerto Rico a couple of years ago, he went ballistic and almost punched an old lady out. The above clip was interesting though. I want to know where the hell did he find that many old angry white folks. Reminds me of the Borgs on star trek. I don't know about Obama. I've heard some pretty bad stuff about him too. The truth is that this is the first time I'm going to vote.
canuck hey bigshot. When you call a group Americans a bunch of flag waving idiots that's attacking the American people I have been a member for the past six months. I am usually working but I have been temporarily laid off so I got a little more time on my hands. You on the other hand are constantly on this site acting like your nanny state government prison guard and making sure everybody agrees with your ideas and then goin off on those who don't. I also got more time to read. I read about the "Canadian Hate Speech Laws". Jeez up there in "America Light" land if you draw a cartoon about the raghead mohamed you get arrested. You guys got your own problems. Fix em before you start telling us what to do. . p.s. hope your still not loosing sleep over the squirrel. Ha
America is going through some hard times now but at least we don't have cops dressing up like protesters and starting fights just to make the protestors look like a bunch of terrorists. That's what happens in Canada, along with politicaly correct censorship you guys are run by a bunch of control freaks. Give me a break. You probably think it is ok to do stuff like that.We don't. If I was a Canadian I'd be pissed off at that poilce department but you guys just burp and reach for another moosehead ale . Which smells like skunk piss
The only "censhorship" we have, are sensible, well-intentioned legislation, designed to curb raw hate-speech which is specifically intended to accomplish nothing but promote racism, bigotry and intolerance.
If you think any of those traits or ideas are okay....then you deserve the government you get.
So quit making a fucking fool of yourself awready, chowder-head.
"I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors...I want you to argue with them and get in their face. And if they tell you that, 'Well, we're not sure where he stands on guns.' I want you to say, 'He believes in the Second Amendment. '" - Barack Obama, September 17, 2008 in Elko, Nevada as quoted in the Associated Press article "Obama mocks McCain in Nevada stops"Wow, what kind of politician would have neighbors brawl it out in the street?()Barack Obama endorsed a complete ban on handgun ownership -Independent Voters of Illinois/Independent Precinct Organization general candidate questionaire, Sept. 9, 1996, as quoted in "Obama had greater role on liberal survey," Politico, March 31, 2008
()Barack Obama voted to ban firearms in the home even for self-protection -Illinois Senate, SB 2165, March 25, 2004, vote 20 and May 25, 2004, vote 3.()Barack Obama supported increasing gun and ammo taxes by a massive 500% -"Obama and Gun Control," The Volokh Conspiracy, taken from the Chicago Defender, Dec. 13, 1999So, not only are his supporters wrong on this subject, but he wants everyone to literally fight amongst themselves over it. Not mentioning all the other horrible things about this man..... How the hell is anyone even considering this Joker?
Keep in mind the issue I'm expressing here is not the second amendment. The issue is the lies Barack has told and the fact he wants people to fight over it.
by the way IL SB 1265 did not address the right to keep and bear by honest citizens, it provided immunity from prosecution for people who were in violation of state and local gun registration laws.... hmmm, now what type of person might be effected by this, i.e. denied the right to own a gun...how about gangbangers .drug dealers mental patients restraining order recipients illegal aliens child molestersany other civil ordinance prohibiting the ownership of legal weapons has been declared as unconstitutional by the supremes .... see: DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER U.S. Supreme Court june 26, 2008
if you're gonna drink the GOP kool-aid at least check out what's floating around on top... i.e..bullshit
Why is Glumbert become a Liberal pro Obama site?
Maybe we should talk about ayers, odinga, rashid khali, Al mansour, larry sinclair, and a whole host of shady characters that Barack Hussein Obama has been associated himself with.
All started with his pedophile friend and fellow communist, frank marshall wright.
eddie ..."Why is Glumbert become a Liberal pro Obama site? "...i think it's because most of the people can read and write...most is the operative word here
I have heard McCain and Palin giving the reasons that Obama is a socialist terrorist because of the time he spent with Ayers, so by the same reasoning that makes McCain a communist for all the time he spent in North Vietnam?
No because it is all the worst kind of political smear to keep from talking about the real issues and challenges facing working Americans.
Straight Talk maybe but it depends on what you call straight, but it is lies and McCarthy era emotional propaganda used to reach out to the extremist Bush base voters, racists, evangelicals, and sadly what the republican party has become.
The real republicans of old need to get their party back from these extremist fanatics and become real republicans again. We need at least a two party system, for balance. Not just Democrats.
The republican party is closer to the National Socialists of Germany than they are to real republicans. They are just two steps away from slapping on their twisted crosses, and calling for the extermination of the races and the liberals.
Oops they are already calling for those last two, so just one step away.
There is nothing Nazi about the Republican party. I could more easily justify the same smear against the Democrat party. Bush is not the Republican party. McCain is not Bush, McCain is barely even a Republican. Look his voting record seriously, he has broken with the right to vote democrat on entirely too many issues. McCain wants to close Gitmo. McCain pushed the bill banning torture, and forcing CIA interrogators to follow only interrogation techniques spelled out in the US army field manual. McCain is no Nazi, and would probably experience an anger management issue in your presence.
By the way, McCain was held prisoner by the communist North Vietnamese. Was Obama held prisoner by Bill Ayers or Reverend Wright? No? So he willingly chose to hang out with such American-haters?
HD - I am 51 years old, and I have no need of you lecturing me on the history of Vietnam, which I actually lived through, and although you are not willing to accept what I outlined as the ABSURDITY of McCain as a communist, you are so drenched in political bias that you can not see that hate stoked by either party is not good for America. At least it hasn't been in the past, perhaps you desire a diffrent future.
Take a moment or two to reflect on what empowers the followers of Al-Qaeda, and the Nazi state. Hate filled propaganda linked to individuals for political gain, or perhaps you have some definition of your own. I have known what the republican party once was, and Barry Goldwater would be sickened by your statemnet about Obama: "That doesn't mean we now suddenly want a left-wing, tax raising, inexperienced communist for president."
Podman, I agree that hate-filled propaganda is not good for America. You said "you are so drenched in political bias that you can not see that hate stoked by either party is not good for America".
Yet you just called the entire Republican party a bunch of Nazis. Hate speech perhaps? I think so. As Bug would say, People in glass houses...
As for my comment about Obama being a "left-wing, tax raising, inexperienced communist", Ok, I take back the communist part. The rest is fact. And what's with you lefties always trying to imply that anyone who would vote for McCain, or defend Republicans, must automatically be racist? The "n" word doesn't stand in the Republican party either.
Hm, considering the stuff that flies around in the US election campaign I would say there is not just left, right, and liberal, but also "stupid" as a political direction.
As I understood Pods "nazi" remark he was refering to the demonizing of persons to rally people into a frenzy. While this is still a bit away from the Nazi rallies in the 3rd Reich it really gives me the creeps to see the kind of "meetings" that seem to be now normal for the US parties during election campaign. This is not exclusive to the Republicans but they seem to be more extreme in this than the Democrats.
And in case of McCain political content is totally missing. All I have seen from him so far is political tactics and formal demonstrations (like picturing himself as the war hero). No answers about the problems the USA are facing, not even wrong ones, only phrases and empty gestures, like this break from his campaign to fix the financial crisis.
HD - "what's with you lefties always trying to imply that anyone who would vote for McCain, or defend Republicans, must automatically be racist?" Is that what I wrote; NO, I wrote "All You left out was the n word." YOU, not anyone, and not republicans.
You label me as a leftie, You label Obama as a communist, and apparently as un-American "As for Obama's citizenship, I guess the case must not be too solid..."
"I agree that hate-filled propaganda is not good for America." If you agree, then why to you continue to do it?
In my opinion America, and Americans are being torn apart by a propaganda that is designed to divide and conquer. Did you know that there are NO red and blue states, no liberals, no conservatives, no lefties, or righties! You have taken the elitist bait and joined a side. What side is that? The one that is against the other half of America!
What I am trying to get across to you is that United we stand, and divided we fall, and as soon as the extremists that spit hate speech at other Americans are shouted down, then we can ALL be Americans, we can ALL be citizens, and we can all unite under one flag. Its an American flag, not a republican flag, or a democrat flag!
How can we be civil and just to others if we are not being so to one another? If you impute a fellow American as Un-American based on known falsehoods designed to destroy their reputation, then what flag are you flying? John McCain has stated that Obama is an American, yet you imply that he is not. I can only assume that to propagate such a lie is an attempt to incite others to violence.
And I stand by my desire to see the republican party restored to what it once was, and not what it has become. And that goes for the democrats as well, but currently they are less of a threat to the stability of the national economy. My National Socialist remark may have been a little over the mark, but who is pushing hardest for nationalizing the financial sector, and thus socializing the losses. When they stop saying it, so will I.
Is that what I wrote; NO, I wrote "All You left out was the n word." YOU, not anyone, and not republicans.
So where in the hell do you get me being a racist? Because I disagree with Obama's economic and foreign policy, that makes me a racist? Is it just so easy to throw out that racist accusation when you're firmly in the Obama camp? Is that how it works? Or do you still need some justification to accuse others of racism?
You label me as a leftie, You label Obama as a communist, and apparently as un-American "As for Obama's citizenship, I guess the case must not be too solid..."
That was basically a sarcastic defense for Obama's US citizenship. I'm not saying Obama isn't a US citizen. Did I call Obama un-American? No. I've said before I like the guy, just don't agree with him.
"I agree that hate-filled propaganda is not good for America."
If you agree, then why to you continue to do it?
Excuse me, but who just called the Republican party Nazis?
In my opinion America, and Americans are being torn apart by a propaganda that is designed to divide and conquer. You have taken the elitist bait and joined a side. What side is that? The one that is against the other half of America!
I have said many many times, that I don't agree with Bush on quite a bit, even McCain is too liberal for me. Liberal is not a political side, it is a mental disease, whereby one believes the bloated, beaurocratic, wasteful, and indecisive US government can solve all our problems better than us, if only we would give them all the power. This defies the constitution, and common sense. I am not republican or democrat, I am a conservative.
What I am trying to get across to you is that United we stand, and divided we fall, and as soon as the extremists that spit hate speech at other Americans are shouted down, then we can ALL be Americans, we can ALL be citizens, and we can all unite under one flag. Its an American flag, not a republican flag, or a democrat flag!
Try sharing this message with Canuck and Bug, they do most of the shouting down around here. And they'll bash you for being a flag-waver, because apparantly that makes you a mindless patriot.
How can we be civil and just to others if we are not being so to one another? If you impute a fellow American as Un-American based on known falsehoods designed to destroy their reputation, then what flag are you flying?
The only person I ever called un-American is Canuck. He's Canadian, and I even apologized for it. Again try telling him to be civil, if you can type it between his STFUs. I spread no known falsehoods.
John McCain has stated that Obama is an American, yet you imply that he is not.
Show me where I said Obama is not an American! Are you friggin confusing me with someone else?
And I stand by my desire to see the republican party restored to what it once was, and not what it has become.
I agree. The party of fiscal conservatism, strong military, and smaller government. The rest is crap.
And that goes for the democrats as well, but currently they are less of a threat to the stability of the national economy. My National Socialist remark may have been a little over the mark, but who is pushing hardest for nationalizing the financial sector, and thus socializing the losses. When they stop saying it, so will I.
Well I'm pretty sure both sides were pushing for this bloated bail-out package, that I did not support. My only consolation, is that Europe passed a bigger bailout package now.
You've just called me a racist and a liar, spreading uncivil anti-American hate speech around, to incite violence. You seem to be reading a lot of assumptions into my posts, maybe you want to re-read what I've written? And I expect you to apologize, or back up your accusations, lest I cross you off my Christmas card list!
Helldiver, you are surely not a conservative, you are part of the stupid political direction. A sign for that faction is constant repeating of phrases dished out by some party even after those have been publically demonstarted to be utter bullshit. In case of the right leaning stupids in the USA it is very easy to spot them since they tend to use the word "liberal" as a cussword. Typically this is followed up by some rant that further shows they don't even have a remote idea of what the word may mean.
Bug / Canuck - No offense to either of you guys. I agree with you mostly, and I'm not taking a shot at either of you or your comments. I just don't approve of HD's mix and matching of other peoples comments with my own. IE: makeing me responsible for what others say to one another.
Podman, I never said I was a Republican. I said I was a conservative, which is basically an independent, since I no longer have a representative party. Which is why I agree with you on wanting the Republican party to be restored. I meerly said I chose to vote for McCain, and suddenly the insults flew at me from every direction, including yours.
I took back my communist crack, although Barack's colleage Bill Ayers is a devote communist. And I never said Obama wasn't a citizen. I was basically saying the case / accusation for him not being a citizen apparantly doesn't hold water, or we'd be hearing more about it from legal professionals.
Interpretation is a dangerous thing, it frequently leads you to bad assumptions, like interpreting that Obama must be a terrorist.
You mentioned wanting uniting and civil discourse. Canuck and Bug are the leading uncivil and divisive posters, yet you lecture me. That's my point. Do you overlook their uncivility and divisiveness because they vote for Obama, and so clearly must not be racist?
I consider Nazis and National Socialists to be the same thing, as does the rest of the world, since that what Nazi means. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi Just what exactly did you intend?
I'm not, I've ripped on Republicans as well. How many times do I need to say Bush has made mistakes, and McCain wasn't my first choice? I do defend Republicans when everything is Bush's fault, or Palin is referred to as a power-grabbing whore, or the Iraq war is only for oil, or other baseless drivel. When people attack the other side, I defend them too.
HD - I'm confused, what do my points have to do with your conflict with Bug and Canuck. I cannot speak for them, and I don't know why you keep thinking that I have anything to do with what they write?
Let me try the reverse, what do the things that THEY write have to do with me?
I'm no censor, and I'm for free speech. Don't include me as part of their comments, unless it involves me, or something that I have written. I'm not responsible for what others write, or believe.
I like Canuck and Bug, and others, that are well researched in the subjects on which they write, many others just start writing without such a basis. I don't overlook what they write, anymore than I over look what you write.
Its all good. People are talking and working out the messy business of life, some are passionate, some restrained. But we ARE talking.
HD perhaps if we were at a BBQ, and got talking we would come to a points where we agree and disagree, but writing here is a tedious and mostly inhuman method of communication. We misunderstand the inflection, or the subtle tone without the real person being there.
IMO many of these conflicts arise out of this, and the safety of anonymity.
In reality we only know people by what they write here, and it could all be lies or it could all be true. But people are communicating and sharing ideas, and that is the real value.
A couple of weeks ago, the wifey said to me that with each passing year, whenever I get irate or even mildly pissed off, I start to sound like a New York City cab driver. LOL! She did! I swear!
Whatsamattah wit you???? You's kids bettah get da fuck offa my kah!!
Oh don't fucking get me wrong, I swore like a fucking sailor all right, but I've tried to quit now that I have little kids. I'm not against swearing at all.
I just think Canuck's endless insults only prove he's an ignorant anti-social elitist, unable to carry on a conversation. He insults people he doesn't know. He insults politicians purely because they're in the wrong political party, with the worst insults he can come up with. He pretty much just insults and demeans anyone who has expressed any opinion in line with the right or Republicans. Canuck is a bigot by every definition. He stereotypes republicans as less human, ignorant, inbred, etc. He thinks he's smarter and better than republicans. If republicans were black, Canuck would be openly calling them the "n" word as you say. If he were in power, he would arrest republicans, and send them to re-education gulags.
Pod, you went on and on about wanting unity for America. Well maybe our Canadian friend doesn't count, or maybe he's just the worst most divisive one of us on Glumbert.
HD - I think you have gone over the line there in defining Mr. Canuck, but that's your assessment. That is just the way he argues, and I'm willing to over look the bad language, because its part of his character.
IMO Canuck is one of the few people who give this site a kind of vitality, like having peppers in the Jambalaya, and I try to just be a tomato.
This site has many characters, and some that have gone that you would not have believed. My advice is to relax, because we cannot control others, just ourselves.
I'm glad you are recovering form swearing for you're kids, that's great.
".......He pretty much just insults and demeans anyone who has expressed any opinion in line with the right or Republicans....."
Hmmmmm.....lemme see here.
Let's look at this analytical-like:
Had disagreements with Mitercut. Any insults there? Nope. Had disagreements with Chaz. Any insults there? Nope. Had disagreements with Mr. Mako.....any insults there? Nope. Had disagreements with Bugster; Insults? Nope. Pods? Nope. Arseface? Nope. Skids? Nope? Surferbum? Nope.
Yep....had my fair-share of disagreemnets with thse folks at one time-or-other....but gosh-darnit...can't seem to recall any insults arising as a result of it.
Canuck - LOL - You know what I'm saying here. You are passionate about politics, and religion, and guns, and crime, and ...
The rest of us are only so, on a few subjects. And you jump right in there, no waiting. I have thought you jumped kinda hard on a few of these posters and rather quickly, but I assume you often are following the actual thread, and I'm lucky to remember what happened 2 days ago.
You also have a endless group of petty childish harassers who each own four or five aliases each.
It is much more the independent thinking that scares them. They are not used to people who think themself, thinking gets outsourced a lot these days...
Man are you guys ever full of yourself! Canuck is well researched? BS. Canuck is often wrong. Canuck, your biggest problem is, the second a newbie challenges you, you try to rip them apart and jump all over insulting them, hoping to embarass and silence them. Well that strategy works great, until you fuck with someone who actually does know what they're talking about, and isn't afraid to challenge the almighty Canuck. I know sure as hell I'm never the first to fling the insults. I ain't another driveby with 15 aliases. I give it to you straight, I research my opinion, and I'm truthful. You fuck with me, and I'll dish it right back. You want to be civil, I'm civil. You want to be an asshole, it comes right back at you.
By the way, you could never insult Bugster, who would then polish your dick for you?
Absolutely correct, and that is really true. If only Americans would stop regurgitating media, and political talking points, and just become adults, and think for themselves.
By hey this is going to become my old rant ... So I will stop here.
Notice how he COMPLETELY glosses over the examples I gave him, of the many people with whom I've disagreed with in the past in which no insults were or boroadsides were exchanged?
And he says I'm wong about everything.
Please.....someone....anyone....try to get through to this sadist. This is becoming boring. Honestly.
"When nothing else helps you resort to stupid profanity?"
You must be referring to Canuck?
"If only Americans would stop regurgitating media, and political talking points, and just become adults, and think for themselves."
So if your opinion is right-wing, you must be not thinking for yourself, is that right? Whereas the left have absolutely no media stories, talking points, or liberal leaders, so all their thoughts are original and poignant? Give me a fucking break. Are you jumping on the left-wing elitist wagen to?
HD - To have a unbiased opinion one must realize that the source of information is as important as the information being given. So no "I'm not giving a break to the "right" or the "left" on my points.
My sole interest is the truth, and partisan bias is excluded. For you this is not true, so by logical inclusion your points are invalidated. What part of America do you want to destroy?
Wow, so now I'm a liar and I want to destroy parts of America? How is it that your truth is so much more true than mine? You accuse me of bias, you have assumed me to be biased from the start. I discuss my opinion, with facts to back it up, you call me a liar. Your opinion is the only truth, and all others are liars and wanna-be-America-destroyers? How's your own bias there?
These accusations and smear tactics are what the radicals on both sides use to hide the truth. Is that what you're doing?
The description of the way this rally was organized by Alaskan women is below the images.
From the women who know her best! This was not covered by the media in the lower 48...
A bunch of pictures of that rally: scroll to the send to read the description from the woman who cooked up the idea
Psssst...pass it on!
[The] Alaska Women Reject Palin rally was to be held outside on the lawn in front of the Loussac Library in midtown Anchorage. Home made signs were encouraged, and the idea was to make a statement that Sarah Palin does not speak for all Alaska women, or men. I had no idea what to expect.
The rally was organized by a small group of women, talking over coffee. It made me wonder what other things have started with small groups of women talking over coffee. It's probably an impressive list. These women hatched the plan, printed up flyers, posted them around town, and sent notices to local media outlets. One of those media outlets was KBYR radio, home of Eddie Burke, a long-time uber-conservative Anchorage talk show host. Turns out that Eddie Burke not only announced the rally, but called the people who planned to attend the rally 'a bunch of socialist baby-killing maggots,' and read the home phone numbers of the organizers aloud over the air, urging listeners to call and tell them what they thought. The women, of course, received some nasty, harassing and threatening messages.
I felt a bit apprehensive. I'd been disappointed before by the turnout at other rallies. Basically, in Anchorage, if you can get 25 people to show up at an event, it's a success. So, I thought to myself, if we can actually get 100 people there that aren't sent by Eddie Burke, we'll be doing good. A real statement will have been made. I confess, I still had a mental image of 15 demonstrators surrounded by hundreds of menacing 'socialist baby-killing maggot' haters.
It's a good thing I wasn't tailgating when I saw the crowd in front of the library or I would have ended up in somebody's trunk. When I got there, about 20 minutes early, the line of sign wavers stretched the full length of the library grounds, along the edge of the road, 6 or 7 people deep! I could hardly find a place to park. I nabbed one of the last spots in the library lot, and as I got out of the car and started walking, people seemed to join in from every direction, carrying signs.
Never, have I seen anything like it in my 17 and a half years living in Anchorage. The organizers had someone walk the rally with a counter, and they clicked off well over 1400 people (not including the 90 counter-demonstrators). This was the biggest political rally ever, in the history of the state. I was absolutely stunned. The second most amazing thing is how many people honked and gave the thumbs up as they drove by. And even those that didn't honk looked wide-eyed and awe-struck at the huge crowd that was growing by the minute. This just doesn't happen here.
Then, the infamous Eddie Burke showed up. He tried to talk to the media, and was instantly surrounded by a group of 20 people who started shouting O-BA-MA so loud he couldn't be heard. Then passing cars started honking in a rhythmic pattern of 3, like the Obama chant, while the crowd cheered, hooted and waved their signs high.
So, if you've been doing the math Yes. The Alaska Women Reject Palin rally was significantly bigger than Palin's rally that got all the national media coverage! So take heart, sit back, and enjoy the photo gallery. Feel free to spread the pictures around to anyone who needs to know that Sarah Palin most definitely does not speak for all Alaskans.The citizens of Alaska, who know her best, have things to say.
Well its just like the RNC to think that women vote for a Uterus and not the woman. The very idea that Palin would pull the Hillary voters shows how the RNC views women in general.
What is that quote: "They have eyes, but yet they do not see."
I think some of my fellow Americans are just so tired, poor, and angry, that they are directing their anger at all the world, rather than dropping all the patriotic bunting, and facing the ugly truth: "The fault is not in our stars, but in ourselves."
We shall see the fall of Rome, and for the empire, not a tear shall be shed, for we have imposed our will on all the world, and the final judgment will be the history not yet written.
redwhiteandblue, you are so wrong about Canadian peace keeping missions,that have taken our peacekeeping soldiers all over the globe. You are also so wrong about Canadians wanting to move to the USA. We respect your people but most of us abore your gun laws ,medical benefits,dirty polarized cities and politics.
What would you rather have a free Iraq or Afghanistan or free medical treatments, food programs for children, better sports programs, better cultural events ,better roads, safer cities because you can spend money on prevention of crimes and more police hitting the pavement. I can go on and on, your country's problem is that your population is getting it up the rear end from your politicians who are being paid off by the war machine providers and my favorite cause of no jobs for you in America THE CHINESE..
I have had my run ins with Canucky, but you know he is right in most of what he says.
Would I want him for a friend YES!!
I don't agree with all my friends and argue with some of them to. He is not a bad guy a little verbose but so are we. Goggel Canadaian Peace keeping missions then post your appologize to all that died doing them!
What is that quote: "They have eyes, but yet they do not see."
I think some of my fellow Americans are just so tired, poor, and angry, that they are directing their anger at all the world, rather than dropping all the patriotic bunting, and facing the ugly truth: "The fault is not in our stars, but in ourselves."
We shall see the fall of Rome, and for the empire, not a tear shall be shed, for we have imposed our will on all the world, and the final judgment will be the history not yet written.
Canadaman
Dude, it was not my intent to show your servicemen disrespect, peace keepers or otherwise, and lets face it the robbin-blue helmets are cute. The reality is this; your previous prime minister Jean Chretien was strongly and vehemently opposed to the war in Iraq and I respected his stance, he took it when it was unpopular to do so. Now let's look at how you rewarded Mr. Chretien's party; Oh Yeah, you voted them out. Who did you elect? Stephen Harper, who stated Mr. Chretien's anti-war position made him embarassed to be a Canadian.
Look, you and Canuck 1963 can look across the border all you want, second guessing the hard decisions. You can pretend that your country has no problems, a chicken in every pot, no child left behind etc. I have been to your Country and this is a fantasy enjoyed by fat, overpaid, underworked, unionized civil servants, like Canuck 1963.
You have food banks and they are well visited, your health care is stretched to the limit and you can't buy private coverage. How many of your citizens die waiting for treatment they could receive tomorow crossing our border. Your schools are frequently locked down for gun scares, shootings are daily occurences. Some of the worst criminals on the planet are Canadians - Paul Bernardo, Clifford Olsen, the dude who shot so many young women in Montreal to name a few. So please save your high fiving, self congratulatory comments for everybody's favorite illiterate Canuck 1963.
P.S It is nice to see some Canadians can converse without profanity, I was starting to wonder.
Check my posts, I don't agree with Canuck for shit. But Canadian troops are currently fighting in Afghanistan, not under UN mandate, but as part of NATO forces. And they are occasionally getting killed there too. So understand one thing, not all Canadians are so left-wing and anti-American as Canuck1963.
Helldiver I like you already, quite honestly I have the utmost respect for the Canadian forces and their peacekeepers. Canuck 1963 is just such an easy target, it would be nice if their government would provide them with a few well made American weapons. You should see the Submarines the British sucked them into buying. Killed half the crew crossing the ocean, never been out to Sea again. Canuck 1963 is just such an embarrassment to Canadians, it is bad enough so many of our people believe that they still live in teepees and igloos without him demonstrating that they are incapable of speaking without profanity.
I keep asking both of you silly dimwits the same thing, over-and-over-and over again...but y'all don't wanna answer me.
How am I "anti-American"?
Like , what IS it about your type that can't answer a simple fucking question??
Did you get past kindeegarten?
All I've seen is a lot of cheap, potshots at at just about everything (and everyone) else.
But that one, little, ol' teeny-tiny question.....you draw a blank on.
Fucked in the head.
Both of you.
(That is until you prove you're not....by answering Zee Question)
C'mon....don't be scared....give it a shot. If you can give me a clearly thought-out, persuasive line-of-reasoning in response.....I'll apologize and and shut up.
1. He stole an American woman to marry, thus robbing America of one of its greatest assets.
2. He does not support US foreign policy, in Iraq, Aghanistan, Iran, etc.
3. He does not support the US drilling offshore for oil, thus making the US more oil dependent on the ME, and thus more prone to fighting those wars he doesn't support.
4. He calls a US vice president candidate a "fucking whore" and other disrespectful vulgarities, based solely on his vastly superior opinion.
5. He rudely insults all intellectual opponents in any debate, without acknowledging their points or even answering them back, then throws out his own opinion as fact, without supporting evidence. Open discussion of issues is a cornerstone of American society.
6. He spends all day pushing Obama for president, when he's not even a US citizen.
7. He attacks not only all Americans, but even Minnesotans and Alaskans, which are nearly Canadian.
8. Some other shit I don't remember right now. I'll add to the list later...
Seriously, I shouldn't have called you anti-American. Sorry. I believe you mean well, in your own retarded, extremely fucked-up way. Its just that so many things you believe aren't true.
As much as I admire podman's depth and perceptions, and as much as I admire canuck's ready stats and other products of good research, I (for reasons that seem a bit vague just now) need to note that some intelligent people do actually favor McCain over Obama.
Hopefully, the bashing of McCain, coming as it largely does from the more extreme Obama supporters, won't gain much traction as it will be seen as hyperbole and exaggeration common on the political scene.
My take on Barack is that he is four years too early in his just-now-blossoming political career...he is genial and charismatic, but untested and underexposed to world events.
McCain may be short tempered, but I believe him to be firmly founded on "what is best for the country"....which can not be said for the current incumbent. And the man is not stupid. And he is not tolerant of incompentence. I believe he'll choose advisors and cabinet members of similar intent. Frankly, I wish he'd chosen someone other than Palin as a VP candidate, not because of her inexperience, but because she is so easily caricatured, so easily laughed at....which as all who observe life know, will devastate any campaign.
I do not believe the simplistic notion that McCain is a continuation of Bush (hell, Bush Jr. was not even a continuation of Bush Sr., far from being any sort of model for the future). McCain doesn't have all the answers, but while no one does, Obama has fewer, in my opinion.
We can chafe at McCain's gruffness, and wallow in the syrup of Obama's rhetoric, but it may be a hard ass leader is more of what the US needs to correct its direction.
Sorry Skids....ran on again. Promised brevity but didn't deliver.
HD - Yes he is now that events are becoming unmanageable. Perhaps, someone with his breadth of experience in politics could have foreseen that stirring the embers of hatred would have the predicted result?
One can only assume that with that 50 years of wisdom, that the result was as intentional, as the striking of the match.
(sighs) What exactly are you cognitive skills like?
Yeah, McSame IS doing this....but only AFTER he and his dimwitted running-mate INSTIGATED it, saw it wasn't working and is now backpeddling out of desperation.
Like any good desperate smear-merchant would do.
Follow the news a little more (ANY news, at this point would be nice)
Every politician makes accusations against his opponent, especially in the last month. That is unfortunately normal politics in the US. When McCain's supporters got a little too fanatical, he rightly tried to stop it. That takes character to stand up to your own supporters.
Interesting question: If the Republican agenda (McCain's) is sooo much better than the Democrat agenda (Obama's), why does McCain resort to such profanities instead of taking him apart by presenting much better solutions?
I'm quite certain I have never called Obama a terrorist nor has McCain or Palin. It is a fact that Obama chose to hang out with the following: Bill Ayers, accused of bombing federal buildings, aquitted because of legal fuckup. Reverend Wright, who infamously preached "God Damn America!". His own wife, who is finally proud to be an American. Apparantly it took a while. These are people who are big influences in Barack Obama's life. These are the facts.
Now I can't say how these individuals have shaped Barack's outlook on life, the US, or foreign policy. I can deduce from this pattern of relationships with America bashers, that Barack does not share the same vision of America that I do. That is not racist. That is deduction. That does not make Barack a bad man. You don't have to like America to be an American.
I do however, have a pretty damn strong idea how McCain and Palin view America. I support finishing this war in Iraq, Barack does not. I do support off-shore drilling. Neither candidate offers a real solution to much else of anything. Neither supports border security (oh dang it, I must be a racist again). Neither has a plan to reduce government spending and balance the budget. Both support the farce of global warming, and would waste a few more billions on this government boondoggle. I don't give a shit about gay marriage, or abortion, etc. because most of that is not in the president's power to do much about anyway.
The president only signs laws, he does not create them. The president must enforce existing laws, lead US foreign policy, and be the commander-in-chief. I kinda prefer my president actually have some experience in foreign policy and military, silly me, I must be a racist, spreading hate-filled propaganda. I don't take sides, I defend facts and my opinion from liberal bullet points and insults, spouted by Canuck and Bug. You'll notice I've corrected a few "right-wingers" as well, but we don't want to label them. Fuck that, I'm sick of political correctness. People do chose sides in life and politics, that doesn't mean we don't come together as Americans when we need to. We don't all need to hold hands and sing Kumbayah together, that is not inciting violence.
And if you don't like that, to put it in Canuck's famously civil tripe, you can all STFU.
PC is a stupid concept resulting in nothing getting said.
So you are visioning the USA as a country that will continue to step on other nations toes (if not the whole nation) and behave agressive?
A strong military force at the cost of national infrastructure?
Homeless people on the streets?
Substandard healthcare for an industrialized nation?
I would expect someone who is proud of his country to want his country to be run well so there actually is something you can be proud of. The simple fact of you being US American and me being German is just chance, no achievement of ourself, nothing to be proud of.
1. You prattle on and on about the people around Baracks life, and who had an "influence" on him. Why no mention of his grandfather? You know, war hero, served with Patton's Third Army, liberated death camps? That kind of thing.
2. "I kinda prefer my president actually have some experience in foreign policy and military, silly me, I must be a racist, spreading hate-filled propaganda".
Well....yes....you are. Very much so. But that's beside the point. Sooooo....you mean like the "military experience" Bush Jr. had? Ducking the Vietnam War and joiniing the Texas Air Guard? And then going AWOL from THERE? You mean like THAT? Or do you mean like, lying his ass off to his own people about the need to go into Iraq in the FIRST place? Kinda like that? OR....do you mean like Cheney's "military experience"? You know....five-time draft-deferment to avoid Vietnam. You mean like THOSE kinds of leaders? Riiiiiiight.
3. "......that doesn't mean we don't come together as Americans when we need to".
Oh yeah? So, how come it usually takes a tragedy of monumental proportions for this to happen? Why ain't it just a matter of routine? Is it because folks like yourself are so filled with fear, loathing, bigotry and hostility that you can see past them?
Well Bug, you're buying into the idea that these were optional wars, we didn't really need to fight. I disagree.
Our military budget is ~5% GDP, plenty left over for bridges and social programs, if the government doesn't squander it.
He may have had some influence on little Barack. But Barack didn't chose to assosciate with him, like he did the terrorist communist, the America damning minister, and the wife who wasn't proud of America, until she had an epiphany. McCain on the other hand has served himself, not relying on his grandfathers accomplishments.
So Canuck, show me where I'm a racist? From my lips in the oval office crack? Yes, that's so over the top racist.
And I'm not talking about Bush am I? You're trying to change the topic. I'm talking about McCain. When Bush was first elected, we weren't at war, CinC wasn't the priority. When elected the second time, he had been CinC for 3 years. But if you want to talk draft dodgers, than I guess Bush and Cheney are no worse than Bill Clinton. Maybe you met him in Canada?
It should be a matter of routine, but this devisiveness comes from both sides. And no fear, loathing, or bigotry on my part.
Look.....ya can't compare Clinton in that bunch. At all. Know why? And here's where a bit of "critical thinking and research" come into play:
Clinton made no bones about the issue of Vietnam. Ever. He basically said (paraphrasing here, of course), "That's a bullshit, fucked-up war, and I ain't having any part of it." Then he fucked off to England (sorry....not Canada----you're wrong on that one, too). He was quite honest about it. And then he became a very admired President. You know that wherever that fuckin' guy goes, he gets MOBBED??? I mean, MOBBED. By people who love the guy, even though he's been out of office as long as he has. I have seen it FIRST-HAND! Think Bush will ever get that? Dream on. But I digressed.....
Bush, Cheney and all these other cowards? Well, they ducked it....and passed themselves off as these gunslinging, ballsy "patriots". In short, they minimized and lied about what they did. Clinton....did not. He was NOT a 'deferment candidate'; he did NOT join a sub-category of service to avoid combat; and he did NOT lie about THAT (leave Lewinsky outta this....who gives a fuck about THAT, anyways; good for him, I say----take a look at Hillary Ball-Buster----I rest my case).
He was up-front about it.
So spare McCain having "served" (honorably, granted); it is NOT a pre-requisite for being President.
Clinton straight faced lied to the American people, and only recanted when he was busted. You can't believe a word the man says, because he's a master at saying what you want to hear.
Bush did serve, maybe not that honorably, but he did serve. Give him some credit. Lots of Air national guards did tours in Vietnam, and Texas was no exception. When Bush joined the Texas Air National Guard, he could not have known he was guaranteed to not go to Vietnam. Plus, the Delta Dagger he flew was a very dangerous aircraft, mishap wise. He took real risks, whether in combat or not.
Cheney did not serve in the military, but he was secretary of defense, which probably gives him some authority on defense matters wouldn't you say?
But regardless, we were not at war when these guys were elected, so berate them all you want, its not affecting my point.
My point is that we are at war now. McCain has ample military and foreign policy experience. Obama has none. For you to say the US president doesn't need military and foreign policy experience in a time of war, is like saying Joe the janitor can step right in as CEO of any major corporation.
This is a matter of opinion, so I can't really say you're wrong, but you're sure as hell not changing my opinion on the matter.
Oh, the old Clinton story. Nobody in Europe could understand why you were making such a fuzz about him fucking his intern and not wanting to talk about this in public.
Not Clinton was at fault there, those who forced him about the issue were at fault, this was his private issue and not a national interest. The whole affair just showed how fucked up the "moral" values are in the USA.
So you say you need a military leader to continue to fight wars?
I would say you need a political leader who can give your country its direction and identity back. Also you need a diplomat who negotiates with other nations instead of threatening them. McCain is neither.
Bug, I don't think anyone really cared that he fucked his intern. What pissed us off, was the bastard lying on tv, straight-faced to the American people. Its a trust thing.
I don't want a militery leader to continue to fight wars. I want a political leader, willing to give the military the support it needs, to win the wars its already in.
Now how is Obama such a great negotiator, when he has no experience at it internationally, and no one will take any of his threats of force seriously? Negotiating with North Korea or Iran isn't like negotiating with Republicans, Acorn, or Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. You sure as hell can't negotiate with terrorists. NK and Iran will see him as soft, passivist, unable to touch them, and both will develop atomic weapons on Obama's watch. Now they may do so on McCain's watch as well, but at least if McCain issues a threat, they'll damn sure listen attentively.
People said this about Kennedy as well, and he did surprise us by standing firm against the Soviets, even if he did damn near start WWIII. I would love to be pleasantly surprised, to discover Obama has a spine, but the US presidency isn't where you place your bets. I have more faith in McCain.
We're back to opinion again, so I guess I'll agree to disagree. But I get to vote, and you don't. If it makes you feel better, I don't get to vote for the German chancellor, although I do approve of your current choice.
"......What pissed us off, was the bastard lying on tv, straight-faced to the American people. Its a trust thing."
I see.
Sooooo......why no outrage at Georgie-Boy doing the SAME THING....REPEATEDLY.....for the last eight years?
Seems to me you're kinda selective in who you want to brand as a liar.
Like a good Republican.
Besides, don't give me any of this shit that Georgie-Boy served "honorably" in ANYTHING. He went AWOL from there....got that? And he DID go in there, to duck service in 'Nam, thanks to his Daddy. You believe this c**t has "honor"??? About anything????? Puh-leeze.
And the source who said military experience was NOT a pre-requisite for being President? Here ya go:
Gen. Wesley Clarke; decorated Vietnam veteran; former NATO Supreme Commander.
But you ain't gonna take anything HE says at face value, either.....are you?
Because YOUR threshold is George Bush Jr. having "honor".
And how do you explain Abraham Lincoln, wise-ass.....huh? Or HIS credentials? And now y'all got a STATUE of him (I got my picture taken sitting in his lap....for real), plus his face on a mountain.
HD, you still don't get it. Nobody except Hillary had anything like a right for an answer to the question if he fucked his intern. They did not even have the right to ask.
As for fighting wars: The most important war for the USA would be the war on stupidity. McCaine would be fighting on the wrong side of that.
Canuck, to lie, means you said something you knew was untrue. Clinton clearly lied when he said "he did have sexual relations with that women". Now I wasn't outraged, I thought Clinton was a puke, but no outrage.
When you say Bush lied, I assume you mean the old WMD rant? However, I believe Bush firmly believed Iraq still had WMDs. So its not a lie, it was not true, but Bush didn't know at the time that it wasn't true.
Iraq had used chemical weapons prior to 91. Israel had destroyed Iraq's attempt at creating a nuclear reactor. After the first gulf war, we destroyed tons of Iraq's chemical weapons. But we never confirmed we got them all, because Saddam kept playing cat and mouse with the inspectors, and eventually kicked them out. Intel from around the world said Iraq still had WMDs. Saddam wanted the world, especially Iran, to believe he still had WMDs. It was a lie, but it was Saddam's lie, not Bush's. The pressuring and twisting of intelligence supposedly committed by the Bush administration has never been proven.
So I don't know exactly what Bush knew when, but I felt at the time that it was a good bet Iraq still had WMDs. I didn't see the intel the president saw, but I thought it probably only added to the case. Every republican and democrat in congress and the senate in 2003 believed Iraq still had WMDs, and there are plenty of clips of Hillary, Bill, Reid, etc all saying so. So I don't see how you can go demonizing Bush alone, without holding the rest of our dear leaders accountable as well. I think Bush has become the scapegoat, for a lot of our leaders collective mistakes. Congress and the Senate both approved invading Iraq. Bush was at least smart enough to get their approval prior to invading. Spread the blame equally where it lies.
I believe I clearly said Bush served, maybe not honorably, but he served. I did not say Bush served honorably, read carefully. Anyway, once again, I don't really care about Bush. I'm talking about McCain vs. Obama. You sound like every other democrat, comparing Bush to Obama, not McCain. McCain is not guilty of Bush's sins.
I have to respect Gen. Wesley Clarke's service, but he has become a democrat mouthpiece, and he made his quote purely to prop up Obama. I disagree with him, pure and simple. I'm not saying someone with no military experience cannot be a good CinC. I am saying that in a time of war, when I get to vote for someone with strong military and foreign policy experience, vs. someone with no military or foreign policy experience, it becomes fairly clear and obvious.
Now if I felt there were other more important reasons to vote for Obama, I might be willing to overlook his complete lack of military and foreign policy experience, and I'm sure in some ways Obama would be a better president. He would give great state of the union addresses, and I wouldn't have to listen to four years of "my friends". But overall, I chose McCain. Accept it. Get over it. Move on.
Now Bugs, how exactly would McCain be on the wrong side of your war on stupidity? This is a stupid comment. Both Obama and McCain are intelligent. Obama may be more religious than McCain, which automatically makes him more ignorant in your eyes right? Or this just some of your bigotry against the republican party? Because I sure as hell don't see the democrat party as being any wiser.
%u201COne way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.%u201D %u2013President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
%u201CIf Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq%u2019s weapons of mass destruction program.%u201D %u2013President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
%u201CIraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.%u201D %u2013Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
%u201CHe will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.%u201D %u2013Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
%u201C[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq%u2019s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.%u201D Letter to President Clinton, signed by: %u2014 Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998
%u201CSaddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.%u201D -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
%u201CHussein has %u2026 chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.%u201D %u2014 Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
%u201CThere is no doubt that %u2026 Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.%u201D Letter to President Bush, Signed by: %u2014 Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001
%u201CWe begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them.%u201D %u2014 Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
%u201CWe know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.%u201D %u2014 Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
%u201CIraq%u2019s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.%u201D %u2014 Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
%u201CWe have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.%u201D %u2014 Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
%u201CThe last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons%u2026%u201D %u2014 Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
%u201CI will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force %u2014 if necessary %u2014 to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.%u201D %u2014 Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
%u201CThere is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years %u2026 We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.%u201D %u2014 Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
%u201CHe has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do%u201D %u2014 Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
%u201CIn the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members %u2026 It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.%u201D %u2014 Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
%u201CWe are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.%u201D %u2014 Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
%u201CWithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime %u2026 He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation %u2026 And now he is miscalculating America%u2019s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction %u2026 So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real%u2026%u201D %u2014 Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
Clearly, each and every one of these people (including Bill Clinton and Madeline Albright speaking in the 1990's) were taken in by the Bush administration's lies. Their rhetoric on the situation now (We were mislead into war!) obviously has nothing to do with political opportunism.
HD - Just a point here, because you write: "I believe Bush firmly believed Iraq still had WMDs. So its not a lie"
Just because you believe that Bush was not lying, how does that makes it true that he was not lying? Only Bush knows if he was lying or not, anyone's opinion on what he knew is invalid without factual documentation, and witnesses.
As for your assessment of congress at the time I agree. They are mostly responsible for being blinded by patriotic fervor in the rush to war, pandering to the electorate, and not doing due diligence in researching the opposing intelligence that was plainly available from multiple sources.
But then again there was fear in doing so, as the Valerie Plame outing was meant to illustrate, and as the president stated "you are either with us, or you are with the terrorists".
HD, you are just repeating the republican party line on Iraq.
"Intel from around the world", interesting, do you ever check your sources? At that time there were few reliable sources, only France and Germany had any significant amount of field operatives in Iraq, the USA had none. Both services said there were no proofs for anything significant left. The UN inspectors at that time said that if Saddam had any WMDs left it could not be much.
The "intel" was fabricated despite better knowledge of even your US intel services.
"Just because you believe that Bush was not lying, how does that makes it true that he was not lying? Only Bush knows if he was lying or not, anyone's opinion on what he knew is invalid without factual documentation, and witnesses. "
Well based on that arguement, how can anyone clearly say that Bush lied? You calling Canuck an over-reacting radical?
"But then again there was fear in doing so, as the Valerie Plame outing was meant to illustrate, and as the president stated "you are either with us, or you are with the terrorists"."
Well I don't believe US senators and congressmen voted for the Iraq war, out of any sense they were afraid of President Bush's powers. If they were, maybe they shouldn't be in that job.
"You are just repeating the republican party line on Iraq."
No, I'm repeating my opinion on why we invaded Iraq. Any similarity to official Bush administration statements is purely accidental. I think in general the American people did agree with and support Bush at the time of the invasion, since his poll numbers at the time were incredibly high. His popularity has plummeted mostly due to perceived mistakes in the execution of the war.
"At that time there were few reliable sources, only France and Germany had any significant amount of field operatives in Iraq, the USA had none. Both services said there were no proofs for anything significant left. The UN inspectors at that time said that if Saddam had any WMDs left it could not be much."
Bug, are you privy to more top secret intel than I? I'm just gonna go out on a limb, and assume not. Now if the US had people on the ground in Iraq, which I very much think they did, would they tell the world? Would you tell Saddam, "our American spies in Iraq tell us..." That would be genius wouldn't it? The US had 12 years to plant spies in Iraq, 2 years just since 9/11, I'm sure they had some peeps on the ground. You can't identify all bombing targets by satellite alone.
France and the UN were so corrupted by bribes from Iraq, that their intel frankly could not be trusted to not be politically influenced.
"The "intel" was fabricated despite better knowledge of even your US intel services." You know that for a fact do you? Because you personally reviewed the original intel, and evaluated the reliability of the sources? Remember that disinformation is a primary directive of the enemy in time of war. If Iraq wants to hide its weapons, it feeds disinformation to know foreign intel officers. You argue your point like you know everything Bush knew at the time, when you clearly don't. Everyone makes mistakes, even presidents. A pretty damn big mistake granted, but to call it a lie is not justified by the facts.
The German intel was made public here by our government. The chief UN inspector of the Iraq mission did give several interviews and public speaches about the results of their activities.
For some reason the USA did not pay any attention to that.
The absence of US intel services from Iraq are currently a little facet in a scandal unrolling here. The German agents seem to have given the US military target assessments and attack result reports even though the German parliament had ruled for total non-participation in the Iraq war. Might cost some heads here...
In the end the bottom line is that the US government fabricated evidence and ignored fact. The media mostly did follow along.
Not even in the UK and Spain did the populace and media believe the bullshit reasons for the war.
"In the end the bottom line is that the US government fabricated evidence and ignored fact." In your opinion, I disagree. I saw some evidence mis-interpreted (the aluminum tubes), but not fabricated. Look if Bush had clearly lied about Iraq having WMDs, why wouldn't he just sneak chemical weapons into Iraq for others to "find"? Seriously, if Bush truly knew there were no WMDs in Iraq, then wouldn't he also know there might be hell to pay when none were found? Yes he would. So he'd either have had a plan to fake finding WMDs, or at least to deal with the public rage of not finding any WMDs.
"Not even in the UK and Spain did the populace and media believe the bullshit reasons for the war" Oh come on! So you're saying the UK and Spain sent their young men to die in Iraq, just to appease America?
The Spanish and British government were very keen to plese Mr. Bush, the people of the countries did not approve. Especially in Spain this was clear, at the next election Mr. Aznar did get his walking papers.
Why would Bush care to fake WMD found in Iraq? He could well rely on people like you looking the other way.
Some like to quote notables in support of their preferences...I'll "copy" this, from a man often called "the most intelligent man in America", himself being a black minority........Thomas Sowell........:
Facts Matter?
By Thomas Sowell
Abraham Lincoln said, "You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time."
Unfortunately, the future of this country, as well as the fate of the Western world, depends on how many people can be fooled on election day, just a few weeks from now.
Right now, the polls indicate that a whole lot of the people are being fooled a whole lot of the time.
The current financial bailout crisis has propelled Barack Obama back into a substantial lead over John McCain-- which is astonishing in view of which man and which party has had the most to do with bringing on this crisis.
It raises the question: Do facts matter? Or is Obama's rhetoric and the media's spin enough to make facts irrelevant?
Fact Number One: It was liberal Democrats, led by Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, who for years-- including the present year-- denied that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were taking big risks that could lead to a financial crisis.
It was Senator Dodd, Congressman Frank and other liberal Democrats who for years refused requests from the Bush administration to set up an agency to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
It was liberal Democrats, again led by Dodd and Frank, who for years pushed for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to go even further in promoting subprime mortgage loans, which are at the heart of today's financial crisis.
Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury, five years ago.
Yet, today, what are we hearing? That it was the Bush administration "right-wing ideology" of "de-regulation" that set the stage for the financial crisis. Do facts matter?
We also hear that it is the free market that is to blame. But the facts show that it was the government that pressured financial institutions in general to lend to subprime borrowers, with such things as the Community Reinvestment Act and, later, threats of legal action by then Attorney General Janet Reno if the feds did not like the statistics on who was getting loans and who wasn't.
Is that the free market? Or do facts not matter?
Then there is the question of being against the "greed" of CEOs and for "the people." Franklin Raines made $90 million while he was head of Fannie Mae and mismanaging that institution into crisis.
Who in Congress defended Franklin Raines? Liberal Democrats, including Maxine Waters and the Congressional Black Caucus, at least one of whom referred to the "lynching" of Raines, as if it was racist to hold him to the same standard as white CEOs.
Even after he was deposed as head of Fannie Mae, Franklin Raines was consulted this year by the Obama campaign for his advice on housing!
The Washington Post criticized the McCain campaign for calling Raines an adviser to Obama, even though that fact was reported in the Washington Post itself on July 16th. The technicality and the spin here is that Raines is not officially listed as an adviser. But someone who advises is an adviser, whether or not his name appears on a letterhead.
The tie between Barack Obama and Franklin Raines is not all one-way. Obama has been the second-largest recipient of Fannie Mae's financial contributions, right after Senator Christopher Dodd.
But ties between Obama and Raines? Not if you read the mainstream media.
Facts don't matter much politically if they are not reported.
The media alone are not alone in keeping the facts from the public. Republicans, for reasons unknown, don't seem to know what it is to counter-attack. They deserve to lose.
But the country does not deserve to be put in the hands of a glib and cocky know-it-all, who has accomplished absolutely nothing beyond the advancement of his own career with rhetoric, and who has for years allied himself with a succession of people who have openly expressed their hatred of America.
Pod.........I am not campaigning.........I am trying to figure out who is better to have in the oval office.
The very large voice from Canada, and the popular media elsewhere, decry McCain as the continuation of the failed Bush agenda.
I simply wonder if the answer is as simple as saying "well, he's in the same goddam party and we need them outa here".
I don't subscribe to that black/white notion, forgive the pun that might be inferred.
Truth..............would that it had definition, so we could find it.
Sowell is without personal agenda, is gifted with insight, and strong on experience......yeah, I take this as being dependable (truth being the elusive notion mentioned above).
chaz, Dodd an Frank, just two democrats did cause all this? I think you should check your sources.
There are several factors to this desaster. The unchecked greed of the banks is just one part of it. Not all of the banks who are in trouble now did initiate the problem, some are just hit by the breakdown of credit flow. Others did just stupidly buy the offered packages of credits without looking what is in them.
Political oversight would have been the duty of the Bush administration, nothing happened.
Overtaxing the budget by stupid military adventures is another part ot the crisis.
The McCain/Palin package does not look like it will produce any solutions, just more trouble. A vice president and possibly president Palin has the potential to cause a war. McCain is surely no diplomat either.
Well I don't think you are going to find a unbiased opinion from the Hoover Institution. Truth is hard to find, but lies are easy to spot.
I will just state what I see as true in this election.
As to McCain. I liked him once, and really believed he was talking straight, but now I think the man is feeble and barley in charge of his own campaign.
Getting old is a terrible thing, and in my opinion even if he has all of his strength of conviction, he will be to weak to endure the endless meetings, and stress. It will mean that he can and will be manipulated to actions of the ambitious that always surround a president, in the same way Bush was manipulated by Cheney.
The US will be in recession for the next 5 years, and will be bankrupt for at least 20 years after that. McCain wants to stay for a victory in a land where victory is impossible. A vision of victory without regard of its real underlying cost is unjust, and perhaps insane.
We have already lost these wars. They were lost when they began, because this nation cannot afford the cost in lives, international opinion, and the titanic cost in dollars.
The surreal concept of building schools, bridges, power plants, roads for a nation that floats on a ocean of oil has been sold to America as normal, even as our own national infrastructure is rotting away. And yet we are told that two billion would be too much to spend on ANY domestic program.
That is not normal for the America I have known in the past. The truth is always found by following the money and the power. The truth is that power and money corrupt all who have it, and both parties are at fault in this financial crisis. Neither party is discussing regulations to correct the underlying problem, except for Obama.
We don't have any way of knowing if Obama will make good on regulating capitalism. But McCain will not, and I know this because he has never swayed from keeping the tax breaks for the top 4 percent.
It is irrational to believe in absolutes, black and white, fact and fiction. The truth lies between these extremes, in the world of harsh and complex reality.
FYI
it is Canada's interest not to have Obama in the white house . It is told that he will kill NAFTA.
Your country is our largest trading partner, most of our manufacturing is owned by American. You want our energy ,water, minerals, and most important our comedians.
Well you can have everything except our funny people .
Chaz, good for you! You're doing your own research, and attempting to look past the rhetoric, to pick the best candidate for president. That is your duty as an American citizen. Once Americans stop taking that duty seriously, America will cease to exist.
There was a right bias to that article, in that it left out who the most guilty for this crisis really are. The people unable to pay their mortgages. Call me heartless, I don't give a fuck. If you don't have a job, or can't pay your fucking mortgage, you have no one to blame but yourself. The failure to pay mortgages is the root cause of this crisis. Banks are to blame for pushing loose loans on consumers. Frank and Dodd especially are to blame for implicitly backing Fannie and Freddie, and pushing politically motivated mortgage quotas on them, to the point that Fannie and Freddie took risks that no private company would have done. But the person buying the house is responsible to read the mortgage documents, and expect to pay for the house! It is this lack of personal responsibility, and expecting the government to solve everything, that will be the downfall of America.
The only government action I would support, would be for the government to renegotiate ARM mortgages into fixed 30 year mortgages.
Bug, here in the not-yet-socialist US, it is not the president's responsibility to watch over private enterprise. To say once again that this is all Bush's fault, just betrays your left-wing bias, and inability to see any blame resting on the left side.
So how come Bush and McCain are turning socialist, and buying up bad debt and mortgages?
It's precisely BECAUSE of lack of over-sight, appropriate regulation and government sensibility that this shit was able to run wild, and greedy fucks were able basically able to do what they wanted.
So, in YOUR world, in the Average Joes fault on Main St., and NOT the corrupt bastards on Wall St. (they're A-OK)......
You really don't read very well, can't see past the bias or what? I do blame politicians, and banks (wall street) for this mess. But I also blame the average joe that buys a $500,000 house, on a $30,000 a year salary, with no down payment, and then expects a government bailout when he gets forclosed on. But no one will blame the homeowner for signing into a bad mortgage, because its election year. What ever happened to personal responsibility?
Live within your means, buy only what you can damn well afford.
I swore just a bit, so you might more clearly get it. And I think Bush and McCain are entirely too damn socialist, but slightly less so than Obama, and at least they have some experience.
I don't support the government buying bad mortgages, but many people who bought their houses on ARMs, (again typically a stupid-asses short-sighted decision) are now unable to refinance when those baloon payments come up, further aggravating the housing crisis. If they want to stay in their homes, but simply can't refinance, assuming they can afford the house, I might support the government providing some incentive to private banks to refinance them.
Oh and nice insult at the end. Did you not learn manners in kindergarten?
helldiver, your ongoing simple categorizing of people and concepts just conforms that you are part of the stupid wing politics.
Banks are not just private enterprises. They are dealing with the very fundamentals of the economy: Money. As such they are under a tighter control by the governments for the simple reason to prevent situations like the current one. Not controling the banks is not conservative or right wing, it is outright fucking stupid.
The Bush administration did neglect the bank control and we all internationally now receive the results. Each of the major European nations has now pledged about the same amount for bail outs as the USA has. Most of the banks that are in trouble now did not even participate in the US credit folly, they are just receiving the shitty end of the stick due to the slowing down of monetary flow internationally which is caused by the US stupidity.
Our government did say that if they bail out a bank for bad credits they gave they will do so in exchange of newly emitted shares. I hope they will stand to this, as a citizen (so to say share holder of Germany Inc.) I do want to see some return on the investment that is done with my money.
Maybe we should also sue the USA for causing an international crisis...
Not controlling banks is the American way, and has always been. We have some regulation, but not controls. Its called free enterprise. This problem is caused by the government dabbling in banking, implicitly backing up Fannie and Freddie, pushing banks to make bad loans to encourage diversity, and repeatedly bailing out failed industries right up to this one. Fannie and Freddie only became so large, because they could make extremely risky loans, because they knew the government would bail them out.
If they were a real business, they would need capital to cover their risks, they would need to make sound loan decisions, they would need collateral for loans. Government only fucks things up.
Let me ask you this, if the European banking controls are so superior, why are they now also in crisis? Not a very sound control mechanism if one domino knocks down the chain is it?
Now that just shows how little you understand about the world financial system and banks.
Some of the largest banks of the world come into trouble at the same time, this has repercussions throughout the whole world, no matter what safety stops you put in.
Several of the US banks and a few around the world were really involved in the sub prime stuff. But that is not the only thing they are doing, it may be a significant part, but far from all. The other business though is going down together with the rest of the bank, which results in the dominio effect. Other banks that did not participate in the sub prime shit but did other business do get hurt as well.
The problem with the credit system is that it has to be in constant movement since there is more virtual money in it than actually exists. This works well until some major disruption happens, like some bank topples.
The fall of Lehman Brothers was one of these disrupting events, but they are not the only bank that has fallen or is stumbling. With the Lehman Brothers a lot of money just evaporated into nothing since the derivative papers they had issued just ceased to have any value.
Usually a bank has to have only a small fraction of the money they deal with really available. But if such a disturbance happens credits are called in and accounts get emptied which results in even less money available for the bank to continue working.
The German Hypo Real Estate got hit by this slowdown, they could not get sufficent securities for their loans any more. They are engaged in financing major projects, including government projects, as far from sub prime as you can be. The German government had to make a guarantee for 35 billion Euro to keep them running.
Banks deal with a commodity that is generated by the whole of a nation: Money and its value. Any goverment allowing lessaize faire in banking is just outright stupid. This has nothing to do with socialist versus capitalist.
HD - "Not controlling banks is the American way, and has always been."
Wrong, wrong, wrong... Where do you get that stuff?
US banks have always been regulated.
The bad loans were written to provide paper to back derivatives sold on international markets. Government deregulation, as in the repeal of Glass-Stegall, and lack of government oversight allowed this leveraging by investment banks on insurance policies that had no actual cash backing. See the credit default swaps: http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/08/10/business/morgen11.php ...and take note of the date on this article.
If you are going to play partisan politics with this issue, then please understand the actual cause. Both parties are at fault, but it was deregulation that set the stage for the theft.
And every nation has laws and regulations to protect it people from the activities of groups, and each other. Without regulatory law then no nation can function. There is no fully "Free market" capitalism, and there never has been, because without rules and laws it will not function.
"if the European banking controls are so superior, why are they now also in crisis?"
Europe and the rest of the world is in trouble because they bought these false triple A rated financial instruments on the global market. So when the Ponzi scheme burst they lost money too.
You're right, its more about communist vs. capitalist. See with socialism, you can still have private banks. With communism, or Nazism, the state owns the banks. I support having free private banks, that must work under some regulations, but without government support. They must be self-sufficient or die, no government backing, no implicit bailout, no politicians influencing banking policy. That would require they take balanced risks, and have the capital to weather a financial storm. Like seperation of church and state, I prefer seperation of business and state.
With a nationalized banking system, you will not get the best and brightest CEOs, because you won't pay them competitive wage. So you will eventually get another worthless government beaurocracy. Oh, but those bank tellers will eventually get great government benefits, retirement plans, and union representatives. That will sure help.
And make no mistake, this bailout is leading towards nationalizing banks. The government gets controlling interest in any company bailed out, and when have you ever seen any government willingly give up controlling interest in anything?
Not to mention, you now have a new government agency able to dole out billions of tax dollars, with little tax payer oversight. Surely no abuses are in store for us with this surefire strategy!
But I didn't realize I was speaking with Alan Greenspan, my apologies Mr. Greenspan.
Not bailing out the banks now would result in an international desaster. But to understand this you need at least a glimpse of how world finance works.
And bail out does not automatically mean giving them cash, in most cases it is just necessary to guarantee credits they get from some other bank. In return they have to adhere to stricter rules and possibly even pay interest to the state.
Only those cases that have too many bad credits to survive on their own will be picked up by the government. But that does not necessarily mean they will be run by the government, it just means the government will become a major share holder.
Sweden exercised such a thing with a nearly bankrupt bank a while ago, they picked them up, let them restructure for a while and then sold off the shares at a gain.
The deregulation surely worked just nice as we can witness these days. The CEOs had competitive payments, unfortunately quite a few of them sucked badly and cared shit for the company they were supposed to run.
In Germany there currently is a new law under discussion that would make the executives of large corporations equal to the owners/executives of smaller business in their liabilities. Right now the CEO of an Inc. can just walk away from a wreck he created and possibly even get a severance package. Try to do the same as CEO of a Ltd.
Podman, I agree de-regulation is part of the cause of this crisis, and I agree both sides are at fault. I never said otherwise. But the implicit government backing of Fannie and Freddie is the root cause, which allowed them to get trillions of dollars at risk. If they hadn't made so many bad loans, based on the housing bubble, the rest of the banks and securities would be ok.
Regulation is not the same thing as control. Regulation is establishing a set of rules to play buy, and ensuring those rules are followed. It is not direct government backing of banking.
I agree that this bailout is like cutting off the leg, so the gangrene doesn't spread and kill the patient. That is the only possible way to justify this distasteful bailout. Its still privatizing the gains, and socializing the loses.
I never said anything about that, only that this bailout will result in permanent government control of banking.
Uh huh... again, ever seen a government relinquish power?
Good for them, I'm skeptical it will ever happen here.
True, but deregulation was not the sole reason for this crisis. I would hold executive liable for ruining corporations through negligant actions. The problem is, they didn't break any existing laws.
How about the many times I've mentioned your brave Canadian soldiers fighting against terrorism in Afghanistan? I think there was an Obama is a Muslim crack I shot down a while back to.
When did you last correct any incorrect left-winger?
HD Kinda wrong again - "... But the implicit government backing of Fannie and Freddie is the root cause, which allowed them to get trillions of dollars at risk."
Fannie and Freddie had to buy the bad paper that the the IB's generated, because they had to by law. They were quasi-government corporations before the time of the crash, and are holding over 5 trillion in home mortgage loans, which is almost 50 percent of the US mortgages. They don't lend money or originate loans, but they do act as a brokerage and insurance entity for loans.
It was the elite in congress that profited by the deregulation and corruption by way of lobbyists, and direct campaign donations (all parties involved).
You seem to be under the impression that Wall Street greed and dishonesty was not a factor in the failure, but that is completely wrong. They engineered these instruments, because deregulation sought by finance and congress made it possible.
Fannie and Freddie just got stuck holding most of the bad paper, which cannot be discerned from the good at this point.
There were other ways of refinancing the credit markets without having the taxpayer involved, but when the elite want money, that is who they get it from.
Podman, We really are arguing over opinion here, but you shot you're whole arguement in the foot with your first sentence:
"Fannie and Freddie had to buy the bad paper that the the IB's generated, because they had to by law. They were quasi-government corporations..."
That's what I'm trying to tell you, its the damn government meddling that caused this whole mess in the first place. De-regulation can only work in the free market, if its truly free, meaning no government tinkering and false promises.
"You seem to be under the impression that Wall Street greed and dishonesty was not a factor in the failure, but that is completely wrong."
I just said above that bankers and de-regulation were both part of the cause. My point is that the other part of root cause for this mess, is government meddling, and Americans buying into mortgages they should have known they could not afford. There is no one silver bullet root cause for this mess.
HD - No I didn't shoot my argument in the foot. The original entity known as Fannie Mae was created after the great depression to control the mortgage market and acted rather like the Fed but for mortgages.
It was stunningly successful for the average American home buyer. It was the conversion of Fannie and the creation of Freddie that changes their SOP. It is a good thing for us all that they once again become government entities. This will allow them to work for the borrower, and not shareholders.
Fannie Mae was founded as a government agency in the wake of the Great Depression in 1938, as part of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal.
In 1968, the government converted Fannie Mae into a private shareholder-owned corporation in order to remove its activity from the annual balance sheet of the federal budget.
In 1970, the government created the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC), commonly known as Freddie Mac, to compete with Fannie Mae and, thus, facilitate a more robust and efficient secondary mortgage market.
So far so good...
In 1999, Fannie Mae came under intense pressure from the Clinton administration to ease its credit requirements on the mortgages it was willing to purchase in order to encourage lenders to extend more mortgages to borrowers with low to moderate income and improve rates of home ownership among those groups. Shareholders also pressured Fannie Mae to purchase mortgages below its conventional credit standards in order to maintain its record profits.
Bang, there's your root cause right there for the housing bubble and current banking crisis. Clinton pushing private banks to buy bad mortgages, based on implicit government banking.
In 2000, due to a re-assessment of the housing market by HUD, anti-predatory lending rules were put into place that disallowed risky, high-cost loans from being credited toward affordable housing goals. In 2004, these rules were dropped and high-risk loans were again counted toward affordable housing goals.
Attempt to correct, and evert disaster, but overruled. This part was republicans fault. Both sides are guilty.
Look Podman, I'm not an expert on finance. But there are two kinds of people in this world. Those that believe the government can solve all our problems, because they're all just so damn wise, corruption free, and only look out for us little guys. And those that believe the government is already too big, corrupt, controlled by lobbyists, and generally only fucks things up worse. I am clearly of the latter, you apparantly are with the former.
I do not see mortgage companies under government control being a good thing long term. This is a short-sighted solution, that only hands more power to the government, without any guarantee of preventing further crisis. If gives the treasury secretary ridiculous and unprecedented power to waste your tax dollars, with little oversight or accountability. It is unconstitutional, and will lead to eventual disaster, if not US government bankruptcy. Mortgage companies will only make wise decisions and investments, if they have the risk of failure, which won't happen under government control. The next bailout will be so large, the US government won't be able to afford it.
HD - "And those that believe the government is already too big, corrupt, controlled by lobbyists, and generally only fucks things up worse. I am clearly of the latter, you apparantly are with the former."
Wow! that's quite a indictment of my personal philosophies. You have discerned all that from my repeated corrections on the real causes of the bailout, even with your self admitted lack of knowledge on this subject?
So far you have painted me as a "leftie", and now you say I am for corrupt lobbyists and big government, whats next, you going to label me a "communist"? Is it possible that you cannot abide anyone who is NON-partisan?
You have again twisted this article to support a personal world view. The reality is that Fannie worked just fine, UNTIL IT WAS DEREGULATED. It was the greed and corruption of the unregulated free market that created one of the two types of entities leading to the bailout.
The recipe for the disaster was cooked in the first bank scandal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five), and by continued government deregulation of the financial sector, in exchange for campaign contributions.
But I have said all this before, but you will continue to frame it as some "leftie" plot that the "dems", or the "government" have cooked up for some nefarious reasons because you are determined to do so.
"Wow! that's quite a indictment of my personal philosophies. You have discerned all that from my repeated corrections on the real causes of the bailout, even with your self admitted lack of knowledge on this subject?"
I said I'm not a financial expert, as I suspect you're not either. Perhaps I misunderstood you? But then you did pretty much call me a racist what? Two posts in?
"So far you have painted me as a "leftie", and now you say I am for corrupt lobbyists and big government, whats next, you going to label me a "communist"? Is it possible that you cannot abide anyone who is NON-partisan?"
Well you appear to be a leftie relative to me! It is a relative thing after all. I did not say you were for corrupt lobbyists, but do you believe the government is too big or too small? Its just an opinion, no right or wrong. And I have some friends who are downright moonbats, so I can abide anyone. You're reading my posts too defensively, no insult intended.
"The reality is that Fannie worked just fine, UNTIL IT WAS DEREGULATED. "
Well if it was working so fine, why were reforms initiated in 2000, prior to de-regulation? It was a system rife for abuse. Government pushing banks to buy risky loans, with implicit government backup, all to get more Americans into housing. Which alone isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it was pushed way too far, with loans going to people who simply could not afford them. The government on both sides enabled and encouraged the system, the greed of bankers and irresponsibility of some home buyers pushed it too far.
"The recipe for the disaster was cooked in the first bank scandal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five), and by continued government deregulation of the financial sector, in exchange for campaign contributions. "
You may be absolutely right. But to me, this only confirms the fact that government and private enterprise should be seperate.
"But I have said all this before, but you will continue to frame it as some "leftie" plot that the "dems", or the "government" have cooked up for some nefarious reasons because you are determined to do so. "
Podman, how many posts back did I say this crisis is the fault of both parties? Seriously? I'm not talking about a leftie plot, again with the defensiveness.
"Last word: Occam's Razor"
Try applying Occam's razor philosophy to 9/11 or the Iraq war, with some of the conspiracy folks.
HD - Government is titanically large and growing still larger. Its just my observation but I think nearly 50 percent of this country is drawing benefits, and paychecks from the government, and then there are all the entitlements that everyone has come to expect as normal.
Take a good look at a tax return and witness the endless entitlements, they even give people 4000 dollars per child! Since when did children pay taxes! Entitlements are killing the REAL working man, (those who generate GNP, and not consume it).
Deregulation began with Ford and has continued through every administration since then.
"government and private enterprise should be seperate."
Absolutely, but it is amazing what people accept as separate. Many do not want the government running anything that that involves their personal lives, and then you find out they want to overturn Roe vs Wade.
They don't want the government in their personal business, but they do want it in other peoples business.
I am a realist, and non partisan. So if I stand in the middle of the circle, then you will no doubt wrongly consider me to the left.
But that is not how it looks from the center, where I can stand and get ever more depressed at the waste of time and energy that so many spend on trying to "define" themselves as this or that, in a futile search for identity.
The main problem with most of the "adults" in America is that they never grow up and face reality in the way adults are supposed to.
I have argued long and hard with the conspiracy folks on this site. There is much you don't know about the posters on this site because you have only been here a short time.
But the battles have been going on for over a year.
"The point is not so much who caused the crisis, but who did let it unfold even though warned and who are now unwilling to properly address it?"
Are you referring to the Democrat controlled senate and congress, which have had power for the past two years? Because everything in this world can't possibly all be Bush's fault.
"Bail out while acquiring shares is the short term solution. Tighter regulation and ongoing monitoring is the necessary fail safe for the future." The long term fix will be the responsibility of the next administration.
Podman, we may be so far apart after all. I believe in smaller government, less government dependence, more personal responsibility. That's why I want McCain, who supports smaller government (well maybe growing at a slightly slower rate than Obama). That's why I point out that its not just greedy banks and government at fault in this housing crisis, but also irresponsible home buyers. That's why I'm against the government bailout. And frankly that's why I'm a conservative, minus the religious nutjob part.
i hereby propose a new moto for the mccain/palin "straight talk express"...... "you can fool some of the people all the time and in america that's usually enough to get elected"
LBJ had an anger problem. He pulled his dog's ears, beat his wife, and bullied Congressmen to pass his Civil Rights legislation. He called them up and said if you don't vote for such and such I'm going to come over there and punch you in the face!!! hahaha.
Haha, Gen. Buttons McPeak... his legacy was changing the buttons on the USAF service dress uniform. This was very... intertaining? no... thats not the word im looking for. I think maybe boring or petty?
Seems to be most of you cruds in that camp all spring from the same sewer; same philosophy; same hatred; same bigotry; and IF there are ANY rational, sensible folks left in that camp.....then they've long-since been drowned out by gutter-dwelling idiots like yourself.
canuck1963 I was watching the video on u-tube again about the canadian cops dressed up as peace protesters trying to start fights with the pigs so the protesters would look like a bunch of terrorists. I was wondering do they teach that at the academy or is that just extra credit work for the real go-getters on the force. Hollywood should do a reality show about Canada. They could call it Nanny State 911.
John McCain's bid for the Oval Office suffered another stunning blow yesterday when the Arizona senator referred to Barack Obama, the 44th President of the United States, as "my opponent." The campaign-shattering remark came during a vicious, Hitlerian speech before an audience of drooling right-wing drones in one of those states in the middle, possibly rectangular.
"I believe that we should do things one way," McSame sneered, his shrunken, twisted body and hideous visage producing overwhelming revulsion in all sane people who beheld him. "But my opponent feels we should do things a different way."
LOL - How appropriate with Halloween so close. Perhaps the real Canuck be the Lon Cheney for the role of this McSame character, and breath life into the "hideous visage".
Nice insults again. See the civility here Mr. Podman? You'll notice this pattern repeatedly if you chose to look. And don't bring up that flag-waving again, apparantly its wrong to be patriotic.
No Canuck, no anger at all on my park. You couldn't possibly upset me if you tried. I'd have to respect your opinion for that to be possible.
I forgot, you're a decorated cop, who just happens to support shooting the republican VP candidate.
But I can understand your confusion, you're being German and all.
Canadians are not considered Americans inside North America. Notice people of Canada are called Canadians, people of Mexico are called Mexicans, people of the United States are not called United Statians. That doesn't mean they aren't in North America, it just isn't the slang for them.
However, having a different opinion is hardly unamerican, I have never suggested it was. I have suggested your opinions should be based on facts, and not simply regurgitated talking points, from either party.
Does this mean I get to stay at the Gitmo Spa and Country Club, where torture-----whoops! I meant 'enhanced interrogation techniques'----is condoned and routine?
NO.....wait.
Probably not.
I'm actually GUILTY of something.....instead of an enemy combatant. Shit. Too bad. I wuz lookin' forward to Georgie-Boys waterboarding escapades.
Of course you do realize that McCain was the champion of limiting interrogation techniques only to those specified in the US army field manual, and the first to call for closing Gitmo?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain
I seem to recall the flag-waving crack as part of your many insults, time and again. But who exactly would you be calling a scoundrel?
Now then, in politics, sometimes you need to approve a bill that you mostly agree with, but often has some distasteful parts. Its part of that reaching across the isles and compromising stuff democracy is based on. Of course McCain did then create the anti-torture bill all on its own, which is far more work than simply voting on an existing bill.
If I chose to cherry-pick, I could show you how Obama has supported Bush's budget nearly every time.
Bottom-line is this: Georgie-Boy supports/condones TORTURE.
McSame supports/condones TORTURE, vis-a-vis his vote above.
Simple as pie.
Besides, I can't think of a single gosh-darn thing I'D "compromise" on, when it comes to torture or voting on it, per se. Not a fucking thing. Can YOU? Does so-called "honor" and "strength of conviction" come with strings attached with some folks? There's room for "compromise" on the basic principles civilized human behaviour?
Please....don't make me violently FUCKING PUKE....ok?
Or are YOU also like the Palin Whore, who's willing to prostitute/compromise your values/core beliefs, to advance some fucked-up notion what YOU/THEY think 'justice' and 'humanity' means? Or the simple lure of money in a budget?
And why does Georgie-Boy and McSame keep calling it "enhanced interrogation techniques".....when this is the EXACT method used on American POW's by the Chinese during the Korean War, and called "torture" by YOUR government-of-the-day? Back THEN it was okay to call it "torture"....but not now......right?
Plus, here's an interesting comment from a blogger over at "The New Republic":
"McCain should work on rebuilding the Republican Party and conservatism. He should use his last weeks to assign blame where it belongs: Burn down the Bush Administration, attack the attackers on his right flank (i.e., Ailes, Limbaugh, Hannity, etc.), move as best he can to the middle. It's better for his legacy, for the country, for his party, for conservatism.
He should go down swinging - attack the white trash populism that has corrupted the GOP. Channel that "New Nationalism" that Teddy Roosevelt promoted."
What is it about conservatives that they say the stupidest things, at the worst times, and thereby perpetually shoot themselves in the goddamn foot every goddamn TIME????
Like....is it a problem with their brains? Or their mouths? Or both?
It just seems they can NEVER get their acts together....no matter WHAT side of the border they're on. Maybe they all sprung from the same well?
C - I think that Rodriguez guy read a book once, and has latched onto a new buzz word and is attempting to define a new label for people he dislikes.
I agree with some of the points, but disagree with others.
So to separate my use of the word elite from his, I define the elite as persons of wealth and power who treat those who do not have power or wealth like peasants. In fact it is the elite that seem to have the least education (real or of substance), and the biggest egos to drive their undeserved positions.
Hollywood and Washington are prime examples of elitist culture. They are born into their privileged families, attend their privileged schools, get positions based on their privileged associations, and then repeat until all positions whether real or created are filled.
This author is actually attempting to define popularism as a lunatic fringe movement, and it can be that, but it is also another word for democracy.
Democracy where people join together with a common interest for the good of the whole. I think this guy is hoping that his highly visible position as a pundit will save him from the reality of the peasant uprising, an thus he has taken up the cause of his handlers to promote division.
http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/etn/mccain/index.asp In a statement released by Senator McCain, he states:
"We are Americans, and we hold ourselves to humane standards of treatment of people no matter how evil or terrible they may be. To do otherwise undermines our security, but it also undermines our greatness as a nation. We are not simply any other country. We stand for something more in the world %u2014 a moral mission, one of freedom and democracy and human rights at home and abroad. We are better than these terrorists, and we will we win. The enemy we fight has no respect for human life or human rights. They don%u2019t deserve our sympathy. But this isn%u2019t about who they are. This is about who we are. These are the values that distinguish us from our enemies."
As for the vote on torture he supported:
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/02/17/7110 "Staging a mock execution by inducing the misperception of drowning is a clear violation of this standard," Mr. McCain said in the statement. "Indeed, during the negotiations, we were personally assured by administration officials that this language, which applies to all agencies of the U.S. government, prohibited waterboarding."
"It is unfortunate," he continued, "that the reluctance of officials to stand by this straightforward conclusion has produced in the Congress such frustration that we are today debating whether to apply a military field manual to nonmilitary intelligence activities. It would be far better, I believe, for the administration to state forthrightly what is clear in current law - that anyone who engages in waterboarding, on behalf of any U.S. government agency, puts himself at risk of criminal prosecution and civil liability."
McCain stood by his principles, but you have to fight the battles you can win, and fight for the greater good. Myself, I couldn't give a flyin rat's ass if murdering terrorists are tortured, but McCain did. He proposed this torture ban, pushed it through the senate, and got the president to sign it. And what the fuck did Obambi do during this time? Jack shit.
So don't lecture me on McCain's integrity, strategy, and purpose with regards to this anti-torture law. Here's the fact: McCain was responsible for getting this signed into law. Obama did nothing.
Ummmm....well...no...you DO need a fuckin' lecture, because you're either too clueless or just too fuckin' stupid to get what I'm saying.
He voted AGAINST a ban on torture...see above. Period. He compromised his principles, and like a good little political whore....sold them out, to the highest bidder.
"........I couldn't give a flyin rat's ass if murdering terrorists are tortured..."
TA-DA!!! Finally! A tacit admission of where you stand! Fantastic! Hey...asshole...PSSSST!......don't YOU evah....I mean FUCKING EVAH....I MEAN YOU PERSONALLY.....dare quote the U.S. Constitution or Bill Of Rights in MY presence on this website....hear me? You want to use those documents and what they stand for as good ol' toilet paper........fine by me. But do NOT EVER let me hear a Fascist-Nazi-El-Salvadoran-Death-Squad-Loving-Eichmann-Admiring-Torture-Loving PUKE like YOU.....quote anything from those writings, from over 200 years ago. Especially when it pertains to torturing those who haven't even been found GUILTY of anything, much less charged.
I mean it......
EVER.
You just gave up, and waived that right this evening. And if you DO, you'll just look a fanatical turd.
Christ.
It's precisely because of CLUELESS, IGNORANT, BLIND mooks like YOU, that Georgie-Boy got away with what he did, for as long as he did.
YOU need a nice, soothing documentary to watch. And best of all, considering that your right-wing fuckheads have put your house, your job and your livelihood at risk with their fucked-up policies, the best part about what I'm tossing at you here, is that you can watch it for FREE. Yes, you heard correctly: F-R-E-E.
It's called "Taxi To The Dark Side", and it even won an Oscar last year.
So relax; put your tired ol' feet up; dust off your old uniform; get your flags out and throw an apple pie into the oven, and settle in for some healthy, family-oriented entertainment.
Another gift.....to you.
From me.
P.S. Regarding the links to the articles I posted? Read what I wrote again, Spaz: I acknowledged that they were "OP-ED" pieces.
Sigh... Why do I bother Canuck, you won't fucking listen anyway...
Obama hasn't actually voted on enough things yet to betray his compromised principles. McCain got the law approved. Period, end of discussion. What did Obama do to pass this anti-torture law?
"........I couldn't give a flyin rat's ass if murdering terrorists are tortured..."
You're damn right I said it, and I'll say it again! Because the US constitution and Bill of Rights applies only to US citizens! They do not apply to murdering terrorists from other nations. In WW2, we killed Japanese and Germans. Did this violate their US constitutional rights? Don't be so fucking stupid. I will quote them at my leasure, so fuck you.
Now I do support these terrorists being charged and tried by a military tribunal, which I've said before on this site. They should not languish in prison forever, without a charge. But US constitutional protections do not apply to them! Geez, I already had this arguement with Bug.
"And best of all, considering that your right-wing fuckheads have put your house, your job and your livelihood at risk with their fucked-up policies"
Right, democrats played no part at all in this housing bubble and financial crisis? You sir are either willfully blind and ignorant, or just fucking stupid.
Just because McCain's smear campaign isn't working, doesn't mean the allegations against Barack are unwarranted, and shouldn't be answered. Obama has a very short political history. The US people should know who and what he stands for.
But I fail to see why Obama winning becomes some kind of you vs. me personal contest. If Obama wins, the country goes on, I'll get over it, and hope he proves me wrong by doing a good job. If McCain wins, you will completely fuckin over-pressurize and explode. So for that reason alone, I guess I'd like to see McCain win.
Your Supreme Court has already ruled that these so-called "terrorists" ARE entitled to due process. I'd say that's game-set-and-match.....don't you?
Or are you too fucking stupid and THAT far gone, to ignore the Rule Of Law (like Georgie-Boy, McSame, Cheney, Rice, et al) on top of it?
"They do not apply to murdering terrorists "
Well....another stellar moment from the self-proclaimed "True American", huh? Nice to see you compound the your own stupidity by advocating not only torture by your current Administration.....but MURDER as well. Gawd, you're fucking deluded. SERIOUSLY deluded.
Know what I just realized? When it comes to guys like YOU...there really is NO difference, between YOU and those scum who threw two planes at those buildings seven years ago; come to think of it......there ain't no difference between YOU and the "America" YOU want, and the former Soviet Union. Torture, murder, basic denial of fundamental human rights, being held without trial (which you say you oppose, but it's okay to torture and murder them? Oh shut the fuck up, will you??), "extraordinary rendition"..........shit, at least the Soviets had enough class and balls to do their OWN dirty work, as opposed to shipping them off to other countries that will do it for them.
You're just the other side of the coin, Bucko.
Absolutely NO different....and NO better.
And as far as killing Japanese and Germans.......are you fucking THAT stupid?? You're equating actual deaths on a battlefield......to deliberate TORTURE, as condoned by Georgie-BOY??? Fuck, even the Japanese-Americans who were held in internment camps weren't TORTURED, fer fuck sakes, let alone MURDERED. The enemy POW's the U.S. held were afforded rights under the Geneva Convention, as well. But deliberately tortured and murdered???
Please....you're becoming more and more of a fucking airhead with each post you make.
HD misses to understand the concepts of law and democracy. He did prove so in earlier discussions.
Dropping the basic pricniples of a civilized society to fight terrorism makes you not better than the terrorists, it makes you actually even worse. Bin Laden did actually win because GWB and many US Americans are too stupid to understand that they are continuing his work by destroying their own principles.
"Your Supreme Court has already ruled that these so-called "terrorists" ARE entitled to due process. I'd say that's game-set-and-match.....don't you? "
No. The Supreme Court said the terrorists are entitled to be charged and tried, they did not say the US constitution or bill of rights applied to them.
I'm all for the rule of law. The terrorists should be tried, and if found guilty, executed.
"They do not apply to murdering terrorists "
"Well....another stellar moment from the self-proclaimed "True American", huh? Nice to see you compound the your own stupidity by advocating not only torture by your current Administration.....but MURDER as well. "
Do you even read what I write? I'm using murdering as an adjective describing the terrorists, not as an action for the US to do to them. I don't condone murdering the terrorists. But then if they are convicted as terrorists, they should be executed as guilty of breaking international laws. You can't murder a terrorist, only execute them. Murder implies killing someone innocent.
"When it comes to guys like YOU...there really is NO difference, between YOU and those scum who threw two planes at those buildings seven years ago; " Nice accusation. You can truly go fuck yourself. I used to think you were just a flowery over-reacting liberal. But you're just a rude blowhard dumbfuck, with your head jammed so far up your has, I don't know how you breathe. Must be Bug giving you mouth to mouth.
"And as far as killing Japanese and Germans.......You're equating actual deaths on a battlefield......to deliberate TORTURE." No dumbass. I'm saying the enemy in a time of war is not granted US constitutional rights. I'm pretty sure Japanese and Germans killed on the battlefield were not charged with a crime, given a trial, and executed after due process was served. Al Qaeda are the enemy, we are in a time of war. If we had killed them on the battlefield, you wouldn't say anything. Yet we capture them, and now US constitutional protections should be granted to them? You're fucking stupid.
"YOU DON'T EVEN TORTURE THE LOW-LIFE MURDERERS YOU HAVE SITTING ON DEATH ROW IN YOUR PENITENTIARIES!!!!" I didn't say we should, not that sitting on death row for 30 years isn't a form of torture. I would execute them immediately after the death sentence was read.
"But when it comes to these "terrorists" who have NOT been charged or convicted.....AND who the Supreme Court says ARE entitled to due process..... you say "torture and MURDER them!!"
That is not what I said at all. I said try them by military tribunal. If found guilty, then execute them. I didn't really express much of any opinion on torture, other than to say McCain was against it.
Since you didn't bother to serve yourself, maybe you should just STFU about telling others how America should be defended. Not like your profane insults will keep you safe from terrorists.
Bug, Canuck isn't getting enough air in there, better help him out.
HD, you are more than a bit ignorant to legal procedure.
If the USA wants to legaly charge the terrorists then on what other ground than your laws (including the constitution) that also apply to each and every citizen? It is your delusion that there are different rules based on what you call these people.
They are not part of your military, so you can not use military law procedure. If theys are prisoners of war you can not do anything with them but keep them captive. The result is that when you want to put them to cour they are subject to your normal civil laws and can be tried only like normal criminals.
You also mentioned that should they be found guilty according to international law they should be executed. Unfortunately the USA is not able to find them guilty due to international law. The UN has the power to install an ad hoc international court of justice for such cases. They did for Yugoslavia.
So the bottom line is that Guantanamo is illegal in the US law system as it is in the international law system.
People charged with war crimes after WW2, were often tried by military tribunals, and these defendents were not in the US military.
But if you prefer we just keep them captive as POWs, until the official end of the war on terror, that's ok with me.
"So the bottom line is that Guantanamo is illegal in the US law system as it is in the international law system."
McCain was the first to call for shutting Gitmo down.
So you got no cause to jump all over ME for calling you on it. YOUR WORDS. You SAID you advocated TORTURE; you SAID you advocated MURDER. What more do you want? If you want to backpeddle (i.e. CLARIFY) what you meant, then that's one thing. But if you want to scream and piss and moan about my response....well, then say what you mean if you want the RIGHT response.
There IS a terrorism threat out there; and yes, there IS decisive, concrete action that needs to be taken to address it. Badly.
But sinking to the level of those scum, by saying "ahhh hell with it; torture and murder them"? No-no-no-no......THEY do that shit; THEY do the televised beheadings; THEY perform the atrocities; THEY do NOT believe in the concept of due process. Why? Bceause THEY are fanatical scum.....vermin who twist their own religious teachings, to suit their own ends (much like evangelical christians, minus the glorified acts of mayhem in technocolor).
My whole point is that the overall effort against these lunatics ("war on terror") HAS been prosecuted BADLY, right from the start. Hindsight is always 20/20....isn't it?
Look....me saying you're no better than these characters, etc. WAS over-the-top. I withdraw those comments. When I'm wrong....I'm wrong....and I'll say so. So THAT portion of this debate I will acknowledge as being somewhat...out-of-line.
But the political leadership of the current Administration has screwed this up. Royally.
If anyone asks, I have the EXACT way these nutjobs SHOULD have been dealt with, right from the get-go.
But that's a story for another day.
So....I own what I say...and I say what I own. I think you'll see above that this is proof of that.
"You SAID you advocated TORTURE; you SAID you advocated MURDER. "
No I did not. I said "I didn't give a rats ass if terrorists are tortured", in a flippant remark, prior to writing about McCain's strong anti-torture fight. Which you denied as untrue, only to be over-ruled by the Obamesiah himself. Generally other interrogation techniques work better than torture, and give more accurate information. But my humanity toward those, that would deliberately kill women and children has very short limits. In my opinion, a captured terrorist has already proven he's an animal, and thus only deserving of basic animal rights. I would not torture a vicious pitbull. But if its clearly vicious, and a danger to others, you either need to keep it locked up, or put it down.
If they're guilty, imprison them, try them, execute them, or just kill them on the battlefield in the first place.
I don't support murder, because you can't murder a terrorist. You can execute a terrorist, you can take out a terrorist, you can help a terrorist meet Allah. But "murder" to me means killing someone that didn't deserve to die, that was unjustified and not necessary, that was not done to protect others. Not of this definition applies to terrorists.
Besides, the fanatical Islamic extremists want to die for Allah. We want them dead. Its really a win-win situation.
"There IS a terrorism threat out there; and yes, there IS decisive, concrete action that needs to be taken to address it. Badly. "
And what pray tell, is your more enlightened solution? Hugs and money for everyone? Bush is already spending vast sums of money on re-construction of Iraq and Afghanistan. Bush is already pressuring Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, and Pakistan to not support terror, and work to stop it. (Just isn't working with Iran) Diplomacy, soft power, and money have been used as far as they can go. There are limits, as Iraq clearly demonstrated, with UN sanctions crumbling due to Iraq bribes. As Iran clearly demonstrates, by flaunting UN resolutions to not make nukes. We will never agree on whether military action in Iraq was justified. We both agree mistakes in the application of that force were made.
"But sinking to the level of those scum, by saying "ahhh hell with it; torture and murder them"? No-no-no-no......THEY do that shit; THEY do the televised beheadings; THEY perform the atrocities; THEY do NOT believe in the concept of due process. "
I got news for you. Killing enemies on the battlefield denies them their due process. Canadian and German soldiers are in Afghanistan right now, denying the shit out of the Taliban's right to due process. I did not support torture and murder. I would deny terrorists their US constitutional rights, since they aren't covered by them, as enemies in time of war.
"My whole point is that the overall effort against these lunatics ("war on terror") HAS been prosecuted BADLY, right from the start. Hindsight is always 20/20....isn't it? "
Well no shit Sherlock! Haven't I mentioned mistakes in this war on terror? Have you noticed every Democrat politician running for office, who was convieniently not in office to vote authorizing the invasion of Iraq in 2003, has come out not supporting the invasion of Iraq? Obama, Franken, etc. Gee, I wonder why? Our political system must have repressed these more intelligent, more moral, better decision makers among us, until now.
"Look....me saying you're no better than these characters, etc. WAS over-the-top. I withdraw those comments. " I'll accept that.
"When I'm wrong....I'm wrong....and I'll say so. "
Did I miss that earlier? Must have been me. Cause I never heard you answer if you or Obama was wrong about McCain supporting torture?
"But the political leadership of the current Administration has screwed this up. Royally. " Again, no shit. Either Obama or McCain will be an improvement over Bush. As McCain said in the last debate, "If you wanted to run against Bush, you should have run 4 years ago." McCain for president is not an extension of Bush. McCain is way more like Hillary than he is like Bush. Does Bush want to fight global warming? Was Bush against torture? Does Bush want to close Gitmo?
Now then, we live in a brutal world. North Korea and Iran are both trying to develop nuclear weapons... well maybe NK is playing nice this week... But there are limits to diplomacy, especially if not backed by a credible threat of military force. Obama would not be a credible threat to Iran or NK, and certainly a green light for Iran to develop nukes.
Helldiver your wasting your breath, canuck 1963 will never acknowledge any of your points. He rants, raves, pouts and cries. As a (self admitted) under worked, overpaid, unionized civil servant he has an endless amount of time in which to surf the net in search of a fight. It has been my experience that most Canadians are no where near as angry as this fellow, I suspect he has searched his whole life for recognition or praise and this tiny Glumbert thread is as good as it gets for him.
Trust me there is no way on god's green earth that this guy is a cop. At best a fall down prison guard at worst a provincial rent a cop. With his ego if he was a cop you would already know his badge number and department.
Further, if his commendations were for anything significant he would likely have posted a link.
This guy probably simply showed up to work with some degree of regularity, moaned and wined, and they finally gave him a metal.
Lastly, if he was a cop and droned on to his partner the way he does here the guy probably would have shot him by now.
I'm not making any bets on his profession, I haven't found all police to be selective in their hiring practices, judging by some of the ignorant fat cops I've met. (Not that there aren't lots of good cops) But if Canuck has as much time to waste on Glumbert, as I have lately, he must not be a very effective cop.
Is that some kind of homosexual threat? If you prefer, I'd be happy to mail you some of my shit to have intercourse with, if it keeps you away from my ass.
Canuck isn't a bad guy. He just has a mental problem, known in the trade as "ego beyond his capabilities". I suspect he has a tiny whang, but then, compared with me, so do all of you! Haw haw!
Canuck 1963: You threaten every contributor on this thread who dare disagree with your uneducated opinions. Your constant references to contributors being scared and afraid is likely more a reflection of yourself.
If you were to just once take a deep breath and venture out past the small world of Glumbert and educate yourself you would realize how simple you appear. I suspect that your biggest problem with John Mc Cain is that he was the first politician to challenge the actions of your brethren jail guards in Iraq. Additionally, I suspect that his many years in a Nam prison also gave him a dim view of you and your lunch bucket jail guard ilk.
See here%u2019s the thing (and if you were an American you might understand this) John Mc Cain voted for the war, SURPRISE, along with a lot of other people. John did so based on the intelligence that was presented to congress. Not Republican intelligence, not Democrat intelligence, not even Canadian intelligence (actually that%u2019s an oxymoron) but American intelligence. Now when it was revealed that the original rational for the mission WMD were not to be found all Americans were forced to take a hard look at the situation.
Now I realize that as a scared little Canadian that your first instinct would be to cut and run, however, that is what separates us from you. Upon closer analysis it became clear that your buddy Sadam had successfully duped the world into believing that he had WMD%u2019s. You may recall his ejecting of U.N officials and other ongoing tactics designed to convince Iran and the rest of the world that he was more than he is. (kinda like you Canuck, you know fall down jailer playing policeman)
Now despite what you may think the average Iraq citizen was happy and relieved to be out of Sadam%u2019s clutch. So as Americans we chose to follow through, take something bad and bring about good change, no easy task and one thus far paid for with young American lives.
So if John seems a little angry to you, to bad. Come Election Day I think you will find that the average American has chosen to go with experience and wisdom. I fully believe that the Ophra glitz, boyz in the hood, lets put a brother in the white house just because we never had one mentality will go down in flames.
It's not easy to accept that you've admitted to something that disgraces and shames not only yourself....but the uniform you alledly wore....your nation and its guiding principles.
I believe your Founding Fathers had a description for those like YOU:
I am always astonished to see that the US supporters etc. are still able to tell the story how they all the rest of the world (except for the French) totally unquestioningly did believe the high quality intelligence about the WMD in Iraq.
Hey, if you are actually that dumb, who did the typing?
Wow:
I have been watching this bantering for some time now. I don't ususally respond, however the comments form canuck1963 has me dumb founded. Quite frankly i'm appauld and offended that you have the audasity to represent Canadian's, more importantly Canadaian Law Enforcement.
Looking at your responses and you claiming to be law enforcement is a joke. As a Canadian Police Officer (RCMP) we are bound to up hold a certain decorum. As we represent our individual forces on and off duty.
Your language and views are very backwoods(per say).
Canuck why is that you don't identify your branch of law enforcement. I t would appear to me that your lingo is more that of a inmate that any form of law enforcement. Thice decorated - as what ?
It would do you well to remember that all the folks in Iraq, wether they be Canadian or American are fighting for freedom for all, and that we should stand United and support our troops.
And to all our Amercian neighbors I appoligize of for his ignorance. As a Canadian, I may not always agree with American Politics, However I do respect each and everyone's opinion. I do not begin to call anyone names
or curse at them for having an opinion.
Tinu1, I completely agree with you, false alias or not.
Canuck, you haven't proved shit to me. Your left-wing rhetoric, insults, and bullshit simply don't support you being a cop, or even informed, reasonable, or rational. How about some copper stories to support your bs?
My neighbor, the one you theorized gives me fabulous reach-arounds, is a Ramsey county deputy, on the Asian gang task force. Get some booze in him, and its hard to stop the cop stories flowing out of him. Yet I don't much hear politics from him, because real cops are naturally guarded about their political views. Interfears with their job objectivity and all, not to mention that mayors are elected. He even worked security for the RNC in Minneapolis this year. I'll have to ask him to tell me some stories about your moonbat friends.
Last time I was talking to him, he was telling me about working security for the Taste of Minnesota in St. Paul. He was in plain clothes, and some guy standing next to him offers him a puff of his joint. So he had to say, "Sir, come with me." I found it a pretty funny story, which flow very easily from real cops. Funny you don't have any...
lol, You might want to check your spelling too, unlike you I can error and take responsibility. My mistake. OFFICER OR INMATE. JUST A TYPE-O
More than half your comments have spelling error, not because there type-o's just stupity
Comments (285)
To post a comment, you need to login or signup.