Some in the media have sensationalized one part
of Senator Obama’s comprehensive plan, going so
far as to suggest that the plan involves a threat
to invade Pakistan with ground forces. This
description is inaccurate and misleading, because
any student of the American military knows that we
have options to target terrorists with limited
force, many of which involve no American boots on
the ground. To suggest that targeting terrorists
would be tantamount to an invasion is to
misunderstand the capabilities of the U.S. military, or
to misrepresent his position.

We encourage you to look beyond the headlines and
read about the Senator’s plan here:

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/CounterterrorismFactSheet.pdf

It is time to turn the page on the conventional
wisdom in Washington that got us into a war with
no end, tells us today that talking to our
adversaries is a sign of weakness, and says that tough
talk and sound bites can replace the tough work of
diplomacy. Barack Obama had the judgment to
oppose the Iraq war from the beginning, and as
president, he will lead us in a better direction.

Wow, I guess that settles it then.:lolhit:

as
president (Obama) will lead us in a better direction.

Better direction............??

No kidding.

That goes without saying.

It is doubtful that anyone on earth could do worse than the smirking cretin from Crawford.

His vast experience and spot-on diplomacy sure convinced me!


I especially like pissing Pakistan off as much as possible! It's not like they have nukes or anything... errr... wait.... nevermind.

:eek:

We encourage you to look beyond the headlines...


Who's we?

Who's we?
Good catch.

Truthout, this reminds me of Obama's original comments on sex education being fine tuned by a spokesperson at a later date.

Does this guy actually have an opinion or will his declarations all consist of trial balloons followed by damage control?

I want a president who will kill all Muslim pig extremest's not invite them to the white House for cookies and milk

I want a president who will kill all Muslim pig extremest's not invite them to the white House for cookies and milk

Oh, the irony... :rolleyes:

http://noliberty.com/bandar-bush.jpg

I want a president who will use his bully pulpit to expose the bigotry and ignorance of that segment of Americans who make statements like -- ""I want a president who will kill all Muslim pig extremist's".

Americans who make statements like -- ""I want a president who will kill all Muslim pig extremist's" -- are the reason that there will always be terrorists focused on harming Americans.

____________________________

A large segment of American society seems utterly brainwashed, accepting the "truth" relentlessly fed to them by the Corporate Media. They desperately want to believe the slogans about the -- "Land of the Free", the "American Way", "God Bless America" and "American democracy".

Terrorism will disappear as soon as oil in middle east is over. After that the western world will no longer be interested in discussions over "ways of life" with muslims, and people and fish will finally co-exist peacefully.

Agreed, that is a damn stupid statement about "Muslim pig extremists" but I highly doubt that all conservative Americans feel that way.

Unlike Hugo Chavez.... he is the standard bearer of all things good in the world. Just ask his opponents... oops... sorry, they are all in prison or have been fired.

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2007/04/10/PM200704106.html

Terrorism will disappear as soon as oil in middle east is over. After that the western world will no longer be interested in discussions over "ways of life" with muslims, and people and fish will finally co-exist peacefully.ROFL!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eboECFMvWPI

ROFL!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eboECFMvWPI
Wha'? Yeah, this phrase became more iconic in Russia even than Tear down this wall. :)

Agreed, that is a damn stupid statement about "Muslim pig extremists" but I highly doubt that all conservative Americans feel that way.

Unlike Hugo Chavez.... he is the standard bearer of all things good in the world. Just ask his opponents... oops... sorry, they are all in prison or have been fired.

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2007/04/10/PM200704106.html
\


Speaking of Chavez,,,,, did you see the spokersman for the liberal world SEAN PENN chilln with ol' hugo last week????

\


Speaking of Chavez,,,,, did you see the spokersman for the liberal world SEAN PENN chilln with ol' hugo last week?


No. But good for Sean Penn. Unlike B*sh, Chavez has at least some care for the health and well being of the common people of his country, over and above that of the profits of the Corporatists.

No. But good for Sean Penn. Unlike B*sh, Chavez has at least some care for the health and well being of the common people of his country, over and above that of the profits of the Corporatists.


So just so I am clear on what your trying to say.... Huge chavez is a good guy.

So just so I am clear on what your trying to say.... Huge chavez is a good guy.

Gosh. There's nothing slow about you.

:rolleyes:

Chavez has his faults, but at least he does show a great deal of care and concern for the betterment of the common poor and working class people he represents, which is more than I can say for the ConservaFascist leaders in the U.S.

|||||||||| breathlessly awaiting the inevitable --"well iffin you lack that Chavez guy so much whyn't you go and live with him you god durned Commie!!"-- retort ||||||||||||||

Better direction............??

No kidding.

That goes without saying.

It is doubtful that anyone on earth could do worse than the smirking cretin from Crawford.

I don't suppose it ever occured to you that EACH Candidate has
a small army of PR people and Spin doctors working on their
campaigns,feverishly parsing words and readjusting presious
comments as to make their candidate appear near perfect.
That is why Newt is so worried about this TOO early campaigning
attempt.It's basically a media blitz,to give the News types somethin
to do and get paid for.
What really counts in a candidate is how they field questions
in a Live Debate.
That being,w/o any Help from staffers and PR folk.
I don't suppose you ever saw a TV Commercial with flops or
mistakes in it.
That is why Hillary won't do well,in a Live debate against the
likes of a Newt Gingrich.
because she's basically a Pathological Liar,who has already
exhausted too many attempys at readjusting her previous comments.
It was pointed out yesterday,that she basically said the exact
same thing about Iran a year ago.When asked what should be done
in Iran.
So,she's a Diplomat when it serves the question and Hawkish when
it serves another questioner.
She can't even admit the obvious.
Why she Voted for The war,but Against the Levin bill.
Why she's Sooooooooooo smart yet stated she was briefed by
another on NIE.That other,would have to have special classified
clearance.So,she lied about whomever that other was,apparently
There WASN't any other.Couldn't have been.
She was on Armed Services Committee,and few had access to
NIE.
She was just too damn Lazy to read a report that was her responsibility.
So she conviently made up a cutey cover story.
The same Bullshit she pulled as First Lady in
Filegate
Travelgate
Vince Foster
Whitewater
and recently when it was written in a scathing new Book about
her,that actually behind the scenes,Hillary was The Enforcer,
making sure certain women were bullied and threatened over
the prospect of telling what they knew about Slick Willy's
mashing {Harrasment,groping,rape} charges.
Oh sure little Miss Carpetbagger Fraudlein is lavashing in the limelight NOW.
But as more and more conflicting reports,come out about her
TOTAL Non-credible accomplishments and failed attempts to
truth tell and make good on her many blatherings,then maybe the
Plank will be her best step forward.

|||||||||| breathlessly awaiting the inevitable --"well iffin you lack that Chavez guy so much whyn't you go and live with him you god durned Commie!!"-- retort ||||||||||||||I won't say that, but I will say you seem rather apathetic about his curbing of dissent and free speech.

|||||||||| breathlessly awaiting the inevitable --"well iffin you lack that Chavez guy so much whyn't you go and live with him you god durned Commie!!"-- retort ||||||||||||||

Oh no sir....I know you were not refering as if I would come up with a retort as that. (by the way you do write "red neck" so well it makes me wonder your true affiliation)

I just wanted to know if that was what you were truely getting at. Before I decided to cast you off as a complete and total fool I wanted to make sure I didnt miss anything.

PS. There is a differance between being a free thinker and someone that has no grasp of any reality.

I won't say that, but I will say you seem rather apathetic about his curbing of dissent and free speech.

We Americans have enough to worry about in that regard right here in our own country.

.

If Obama wants to seek out terrorists in uncooperative Pakistan what will he do with them when he eliminates coercive interviewing practices and closes Guantanamo?

If Obama wants to seek out terrorists in uncooperative Pakistan what will he do with them when he eliminates coercive interviewing practices and closes Guantanamo?

:lolhit: Great question.

No. But good for Sean Penn. Unlike B*sh, Chavez has at least some care for the health and well being of the common people of his country, over and above that of the profits of the Corporatists.
And considering the fact that Penn lives in a 10 million dollar mansion in Malibu (with several summer homes and a private jet to boot), it's a good thing that he cares little for profits himself. If our system were structured like Chavez's, the "I am Sam" star would find himself pulling a rickshaw for a living. But, hey - at least he'd still be able to bitch about American politics, and the best part is - he'd only have to pay .39 cents for a gallon of gasoline while doing it.

I think it's great that Sean finally found someone who'll listen to him, and just think - he only had to travel a few thousand miles to find him.

Originally Posted by Freethinker
-- breathlessly awaiting the inevitable --"well iffin you lack that Chavez guy so much whyn't you go and live with him you god durned Commie!!"-- retort ---------

I won't say that, but I will say you seem rather apathetic about his (Chavez') curbing of dissent and free speech.

I can tell you that I am far, far less concerned about a leader (who has done many positive things for the people of the country he leads) in a country thousands of miles away 'curbing people's speech' than I am about the political leaders in my own country lying the nation into a disastrous war that many thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars are being wasted on.

We can natter on about Chavez all day. But what he does and says means almost nothing to us here in America, compared to what the Smirker in Chief does and says.

All this talk of Chavez does is distract from what is of paramount importance in this country and its future;

If ***things that are negative for America and Americans*** were to be placed on a scale of one to one hundred, Hugo Chavez would not even register; GWB*sh would be on the very high end of that scale.

If Obama wants to seek out terrorists in uncooperative Pakistan what will he do with them when he eliminates coercive interviewing practices and closes Guantanamo?

Gee, I don't know... maybe prosecute them and put them in prison. It works everywhere else in the world. Why not here? :rolleyes:

Why is our prison system insufficient for holding so-called "enemy combatants"? Do you believe they somehow more dangerous than the psycho killers and rapists we already keep there?

Since that is unrealistic the only logical conclusion is that we keep them in gitmo so we can treat them in ways we wouldn't even treat psycho killers and rapists here in America.

.

Gee, I don't know... maybe prosecute them and put them in prison. It works everywhere else in the world. Why not here? :rolleyes:
Prosecute them where, in the American court system with all guaranteed constitutional protections? No, they're not entitled to that.

Which prisons?

Which other countries do that?

Prosecute them where, in the American court system with all guaranteed constitutional protections? No, they're not entitled to that.

You are quite wrong.

The Constitution purposely and clearly says "persons" not "citizens".

Which prisons?

You didn't answer my question.

Why is that?

You are quite wrong.

The Constitution purposely and clearly says "persons" not "citizens".
So what - it's not enforceable or applicable for non-Americans NOT on our soil. However, you may be on to something here - perhaps a fair trial followed by a swift hanging would make you happy. If so, then suuure - let's find 'em guilty already, and bury 'em alive. Then we can all go home, catch the baseball game on our 50 inch flat screen, high-def TV's while we drink a beer or two and sigh in relief.

Not a bad plan there, Dharma....

So what - it's not enforceable or applicable for non-Americans NOT on our soil.

The Constitution does not say that.
The Constitution limits the power of the government and because it specifically says "persons" and not "citizens", logic says that it still does apply to non-citizens that we apprehend off our own soil.

Do you believe they somehow more dangerous than the psycho killers and rapists we already keep there?

You didn't answer my question.

Why is that?Usually inane questions are rhetorical. I didn't know you wanted an answer.

Anyway then, it's not a question of who is more dangerous in the criminal justice system. Why is it important to know this. You lumped together "psycho killers and rapists". Is it important to know which of them is more dangerous.

So since your answering my question seemed to hinge on my answering yours first, go ahead and answer mine.
To wit: which of our prisons should hold enemy combatants
and
which other countries put their enemy combatants in their prison system (as you claimed - start Googling).

The Constitution does not say that.
The Constitution limits the power of the government and because it specifically says "persons" and not "citizens", logic says that it still does apply to non-citizens that we apprehend off our own soil.
Twist it any way you want, Dharma - the Constitution isn't sacrosanct. It isn't enforceable on foreign soil, and it DOESN'T apply to foreign nationals on soil that isn't ours, period. You may be sympathetic to their "cause", however I am not. Hell, maybe you just wanna wholesale our rights (an incredibly myopic proposition, and dispicable in the extreme, but nevertheless, "noble" to a degree), however I DON'T - and come to think of it....nor would any self-respecting American (who, by definition, wouldn't pride themselves on cheapening what we're trying to accomplish in Iraq by applying a nerd-like interpretation of our Constitution through the petty use semantics). You can play armchair litigator all you want, it doesn't change the fact that your mentality (and the mentality of those like you) will surely cost us this war in the long run. Congratulations on a "battle" well fought, Captain America. :rolleyes:

Hey.....at least you're doing your part, right?

Not saying whether I agree or disagree with the following. However, it did appear in my mailbox this morning, so obviously, it's being circulated around the country. Just thought Obama supporters should be aware of the publicity their candidate is receiving and give them a chance at rebuttal.


Who is Barack Obama??

Probable U.S. presidential candidate,
Barack Hussein Obama was born in
Honolulu, Hawaii, to Barack Hussein
Obama, Sr. a black MUSLIM from
Nyangoma-Kogel, Kenya and Ann
Dunham, a white ATHIEST from Wichita,
Kansas.


Obama's parents met at the University of Hawaii. When Obama was 2 years old, his parents divorced.? His father returned to Kenya.

His mother then married Lolo Soetoro, a RADICAL Muslim from Indonesia.

When Obama was 6 years old the family relocated to Indonesia. Obama attended a MUSLIM school in Jakarta. He also spent 2 years in a Catholic school.

Obama takes great care to conceal the fact that he is a Muslim.
He is quick to point out that "He was once a Muslim, but that he also "attended Catholic School."

Obama's political handlers are attempting to make it appear that Obama's introduction to Islam came via his father, and that this influence was temporary at best. In reality, the senior Obama returned to Kenya soon
after the divorce, and never again had any direct influence over his son's education.

Lolo Soetoro, the second husband of Obama's mother, Ann Dunham, introduced his stepson to Islam.? Obama was enrolled in a Wahabi school in Jakarta.

Wahabism is the RADICAL teaching that is followed by the Muslim terrorists who are now waging Jihad against the western world.

Since it is politically expedient to be a CHRISTIAN when seeking Major public office in the United States, Barack Hussein has joined the United Church of Christ in an attempt to downplay his Muslim background.

Let us all remain alert concerning Obama's expected presidential candidacy. The Muslims have said they plan on destroying the U.S. from the inside out, what better way to start than at the highest level - through the President of the United States, one of their own!!!

Also, keep in mind that when he was sworn into office - he DID NOT use the Holy Bible, but instead the Kuran (their equivelancy to our Bible, but very different beliefs)

Please foward to everyone you know.? Would you want this man leading our country?? .........NOT ME!!!!

:hula:

Who is Barack Obama?? Exquisite piece of writing there. Bigotry and misinformation at their absolute finest. I applaud the author.

Not saying whether I agree or disagree with the following. However, it did appear in my mailbox this morning, so obviously, it's being circulated around the country. Just thought Obama supporters should be aware of the publicity their candidate is receiving and give them a chance at rebuttal.

Rebuttal to what? The article doesn't attack anything Obama had control over. It does receive an A+ for smear effort.

Honestly, why would you post that? Did you think it was worthy of discussion?

Honestly, why would you post that?
Because she wanted to. Why? Does it not fall within the guidelines of acceptability?
Did you think it was worthy of discussion?
Uh, my guess would be yes, although - (and I have to admit) - I'm inclined to agree with you. For the author of this piece to (rather boldly, I might add) imply/theorize that he's some sort of "inside man" supplanted by the Islamic fundamentalists - well........I'm speechless. Not only is that fuckin' funny, it's ridiculous in the extreme.

Rebuttal to what? The article doesn't attack anything Obama had control over. It does receive an A+ for smear effort.

Honestly, why would you post that? Did you think it was worthy of discussion?

It is a solid piece of REALITY, CB. Did you not read that it came to me via email today? Shall we all stick our heads in the sand and hope things like that will go away?

Funny, conservatives are the ones who are usually charged with ignoring the 'pulse' of the country. I provide an example of what's going around about a liberal candidate and nobody wants to see it.

Double standard... imagine that.

SMW

Bigotry and misinformation at their absolute finest.
How do you know if any of the information contained within that email is wrong? Suppositions aside, I'd already heard similar things about "Barack Hussein Obama" before. Call me a bigot all you want - those people DON'T like us, and I'd rather NOT have one leading our country. He's no more representative of this nation than I am of French Polynesia.

It is a solid piece of REALITY, CB. Did you not read that it came to me via email today? Shall we all stick our heads in the sand and hope things like that will go away?

Funny, conservatives are the ones who are usually charged with ignoring the 'pulse' of the country. I provide an example of what's going around about a liberal candidate and nobody wants to see it.

Double standard... imagine that.

SMW

It's a smear piece. The "reality" it reports is diluted with fearmongering.

It's a smear piece. The "reality" it reports is diluted with fearmongering.
This isn't how to do a proper rebuttal. If you really want to challenge it, you'd find the correct information, post it, then argue as to why your interpretation should be the one used instead of the other.

This isn't how to do a proper rebuttal. If you really want to challenge it, you'd find the correct information, post it, then argue as to why your interpretation should be the one used instead of the other.Or you can go to the fine people at snopes.com, who have thoroughly debunked the claims:

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

See also:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/

Twist it any way you want, Dharma - the Constitution isn't sacrosanct.

Prat,

As usual, you are completely wrong on every important point.
It is quite clear you know absolutely nothing about the Constitution of the United States and you care even less.

sac·ro·sanct /ˈsækroʊˌsæŋkt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sak-roh-sangkt]
–adjective
1. extremely sacred or inviolable: a sacrosanct chamber in the temple.
2. not to be entered or trespassed upon: She considered her home office sacrosanct.



It isn't enforceable on foreign soil, and it DOESN'T apply to foreign nationals on soil that isn't ours, period.

The purpose of the Constitution is to limit the power of the government against encroachment on the rights we hold to be inalienable, granted by our creator to all people.

You are right that it doesn't apply to foreign nationals, but that is irrelivent because it does apply to our government no matter where it is operating.

You can take your unjustified anger towards me for actually giving a shit about the Constitution and you can shove it where the sun don't shine.

:thumbs:

Usually inane questions are rhetorical.

In that case I guess I should ignore all your questions from now on since they are all rhetorical. :rolleyes:


which of our prisons should hold enemy combatants


Any prison in the US will suffice.

It does receive an A+ for smear effort.

Honestly, why would you post that?

You just answered your own question before you asked it.


Did you think it was worthy of discussion?

SMW doesn't want discussion. She just wants to put the smear out there to muddy the waters.

Killing an enemy for resolving a problem makes two enemies and two problems.

How do you know if any of the information contained within that email is wrong? Here you go:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp

If that's not enough, there's plenty of more information on Barack Obama on the web will debunk the content of that email. I will also add that the author of that email provides no sources or evidence for his claims.

In short, don't believe everything you're emailed.

ON EDIT: Looks like sedan got to the Snopes article before me, but I'll keep the link here anyway.

Call me a bigot all you want - those people DON'T like us, and I'd rather NOT have one leading our country.Apart from the fact that Obama isn't Muslim, the assumption that someone who is Muslim must hate this country is way off the mark. There are numerous examples to the contrary, especially among American Muslims.

He's no more representative of this nation than I am of French Polynesia.I've had things like that said about me, and it pisses the shit out of me every time.
But anyway... Obama was born in the US and spent only 4 years of his life overseas. The rest of his life has been spent in this country. There's no reason to think that he's not "representative" of the US.

Exquisite piece of writing there. Bigotry and misinformation at their absolute finest. I applaud the author.
********************************
Because it's too dour to be true.?
That's the strength of Obama and Hillary.
The more ones KNOWS bout them,the worse it is for US.
Because at the end of the Day,sanity should reign supreme.
NOT some massaged Bio that a candidate had experts
gleam and preen and make like shining Gold,inside King Tut's Tomb.

What part of "Obama is not a Muslim" are you right wing kooks faililng to understand?

.

Apart from the fact that Obama isn't Muslim, the assumption that someone who is Muslim must hate this country is way off the mark. There are numerous examples to the contrary, especially among American Muslims.
Sure. And then again, there are also numerous examples to back the assumption up.
I've had things like that said about me, and it pisses the shit out of me every time.
I can imagine, and it is "unfair", however, I'm sure you didn't come from a broken home, and you probably weren't given the "Christian name" Barack either, were you?

The whole situation smacks of bad karma.
But anyway... Obama was born in the US and spent only 4 years of his life overseas. The rest of his life has been spent in this country. There's no reason to think that he's not "representative" of the US.
I disagree. I know nothing about his positions - his web page reads like joke - "highlighting" his desire to (if you read between the lines) socialize our healthcare system, rob our business owners, and make our country more popular overseas. Nary a real "plan" is laid out for how he wishes to "fight terrorism" (beyond "strengthening our borders", that is - a novel idea, for sure...:rolleyes: ).

However, and possibly MORE importantly here, lots of "popular" sentiments were echoed.....

Or you can go to the fine people at snopes.com, who have thoroughly debunked the claims:

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

See also:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/
That's how it's done!

You are right that it doesn't apply to foreign nationals, but that is irrelivent because it does apply to our government no matter where it is operating.
Way to sharpen your pencil there, Poindexter. Were you under the impression that I didn't understand what you were trying to say?
You can take your unjustified anger towards me for actually giving a shit about the Constitution and you can shove it where the sun don't shine.
Really? Why don't you swing on by - I'll be happy to.

Were you under the impression that I didn't understand what you were trying to say?


I repeat:
It is quite clear you know absolutely nothing about the Constitution of the United States and you care even less.

And I repeat:

Hell, maybe you just wanna wholesale our rights (an incredibly myopic proposition, and dispicable in the extreme, but nevertheless, "noble" to a degree), however I DON'T - and come to think of it....nor would any self-respecting American (who, by definition, wouldn't pride themselves on cheapening what we're trying to accomplish in Iraq by applying a nerd-like interpretation of our Constitution through the petty use semantics). You can play armchair litigator all you want, it doesn't change the fact that your mentality (and the mentality of those like you) will surely cost us this war in the long run. Congratulations on a "battle" well fought, Captain America. :rolleyes:

Ben Franklin was talking about you Prat.

:thumbs: