2008 Presidential Election

[Bandit]

But it does not good to just switch between the R and D every 8 to 12 years which is what we've done for a century (with a few exceptions). Its not working, its not going to work because they are more interested in power for powers sake than in the people.

Give it time to change but do stay on top of it like you do.
Some people are just slow.

One day there will be presidents who are not pinkish purple. I would even take green at this point just to get out of this aweful rut of lies.

[Bandit]

The bottom line up front reality is, regardless of who is elected president. No one is going to be able to fix the mess this country is in within 4 years! The people will chose who they want to lead this country, and from the looks of it the next president will be Obama. McCain as president is a very freighting thought!

Can they fix it in 100 years? Maybe if we stay fighting in Iraq for 100 years McCain & his cronies can fix it?

Obama is going to twiddle his thumbs too as that is exactly what he has done in Illinois for 4 years.



to say the people will pick the next president is not true. the only reason we will be stuck with the same system is because it does not allow anyone else to become president.

If obamama wins watch as the other guy tells all his followers to follow the other guy exactly the same way clinton told her followers to follow the other guy. It has a pyramid scheme that allows no choice but only makes people think they have a choice

[Bandit]

Either one of them is a FRIGHTENING thought.

do you want peach cobbler or do you want peach cobbler?

do you want twiddle dee or twiddle dum?

[fltoo]

Either one of them is a FRIGHTENING thought.

[HRx]

The bottom line up front reality is, regardless of who is elected president. No one is going to be able to fix the mess this country is in within 4 years! The people will chose who they want to lead this country, and from the looks of it the next president will be Obama. McCain as president is a very freighting thought!

[JRScott]

But it does not good to just switch between the R and D every 8 to 12 years which is what we've done for a century (with a few exceptions). Its not working, its not going to work because they are more interested in power for powers sake than in the people.

[MomIcantFindmy]

because we are tired of THIS administration...simply put we need balance. We are aware that we are not going to elect a third party candidate this election cycle. We are going to elect anyone who is not Republican. We saw it at the mid term election and the November election is going to be a repeat. Say what you will ....but that is how many Americans are feeling right now. Me included.

PS; Glad to see this thread back on topic of 2008 Presidential Election!!!!

[JRScott]

I am pro-choice and a liberal.
Obama.
Anybody liberal and democratic. If the devil was the candidate against the republican & the ron paul of this world I'd vote for the devil.
The "conservative" that have turned out to be quite wildly liberal with their spending, spying and lying to americans have done quite enough damage to this country.

So why choose the Democrats, they've overspent wildly in the past, lied to voters and spied on the American people? Why are they any different than the Republicans?

[bmrigs]

I am pro-choice and a liberal.
Obama.
Anybody liberal and democratic. If the devil was the candidate against the republican & the ron paul of this world I'd vote for the devil.
The "conservative" that have turned out to be quite wildly liberal with their spending, spying and lying to americans have done quite enough damage to this country.

baaaa says the sheep.....

[juniperGreen]

going on the record...

I am pro-choice and a liberal.
Obama.
Anybody liberal and democratic. If the devil was the candidate against the republican & the ron paul of this world I'd vote for the devil.
The "conservative" that have turned out to be quite wildly liberal with their spending, spying and lying to americans have done quite enough damage to this country.

[Bandit]

The worst thing that could happen to the American economy at any time would be the detonation of a nuclear bomb in the financial district of New York City. On a par with that would be the release of airborne anthrax in the same part of town. The terror caused by such an attack would cripple the banking system within hours. This would spread to the entire world. The economic breakdown would be rapid, and it would be extensive. I cannot think of any area of the economy that it would not affect adversely.

What better & quicker way would there be to impose marshal law & completely shut down the middle class? maybe that is exactly what some of them want & are planning to happen? Everything is in place for it.

all the signs of a global depression are there, all that is really needed is a world war.

only thing is they would need to tap a little more than just new york because the servers are everywhere & well, should all be backed up...unless they dont want them all backed up...

hard to say, but that is a possibility & nothing to ignore the potential danger of. The baby crash of 9-11 most definatley shut the world down real quick as the econcomy started drowning in its own sludge.

hey, that is life today hanging on a wire...not too smart is it.(?)

[Bandit]

Its always threats imposed on Israel and not the threat of 300+ nukes that they have though they still deny it. Or how the US looks the other way in how the Palestinians are abused. The US has lost alot of credibility in Foriegn Policy due to its relationship with Israel. The US and Israel can have nukes but no other nation in the Middle East can. This is a double standard. We preach "freedom and democracy" to other nations but our Allies in the Middle East are otherwise and that includes Israel. When the democratically elected Hamas won their elections we didnt acknowledge them. When the Islamic Party of Algeria won their elections in the 90's we turned a blind eye when they were violently subdued by their adversaries. Obama understands and so does Mcain and any other presidential hopeful, that you have to pay the lip service to Israel to be elected. To be an opponent or speak out against the Zionist state means to lose your presidential bid for the White House.

it is ok for mc & oba to have nuclear weapons & it is ok for israel...but no one else is allowed. we made the bomb, dropped the bomb & say who can & who cannot have the bomb. It is laughable.

I agree on every point especially the foreign policy. I could be wrong but if you go back to before the 1940's...this whole israel belief did not even exist. A few preachers came up with an idea & well...the rest is history.

but you also know there are tons of christians today who totally reject the entire israel thing & have a completely different picture to paint.

one thing about obas deck of cards is he can get the muslim vote because in the muslim religion if your dad is a muslim then you are automatic a muslim. he can get the christian vote because jesus is his savior & rev wright helped him find jesus...or so he says...so he just has to join mccain on the 1948 issue to get the jewish vote & right wingers.
but if you really look close at obas 20 year religion, his beliefs/church actually lean more toward africa than israel & when you really investigate his preacher who he supported with big bucks, their religious belief on israel is not even close to what oba claims. so he had to dump wright & join mccain to complete that part of the system.

it is ok to kill people in other countries but not people in israel. it is ok to kill your own soldiers in war, but not israel soldiers...now let me think about that.

I do get a kick of how these guys stack & deal their cards like we actually would believe the deck wasn't stacked.

[bmrigs]

[BankruptPinoy]

Bush, McCain & Obama To Visit Bohemian Grove?

From Digg:

http://digg.com/political_opinion/Bush_McCain_Obama_To_Visit_Bohemian_Grove

[BankruptPinoy]

A Worst-Case Scenario for Obama (and Us) by Gary North

A Worst-Case Scenario for Obama (and Us)

by Gary North

I have given a lot of thought to this question: "What is the worst-case scenario that has a relatively high probability of taking place over the next six months that I want to prepare against?"

The worst thing that could happen to the American economy at any time would be the detonation of a nuclear bomb in the financial district of New York City. On a par with that would be the release of airborne anthrax in the same part of town. The terror caused by such an attack would cripple the banking system within hours. This would spread to the entire world. The economic breakdown would be rapid, and it would be extensive. I cannot think of any area of the economy that it would not affect adversely.

We have no idea what the odds are, for or against, for such an act of terrorism. Given the fact that it has not happened yet, the odds seem to be against it. So, looking at those events that have a reasonable probability of taking place over the next six months, we should not list this sort of terrorist mega-attack as being high on the list of priorities that we should be preparing for.

Then what is the worst scenario that is more likely? I keep coming back to the same event: war with Iran.

This can happen in either of two ways. First, the President unilaterally issues an order to one or more aircraft carrier task forces to bomb suspected Iranian nuclear production facilities. Second, the Prime Minister of the State of Israel issues a similar order to the Israeli Air Force. I think the second is more probable than the first.

These days, there is greater talk about this second possibility than there has been over the last year. There are signs that the Israelis are preparing to launch such an attack. While this is not being discussed on the evening network news shows, it is being discussed in the fringes of the mainstream media.

I was convinced as recently as last November that there would be war with Iran. Then, with the simultaneous release by 16 American intelligence agencies of a report concluding that the Iranians ceased working on a program to create a nuclear weapon back in 2003, I decided that the powers that be had boxed in President Bush on this issue. You can read the report here.

In other words, the American Establishment had decided that it would not be a good idea for the United States to attack Iran. But the American Establishment has only indirect influence over the decisions of the government of the State of Israel. The fact that America's intelligence agencies have concluded, for public consumption, that Iran is not pursuing the development of a nuclear weapon may have only limited significance on the decisions of senior officials in the Israeli government. In fact, it may pressure the leaders to launch an air strike on Iran. They may sense a wavering in the Establishment's support for Israel.

The immediate domestic issue is this: Who will be elected President of the United States in November? The question is this: Do senior decision-makers in the government of the State of Israel believe that Obama will be significantly less willing to accept the possibility of an Israeli air strike on Iran than President Bush would be?

This issue will not be raised publicly by either party during the election campaign. No Republican senior strategist dares say that Obama is soft on Israel's defense. Obama on June 4 stated clearly that, with respect to the protection of the State of Israel, there is nothing that he would be unwilling to do as President.

Obama stated, I suggest that you think through your plans on the assumption that there will be an attack by the Israeli Air Force on Iran before January 20, 2009. That's what I am doing; so, I suggest that's what you should do.

You would be wise to factor such an attack into your economic strategy. You should look at your employment possibilities, your retirement portfolio, and the solvency of your employer. How well would your company do in an economy in which gasoline is at least $10 a gallon? What about $20? How would you do personally under these circumstances?

I suggest that you sit down with a pencil and a piece of paper and write down the changes in your life that would be imposed by gasoline at $10 a gallon. Think through the implications of a permanent war by Shia insurgents in Iraq.

Add to this the re-arming of insurgent groups in Afghanistan.

Add to this the loss of confidence in the American stock market by investors who come to the realization that the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan are escalating because of low-cost weapons supplied by Iran to insurgent groups, and they see that the federal deficit is likely to go up by 50% over the next three or four years.

Then think about a shift to the euro by Middle Eastern oil exporters.

It's an ugly scenario.

July 9, 2008

http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north638.html

Links referenced in above column:

Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities

http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20071203_release.pdf

Senator Barack Obama
AIPAC Policy Conference 2008
June 4, 2008

http://www.aipac.org/Publications/SpeechesByPolicymakers/PC_08_Obama.pdf

Fallon resigns as chief of U.S. forces in Middle East

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/03/11/fallon.resigns/index.html