> > You're good at accusing your political opponents
> of all sounding the same regardless of
> how much attention they pay, but don't you see that it
> makes you one Obamaniac among
> many? Why are you so unwilling to accept different people
> on the opposite side of the
> spectrum as just that, different people. "Joe the
> Lying Plumber" who got Obama to say he
> was all about spreading wealth. How did Joe lie about
> that? Why isn't Obama the one
> deserving of your attention, since he's the one who
> will spread the wealth, associates with
> terrorists, will meet with America's enemies without
> preconditions, etc? You might as well
> add "No Spin Zone" to all of your posts, for all
> the bias you have.
> > *Queen+Paul Rodgers, "Voodoo"*
> Joe the Lying Plumber lied because he's not a licensed
> plumber, he wasn't planning on
> buying that company, which he couldn't afford, even if
> he did want to buy it, not that it's
> even for sale (he lied about that, too).
==== Wow. I can just imagine how vehement you'd be if you supported the rights of private citizens to keep their lives private. Luckily you've never ever advocated such an extremist position.
This is the guy
> McCain has a serious man-crush on.
> This is the guy McCain just called [pause for laughter] his
> "role-model." His "role-model" is
> a liar, who just said that Obama is death to Israel. Then
> he had the... idiocy? senior
> moment? to gesture to his audience and say,
> "You're all Joe the Plumber." Way to go, you
> doddering old war-monger. Call your audience a bunch of
> ill-informed liars. Oh, wait.
> Actually, drop the sarcasm there. You hit that one right on
> the head, Grumpy Old Man.
===== Which has exactly nothing to do with Obama the Presidential candidate and his explicit intention to have the government take away people's money according to his own ideas of fairness. But then you know that, and that's why you're ignoring that. Gotcha.
> Do you have a problem with a candidate who
> "associates" with terrorists, or just a
> candidate named Obama who "associates" with
> terrorists? Because McCain "palled around"
> with Gordon Libby. McCain gave Rashid Kalidi WAY more money
> than Obama did. Oh, and
> Obama "launched his political career" at a Ramada
> Inn. It's not an exact quote, but in the
> almost words of Keith Olbermann, "No, red-staters,
> Ramada Inn is not a Muslim holiday."
==== No, people who think the government should stay out of private business, Obama took so much money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac but anybody who opposes his desire to take money from citizens is a liar and undoubtedly a racist. And their private lives are to be held up to public scrutiny into the bargain, as you've always advocated.
> Both candidates, and both parties, are all about
> "spreading the wealth," so get used to it. If
> we have to spread the wealth, I'd rather do it here
> than in Iraq.
===== Better tell that to all the "citizens of the world" (as Obama put it when speaking to the Krauts) who don't recognize national boundaries. By the way, why don't Iraqis deserve any investment? Are they too brown for you to see any benefit from?
===== We don't have to "spread the wealth", and your side is the only one advocating that. My side is spreading freedom.
> When not being taken out of context, Obama has said that
> any meetings he would have
> with our enemies would come down the line. You know, they
> would have to meet with his
> guys, and then his other guys, and then, later, he would
> meet with them, himself. If we're
> dealing with a crisis situation, though, you damn well
> better believe I want a leader who's
> willing to sit down and talk to whoever.
==== When taken in context, Obama promises to meet with our enemies without any preconditions.
Obama and Biden will renew American diplomacy to meet the challenges of the 21st century. They will rebuild our alliances. And they would be willing to meet with all nations, friend and foe, to advance American interests.
Obama supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions.
Obama and Biden are willing to meet with the leaders of all nations, friend and foe.
Oh, here's a funny one considering how Obama insisted the Georgia problem be sent to the UN Security Council where Russia has a veto: Obama and Biden will rally NATO members to contribute troops to collective security operations, urging them to invest more in reconstruction and stabilization operations, streamlining the decision-making processes, and giving NATO commanders in the field more flexibility.
Is Georgia going to become a member of NATO? Not on Obama and Biden's watch.
And this is all from Obama's own personal website. Want to hear how he's going to meet with America's enemies without preconditions? It's his very first response. Hillary did better.
Here's a current vice-presidential candidate refusing to meet with America's enemies without preconditions.
And if you care about vice-presidential candidates, here's one candidate for veep saying that the man he follows isn't ready for President, and he would be proud to serve the opponent.
So, to sum up, when discussing America's enemies, you want someone who will disregard his much more experienced vice-president, and will talk to our enemies, even though our enemies have made it very clear that they see no point in talking to us. How many years has the Bush adminstration spent in multilateral discussion with Iran? It boggles the mind, but it hasn't made any difference. But you want to keep going. If Obama wins, say hello to a nuculear holocaust, and you'll just want to keep on talking. You go, girl.
*Queen+Paul Rodgers, "We Believe"*