Obamacons (REAL Libertarians vote Obama!)

I'm an independent Stephanine and I think of him as one of us regardless of what party he affiliated with.

Let me ask you a question. Would your view change any if he were pro choice, for some gun control or in favor of affirmative action?

Apparently the majority of people in the United States thought Dubwa sucked less which goes with what I've been saying. You guys keep nominating some pretty lilberal people and it keeps getting worse.

I thought he didn't win the popular vote in his first election so I'm not sure how you can say that.

Aaron wrote:Sherm, in all the time I've known you that's about the stupidest thing you've ever said. From Frank, I would expect a comment like that. You though, I thought had more respect for those who serve this great country.

Aaron, maybe you should have thought a little longer on Sherm's statement before you hastily fired off your critique.

I wasn't surprised at what he said, ....... I was surprised he said it.

.

Aaron wrote:I'm an independent Stephanine and I think of him as one of us regardless of what party he affiliated with.

Let me ask you a question. Would your view change any if he were pro choice, for some gun control or in favor of affirmative action?

powell favors abortion rights, which is why i would not have voted for hiim.

Well Aaron if you don't think suction is used to attain rank in the military you are more naive than I had you figured.

Sure Sherm, there's some brown nosing. Almost as much as in the state police. And it will get you so far. But only so far and if you think it will get you to a postion that only one person can hold at a time, then you're not quite as intelligent as I had you pegged for Sherm. Somewhere around a box of rocks would be the neighborhood I believe.

Well I guess you did not see the story about Petraeus' superior referring to him as a suckass Aaron.

There is "brown-nosing" all the way up the chain.

And there are those who do not.

I do not know if Powell was in one category or the other.

I was just responding to your general statement about anyone who rises to that rank.

His 'boss' said that over personal feelings and a disagreement of tatics in Iraq, which btw, Fallon turned out to be wrong on. To say the least, it certainly wasn't very professional for an Admiral with 38 years service to call a 4 star general with 34 years service an "ass kissing chichen shit" because you disagreed with him both tatically and militarily. IMHO, it speaks more to the lack of character of Admiral Fallon then it says anything about General Petraeus, but that's just me.

I won't point out that Fallon being wrong and Petraeus being right proves anything other then Fallon was wrong and Petreaus was right.

And again, no one gets to the position of Chairman of the Joint Cheifs of Staff from butt kissing. If so, he would have to kiss a whale of a lot of butts, including 51 Senators as the C-JCS is an appointed position that requires Senate ratification.

Well you have to do something to get yourself positioned to even be considered.

If you think it is all just merit based and objective well that's your opinion not mine.

I have a pretty good idea of what it takes to move that high Sherm and if you think it's all kissing up, then I refer back to my original statement.

But I understand why you feel the way you do considering the military is overwhelming consertative and you're not. This is just another case of if they don't agree with you and are anything other then liberal, they must be wrong. After all, that is how you roll, isn't it Sherm!!!

It has absolutely nothing to do with partisan electoral politics.

It is internal politics that you see in any organization public or private.

Promotions, yes, to an extent. But internal politics will get you so far. They won't get you to the TOP of the food chain and if you think they will, it is you that is naive.

Aaron wrote:Promotions, yes, to an extent. But internal politics will get you so far. They won't get you to the TOP of the food chain and if you think they will, it is you that is naive.

HA, ....... you don't know very much about "the ladder to the top of the food chain".

And it appears you have completely forgotten about "Obama's Pending Dinner Engagement at the White House".

Aaron, just what did Colin Powell do to deserve the JCS position?



.

Aaron,

I would have voted for Colin Powell had he won the GOP nomination as I suspect he would have. I would not have voted for him in the primary because he is pro-choice and favors affirmative action etc.

That was before I came to realize the words of my husband are true, voting for the lesser of two "evils" means you're still voting for "evil". In the end, I still think that Americans would be in a better position today if he had run and become President because his Presidency would have done so much for the black community and race relations.

Unlike Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton Powell wasn't a preacher who used the historical ties to "church" to polarize the black community against the white community. In short, he isn't a racist. Powell has a track record of leadership and experience and a lifetime dedicated to his nation unlike Obama the NKOTB who makes everyone swoon.

Well Steph do you recall the speech where he stood up there holding that vial of fake anthrax?

And showed the pic's of the "mobile wmd"s"?

I used to feel the same as you till that happened.

SamCogar wrote:Aaron, just what did Colin Powell do to deserve the JCS position?

I'm not privy to his personnel file Sam but right off the top of my head, I would say it was due to his commands he held and the review of those commands including his service as Reagans NSA. Considering that he did all of this without attending a service academy makes it all the more impressive as 6% of those promoted to a 1 star General did not attend a service academy. He made it to a 4 star position.

Is there some reason you feel he shouldn't have been promoted to C-JCS?

shermangeneral wrote:Well Steph do you recall the speech where he stood up there holding that vial of fake anthrax?

And showed the pic's of the "mobile wmd"s"?

I used to feel the same as you till that happened.

You do realize that this happened when he was Sec State and is at least partially why he resigned, don't you Sherm and had nothing to do with his attaining the rank of C-JCS!!!!!

Sherm to be honest with you I seem to be forgetting more and more stuff all the time. I do remember that. I think a vial of anthrax is a WMD. People need to be aware of potential danger, I agree he was trying to scare people. Don't open mail if you don't know where it's coming from.

Stephanie wrote:voting for the lesser of two "evils" means you're still voting for "evil".

Do you truly believe that the American candidates, selected Democratically by their American voting constituents are evil? I thought we liberals "hated America"? Or do you just not believe in the American electorate?

Last time I checked the voters had their opportunity to choose Ron Paul and didn't. Although I bet if liberals were allowed to decide both primaries (with no Republicans participating) they would have selected him.

SFCraig wrote:

Stephanie wrote:voting for the lesser of two "evils" means you're still voting for "evil".

Do you truly believe that the American candidates, selected Democratically by their American voting constituents are evil? I thought we liberals "hated America"? Or do you just not believe in the American electorate?

Last time I checked the voters had their opportunity to choose Ron Paul and didn't. Although I bet if liberals were allowed to decide both primaries (with no Republicans participating) they would have selected him.

I absolutely do believe the overwhelming majority of candidates put forth by the GOP and the Democrats at the national level are evil to varying degrees. They aren't interested in what is best for America and Americans first. The top priority of most is how to increase their personal wealth and how to maintain or increase their personal power.

Did you watch the Republican debates, Craig? Did you see the way Ron Paul was treated when interviewed by Suffleupagus and Chris (I still want to wipe the smirk off his smug face) Wallace?

People in this country have become like sheep just waiting to be led to slaughter. People don't like the truth because it frequently hurts.

"The top priority of most is how to increase their personal wealth and how to maintain or increase their personal power."

So they're quintessentially American!

Not to bate, but so your grievance is really with the dullards that make up the American electorate?

Not that I disagree, just curious if that's what you mean. The voters get distracted by partisan rhetoric and then ultimately vote for their party's rep?

I was thinking about the issue of the Bush administration firing the U.S. Attorneys. Many on the Right claimed it was because they "served at the pleasure of the President". Then I wondered if those same conservatives thought Travelgate was silly. I still don't understand how that became a "-gate" to this day.

Alas, is it just that when our liars lie to us we believe them? And Lord knows, we give them several attempts to give us something we can swallow, digest, and regurgitate.

Alas, is it just that when our liars lie to us we believe them? And Lord knows, we give them several attempts to give us something we can swallow, digest, and regurgitate.

Yes, I think that's a big part of it. Look at it this way, I'm bascially a lifelong Republican. I voted Bush for a first term for 4 reasons. In order of importance they were:

1) I liked what he said on the campaign trail. I liked that he campaigned about being fiscally conservative and having a humble foreign policy etc.

2) I liked his father and admired his mother. I figured he was Barbara Bush's son and I find her to be an amazing person. I figured their son was trustworthy.

3) Like me, Bush is a lifelong Republican.

4) I utterly despise Al Gore.

I believe in Bush because I wanted to believe in Bush and I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt and I have never liked John Kerry so, four years later, I voted for him again! I was vested in him.

When it comes to House and Senate, citizens vote for the pork. In WV they vote for Byrd and in Alaska they voted for Stevens and in MA they vote for Ted Kennedy because that's where the money is. It doesn't matter what Nancy Pelosi does, her constituents will reelect her because they don't want to loser her clout. RI'ers will never oust Jack Reed for the same reason.

Voters know that if they oust an incumbent with seniority in favor of even a well known, highly qualified and respected candidate that individual will be a freshman and won't chair any committees and won't be owed any favors. So people vote for them.

The media has its darlings and they hold a lot of influence over voters. Nobody bothers to really look at the candidates. They want fastfood style information. They don't want to spend the time really investigating the merits of the candidates they vote for.

WV'ians will very likely elect Natalie Tennant to the SOS's office. What are her credentials? What is her experience? What kind of person is she? It doesn't matter, they all know her because she was in their living rooms 5 days a week for years and they think they know her. I'll bet if you asked 100 WV'ians at random who her opponent is they couldn't even tell you. That's a shame because her opponent, Charles Minimah, has executive experience. His life is the epitomy of the American dream. He has a lifetime of community service.

It's like that everywhere. RI'ers elected a drug addict to the House of Representatives because of his political connections, because of who is father is and who his uncles were. They don't care he's a jackass who has never accomplished anything.

Americans vote like sheep. That's what I mean.

Well Steph that goes along with the link I posted over on the other subject about who supports the Iraq occupation dont you think?

Republicans think they are "vested" in the occupation and if they change their minds it will be viewed as a sign of weakness.

I'm sure that's true for some of them, Sherm, but what's the excuse of all those Democrats who were elected to Congress on the promise they would bring the troops home? Why do they keep funding the war?

No money, no war. You can blame the Pubbies all you want, but they aren't alone in this nightmare.