If the world simply isnt at all calm, I cant see Obama being able to handle all of it.

Oh come on. He's a much stronger leader than that.

 

I'm far more worried that McCain will provoke Russia into further action.

Obama is built to be a great president as a dove. We need a hawk though if its another huge war that the Russians are starting.

If the world simply isnt at all calm, I cant see Obama being able to handle all of it.

Oh come on. He's a much stronger leader than that.

 

I'm far more worried that McCain will provoke Russia into further action.

And you know this how? In his four years in national politics, what has Obama done to show you that he is a leader? Smooth talker? Yes. Can dance around important questions without saying anything committal? Does it better than anyone. Made it through his entire campaign so far without anything resembling a political platform? Surprisingly, yes. But to call him a leader is absurd.

 

I will admit I dont understand the Obama love. He has done nothing at all in his political career to deserve to be at the level that he is at. He has no views on anything. All he does is stress "change" but what exactly he wants to "change" has never been uncovered.

He has done a good job of working to bring two sides together, whether it was bringing both civil rights groups and police together in order to make recordings of police interrogations mandatory for Chicago, or working with Republican Senator Dick Lugar to crack down on nuclear proliferation. It also helps that he was a Constitutional professor at college for some time before becoming involved in politics.

 

Besides, what has McCain done? He got shot down in an airplane over Vietnam. We get it.

 

It doesn't bother anyone that some of McCain's close friends even say that he would not make a good President because of his bad temper? It bothers me.

 

What bothers me...no, what terrifies me...is that Obama's has gotten to where he is at, a position he has no business even being in, just by talking. He has gotten to where he is at through words, not deeds. He hasnt come close to earning the right to even be considered for president of the United States. His track record in congress is spotty at best, he has never made a stance on any important issue, and he has all of four years of experience.

 

But what is not only disturbing but terrifying on top of that, the fact that a guy who has spent an entire campaign talking-bring in millions of listeners with every sentence, every word-without ever saying anything of substance should bother everyone.

If the world simply isnt at all calm, I cant see Obama being able to handle all of it.

Oh come on. He's a much stronger leader than that.

 

I'm far more worried that McCain will provoke Russia into further action.

And you know this how? In his four years in national politics, what has Obama done to show you that he is a leader? Smooth talker? Yes. Can dance around important questions without saying anything committal? Does it better than anyone. Made it through his entire campaign so far without anything resembling a political platform? Surprisingly, yes. But to call him a leader is absurd.

 

I will admit I dont understand the Obama love. He has done nothing at all in his political career to deserve to be at the level that he is at. He has no views on anything. All he does is stress "change" but what exactly he wants to "change" has never been uncovered.

He has done a good job of working to bring two sides together, whether it was bringing both civil rights groups and police together in order to make recordings of police interrogations mandatory for Chicago, or working with Republican Senator Dick Lugar to crack down on nuclear proliferation. It also helps that he was a Constitutional professor at college for some time before becoming involved in politics.

 

Besides, what has McCain done? He got shot down in an airplane over Vietnam. We get it.

 

It doesn't bother anyone that some of McCain's close friends even say that he would not make a good President because of his bad temper? It bothers me.

 

What bothers me...no, what terrifies me...is that Obama's has gotten to where he is at, a position he has no business even being in, just by talking. He has gotten to where he is at through words, not deeds. He hasnt come close to earning the right to even be considered for president of the United States. His track record in congress is spotty at best, he has never made a stance on any important issue, and he has all of four years of experience.

 

But what is not only disturbing but terrifying on top of that, the fact that a guy who has spent an entire campaign talking-bring in millions of listeners with every sentence, every word-without ever saying anything of substance should bother everyone.

 

its good to see other people who no longer love obama. :thumbup

If the world simply isnt at all calm, I cant see Obama being able to handle all of it.

Oh come on. He's a much stronger leader than that.

 

I'm far more worried that McCain will provoke Russia into further action.

 

 

What has Obama done that makes you think he is a strong leader on the national level?

 

I think Obama's judgment is sound, not to mention the fact that he's very thoughtful (which, perhaps, makes his judgment sound in the first place). I don't want a president that just has knee-jerk reactions to complex international crises. I want a person that is always up to do date on everything, is really smart, really thinks about what we need to do, and then is careful and measured when he makes the final decision. Calmness under pressure is key. He's got that kind of temperament.

 

What has McCain done that makes you think he is a strong leader on the national level? I don't see any evidence of leadership - he supported the Iraq war the day after 9-11, for example. I don't want to hear about how he was shot down - that has nothing to do with being leader of the free world.

 

Also, this is not getting any play in the media, but McCain was probably shot down because he was a bad pilot. He lost 5 planes over the course of his career, and yet he wasn't grounded. Sounds to me like he got preferential treatment. http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccai...lost_five_u.htm and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_life_an..._of_John_McCain

By the way, for all of you getting a hard on about "accomplishments", please name more than 3 accomplishments by McCain or any current Senator for that matter. The truth is, it's hard to earn accomplishments in the Senate.

 

As for other previous leaders, name one accomplishment of Reagan before he became president, name one accomplishment of George Bush 41 before he became VP or president, name one accomplishment of Bill Clinton, and name one accomplishment of George W Bush before he became president.

 

Please. You're being idiotic here. By your standards, no one would become president. Elections are about the future and the characteristics of the various people running for office.

Exactly, prinmemito. I agree 100% that if we're going to be in a crisis situation, I would prefer a leader like Obama or JFK.

 

What would have happened had a leader like Reagan, McCain, or Dubya been President during the Cuban Missile Crisis?

Exactly, prinmemito. I agree 100% that if we're going to be in a crisis situation, I would prefer a leader like Obama or JFK.

 

What would have happened had a leader like Reagan, McCain, or Dubya been President during the Cuban Missile Crisis?

Go ahead, tell us what would have happened. Very serious extension comparing Obama to JFK, they are nothing alike. But I am sure Obama knows-he blames everything on America and its failed policies-remember, Kennedy forged the failed policies that Obama already has blamed for the current status with Cuba.

 

So pick an event that you can read about but don't remember the military taking over the streets of Miami and that while the results thankfully worked out and Russia backed down, there was a very serious risk on all out war, very serious. Fact is, taking the Obama approach of sitting down for tea rather than the tough approach would have been a disaster. Kennedy basically took the approach that I believe McCain would have-rather than what an Obama would, as long as we are playing make believe, which is the problem with Obama.

If the world simply isnt at all calm, I cant see Obama being able to handle all of it.

Oh come on. He's a much stronger leader than that.

 

I'm far more worried that McCain will provoke Russia into further action.

 

 

What has Obama done that makes you think he is a strong leader on the national level?

 

 

 

What has McCain done that makes you think he is a strong leader on the national level? I don't see any evidence of leadership - he supported the Iraq war the day after 9-11, for example. I don't want to hear about how he was shot down - that has nothing to do with being leader of the free world.

 

 

 

I am in no way here to defend McCain, I'm not a supporter of his, and I never even insinuated that McCain will make a good national leader. My only point is that a conflict (real or hinted at) with Russia greatly improves McCain's chances of winning the presidency.

If the world simply isnt at all calm, I cant see Obama being able to handle all of it.

Oh come on. He's a much stronger leader than that.

 

I'm far more worried that McCain will provoke Russia into further action.

 

 

What has Obama done that makes you think he is a strong leader on the national level?

 

 

 

What has McCain done that makes you think he is a strong leader on the national level? I don't see any evidence of leadership - he supported the Iraq war the day after 9-11, for example. I don't want to hear about how he was shot down - that has nothing to do with being leader of the free world.

 

 

 

I am in no way here to defend McCain, I'm not a supporter of his, and I never even insinuated that McCain will make a good national leader. My only point is that a conflict (real or hinted at) with Russia greatly improves McCain's chances of winning the presidency.

 

I agree with you that increased tension with Russia probably helps McCain, although I question the logic behind that (not your logic, but why people would prefer McCain over Obama on that particular issue).

Oh come on. He's a much stronger leader than that.

 

I'm far more worried that McCain will provoke Russia into further action.

 

 

What has Obama done that makes you think he is a strong leader on the national level?

 

 

 

What has McCain done that makes you think he is a strong leader on the national level? I don't see any evidence of leadership - he supported the Iraq war the day after 9-11, for example. I don't want to hear about how he was shot down - that has nothing to do with being leader of the free world.

 

 

 

I am in no way here to defend McCain, I'm not a supporter of his, and I never even insinuated that McCain will make a good national leader. My only point is that a conflict (real or hinted at) with Russia greatly improves McCain's chances of winning the presidency.

 

I agree with you that increased tension with Russia probably helps McCain, although I question the logic behind that (not your logic, but why people would prefer McCain over Obama on that particular issue).

 

People look at Obama as change, and they see McCain as a National Security type candidate.

 

It is how each is spinning themselves so thats how it works for each of them.

I am in no way here to defend McCain, I'm not a supporter of his, and I never even insinuated that McCain will make a good national leader. My only point is that a conflict (real or hinted at) with Russia greatly improves McCain's chances of winning the presidency.

 

I agree with you that increased tension with Russia probably helps McCain, although I question the logic behind that (not your logic, but why people would prefer McCain over Obama on that particular issue).

 

 

Because Obama is a pacifist, and not some people think(myself included) that he would be a terrible person to have in the oval office in war time.

I am in no way here to defend McCain, I'm not a supporter of his, and I never even insinuated that McCain will make a good national leader. My only point is that a conflict (real or hinted at) with Russia greatly improves McCain's chances of winning the presidency.

 

I agree with you that increased tension with Russia probably helps McCain, although I question the logic behind that (not your logic, but why people would prefer McCain over Obama on that particular issue).

 

 

Because Obama is a pacifist, and not some people think(myself included) that he would be a terrible person to have in the oval office in war time.

Why is Obama a pacifist? He has done NOTHING to point to this. Glad to see you drink the kool-aid the GOP hands out, and read the talking points. :thumbup

I am in no way here to defend McCain, I'm not a supporter of his, and I never even insinuated that McCain will make a good national leader. My only point is that a conflict (real or hinted at) with Russia greatly improves McCain's chances of winning the presidency.

 

I agree with you that increased tension with Russia probably helps McCain, although I question the logic behind that (not your logic, but why people would prefer McCain over Obama on that particular issue).

 

 

Because Obama is a pacifist, and not some people think(myself included) that he would be a terrible person to have in the oval office in war time.

Why is Obama a pacifist? He has done NOTHING to point to this. Glad to see you drink the kool-aid the GOP hands out, and read the talking points. :thumbup

Your thoughts of me would have more weight if I was a republican, which I am not. You could call me a libertarian, which I officially am, although my politics are a mixture of libertarian/reform/constitutionialist.

 

Explain to me why a junior senator with 4 years of experience and who lacks anything resembling a platform is either A)a leader or B)a worthy candidate for president?

 

I am not for McCain. I think both options this year are awful, but McCain is the much better one for a time at war.

Explain to me why a junior senator with 4 years of experience and who lacks anything resembling a platform is either A)a leader or B)a worthy candidate for president?

 

I am not for McCain. I think both options this year are awful, but McCain is the much better one for a time at war.

Because we need someone who has NOT been in Washington for very long, and hasn't been corrupted by the special interests and the lobbies yet. It also helps that he isn't part of one of our nation's political families (ie. Bush, Clinton, Kennedy).

 

We're not at war. Officially we are occupying two foreign nations, and not engaged in major military operations anywhere. Of course, if McCain and Bush have their way, we'll be at war with Russia by the end of the conventions. :thumbup

No we wont. War with Russia is suicide, any child in school knows that. Dont confuse posturing and foreign policy based on one-upmanship to leadup to war.

 

It doesn't take much for a politician to get corrupted, and considering Obama's non-commital attitude towards every single issue you would have to assume he be easier than anyone. Neither candidate is a good candidate for president. Obama is little more than a smooth talker, McCain's world views are likely outdated.

 

War doesn't have to be declared for a state of war to exist. Al-qaeda attacking us and the Taliban harboring them and their leader meant there was an open state of war-declared or not-with that nation. Iraq, whether you liked it or not(and whether you agree with it or not) was legally attacked, after they continuously ignored international sanctions.

Obama is not a pacifist and clearly has been corrupted by AIPAC, which is perhaps the most significant lobby in the world right now and the most detrimental toward our country. Just because he refused to accept money from 'lobbyists' and PACs does not mean he is not being controlled by special interests. The fact that Wall Street threw millions of dollars at the beginning of his campaign is at least some indication that he was being groomed for office.

Both of those are speculation. He has so far only talked about maybe supporting AIPAC's policies.

 

Just because Wall Street is giving him money doesn't mean that he will follow their every whim. So far his platform does not favor Wall Street's interests at all. I believe that they, like many other lobbies, correctly realize that this is the Dems' election to lose, and that they want to be on the winning side.

Because Obama is a pacifist, and not some people think(myself included) that he would be a terrible person to have in the oval office in war time.

 

Why is it war time? Because terrorism exists? Because Russia is being Russia? Just because every nation isn't singing koom-by-ya every morning with one another doesn't mean we need a warmonger in the oval office.

 

I'd prefer a measured, humble foreign policy and I'll take my chances with Obama on that.

All the greatest nations as far back as you want to go are always in constant war. They have to continue to prove they are the strongest, they always have people trying to take them down and they have an idea that they have to protect, conquer or defend people. Its not just with land its with products etc... Its the way of being at the top. Look through history.

 

The Egyptians, The Greeks, The English, the French, The Catholic Church, the Romans, the Persians, the Soviet Union, the Nazi's, the US. It just is....

Obama is not a pacifist and clearly has been corrupted by AIPAC, which is perhaps the most significant lobby in the world right now and the most detrimental toward our country.

It was just a matter of time that you, as you have done whenever the opportunity presents itself, like when each day starts, somehow find a way to blame the worlds ill's on the Jews and Israel. If it wasn't such a long time justification for so much evil and death in the past, you would be funny. As it is, you are just a sick joke. If it hasn't been clear to anyone reading your posts before, it should be clear now-your agenda, or rather your outright hatred towards Jews and Israel is dating you to a history of hatred and subhuman behaviour. While your like has the freedom in this country to spout your sickness, it makes one wonder where you received your indoctrination. Mommy and Daddy teach you to hate Jews or did you and your skinhead friends just have fun feeling inferior.

Do you revel at every suicide attack, give a little smile and maybe pass out a few candies? Likely-but you, unfortunately will have to live with the fact that a free and democratic people will survive in the middle east and around the world and continue to contribute disproportiantely based on their numbers to the sciences, the arts and education.

All the greatest nations as far back as you want to go are always in constant war. They have to continue to prove they are the strongest, they always have people trying to take them down and they have an idea that they have to protect, conquer or defend people. Its not just with land its with products etc... Its the way of being at the top. Look through history.

 

The Egyptians, The Greeks, The English, the French, The Catholic Church, the Romans, the Persians, the Soviet Union, the Nazi's, the US. It just is....

How did that work with the Romans? Oh, right... :confused

All the greatest nations as far back as you want to go are always in constant war. They have to continue to prove they are the strongest, they always have people trying to take them down and they have an idea that they have to protect, conquer or defend people. Its not just with land its with products etc... Its the way of being at the top. Look through history.

 

The Egyptians, The Greeks, The English, the French, The Catholic Church, the Romans, the Persians, the Soviet Union, the Nazi's, the US. It just is....

How did that work with the Romans? Oh, right... :confused

They all fall, but it is the nature of the beast.

All the greatest nations as far back as you want to go are always in constant war. They have to continue to prove they are the strongest, they always have people trying to take them down and they have an idea that they have to protect, conquer or defend people. Its not just with land its with products etc... Its the way of being at the top. Look through history.

 

The Egyptians, The Greeks, The English, the French, The Catholic Church, the Romans, the Persians, the Soviet Union, the Nazi's, the US. It just is....

How did that work with the Romans? Oh, right... :confused

They all fall, but it is the nature of the beast.

We're not supposed to be a warlike country.

All the greatest nations as far back as you want to go are always in constant war. They have to continue to prove they are the strongest, they always have people trying to take them down and they have an idea that they have to protect, conquer or defend people. Its not just with land its with products etc... Its the way of being at the top. Look through history.

 

The Egyptians, The Greeks, The English, the French, The Catholic Church, the Romans, the Persians, the Soviet Union, the Nazi's, the US. It just is....

How did that work with the Romans? Oh, right... :confused

They all fall, but it is the nature of the beast.

We're not supposed to be a warlike country.

you miss the point. :confused

As it is, you are just a sick joke. If it hasn't been clear to anyone reading your posts before, it should be clear now-your agenda, or rather your outright hatred towards Jews and Israel is dating you to a history of hatred and subhuman behaviour.

 

Mommy and Daddy teach you to hate Jews or did you and your skinhead friends just have fun feeling inferior.

I personally want to sever all but standard diplomatic ties to Israel and focus more on our already strong historic ties to Jordan and Lebanon in that area, as well as new allies Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Armenia.

 

Israel is a strong nation, but it is not an ally we can afford to have. Our close relations with them is like a knife through hot butter to most Arab nations, and as strong as they are militarially they are a component we will never be able to add to a coalition. It is a partnership that hurts us without the prospect of helping us.

 

This has nothing to do with religion or creed or the color of anyones skin. It has to do with whats practical. And Israel is a strong ally that we can cast aside diplomatically and they will easily land on their own two feet. They dont need us.

Ironically, it is because of Russia that Poland has finally reached an agreement to host the missiles.

 

The fact is that Vladimir Putin, a former KGB agent, wants a return to the "greatness" of the Soviet Union. The problem is, they don't have the satellite states of the Warsaw Pact. That is why they are so belligerent (sp?) toward the European former Soviet republics, especially Georgia, Ukraine and the Balkans; they no longer have that buffer between them and NATO. The only solid ally they have for that end is Iran. While they have some alliance with China, America is China's sugar daddy, and in the end they will not do anything that will jeopardize that relationship. And Venezuela is just a bag of hot air.

 

But Putin knows that a conflict with America will only end tragically (read: nuclear holocaust). Although he and his puppet Medvedev are blustering, they will not act directly against America. The real problem is Iran, which is a true rogue element. With their recent orbital launch, and the unchecked growth of their nuclear ambitions, they will soon have nuclear missiles. And I don't think their leadership gives two s**ts about "mutual assured destruction". If they get nuclear weapons, they will try to nuke Israel and America.

 

That is why the "missile shield" is necessary in Poland. An ABM launched from Poland can potentially get anything launched from Iran directly toward the United States. Israel is close enough that standard Patriots in Iraq or Israel can get anything aimed their way. The battery in Poland has no hope of completely neutralizing Russia's massive nuclear arsenal, so they should not feel threatened by it.