georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:How many morons vote for the guy who looks more attractive?
How many morons vote purely on the party affiliation?
How many morons vote based on their religious convictions?

Yes, it's over for him. Never underestimate American stupidity, or how seemingly infinite it is.

And before you start, no, I don't support Bush or Obama. I'm Libertarian, and would like to see Badnarik run again.

Why should he even run? It would waste his time and money not to mention he wouldn't even been on all the state ballots. I wish third parties would work in our system, but it just won't happen. The people in charge won't allow it to happen because they have all the power. Our country may be great, but it is far from a perfect democracy. (especially since it is a republic)

garyindiana Wrote:

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:How many morons vote for the guy who looks more attractive?
How many morons vote purely on the party affiliation?
How many morons vote based on their religious convictions?

Yes, it's over for him. Never underestimate American stupidity, or how seemingly infinite it is.

And before you start, no, I don't support Bush or Obama. I'm Libertarian, and would like to see Badnarik run again.

Why should he even run? It would waste his time and money not to mention he wouldn't even been on all the state ballots. I wish third parties would work in our system, but it just won't happen. The people in charge won't allow it to happen because they have all the power. Our country may be great, but it is far from a perfect democracy. (especially since it is a republic)

The fistagons, the bullets, the bombs
Who stuff the banks, who staff the party ranks

Bartindekalb Wrote:

Kedzman Wrote:Those of you who keep up with news on alternative media outlets (cable news, internet, talk radio) will be familiar with this. If you are a newspaper or major network news consuming dinosaur, you won't hear this...

News out yesterday reports that Barak Obama was educated in an Islamic Madrassa in Indonesia until age 10. This is the end of his presidential aspirations IMO. In an age where there is a global war on terror, this won't fly. I am NOT saying Obama is a terrorist. I am NOT saying he is Muslim. I AM suggesting that the association is more that anyone running for president can stand up against.

Madrassas are Islamic schools where children are indoctrinated in the fundamental hatred of Jews, the West and anything non-Muslim.

Furthermore, it was the CLINTON camp that uncovered this bombshell. The Clintons play for keeps. If they want to take you down - they will.
For more information on this "not yet mainstream" news, do an Internet seach for Obama + madrassa and have your fill.

http://www.google.com/search?q=barak+oba...f8&oe=utf8

How does Obama feels about unethical sports booster behavior?

Now that's a good question.

Bartindekalb Wrote:

garyindiana Wrote:

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:How many morons vote for the guy who looks more attractive?
How many morons vote purely on the party affiliation?
How many morons vote based on their religious convictions?

Yes, it's over for him. Never underestimate American stupidity, or how seemingly infinite it is.

And before you start, no, I don't support Bush or Obama. I'm Libertarian, and would like to see Badnarik run again.

Why should he even run? It would waste his time and money not to mention he wouldn't even been on all the state ballots. I wish third parties would work in our system, but it just won't happen. The people in charge won't allow it to happen because they have all the power. Our country may be great, but it is far from a perfect democracy. (especially since it is a republic)

The fistagons, the bullets, the bombs
Who stuff the banks, who staff the party ranks

More for Gore or the son of a drug lord?

garyindiana Wrote:Why should he even run? It would waste his time and money not to mention he wouldn't even been on all the state ballots. I wish third parties would work in our system, but it just won't happen. The people in charge won't allow it to happen because they have all the power. Our country may be great, but it is far from a perfect democracy. (especially since it is a republic)

Ironically, it's that sentiment that keeps the status quo going. If enough people being to vote for a third party, one or both of the main parties will chance their stance. The Libertarians have likely cost the GOP several Senate and House seats in the last 6 years, and almost the Presidency twice.

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:

garyindiana Wrote:Why should he even run? It would waste his time and money not to mention he wouldn't even been on all the state ballots. I wish third parties would work in our system, but it just won't happen. The people in charge won't allow it to happen because they have all the power. Our country may be great, but it is far from a perfect democracy. (especially since it is a republic)

Ironically, it's that sentiment that keeps the status quo going. If enough people being to vote for a third party, one or both of the main parties will chance their stance. The Libertarians have likely cost the GOP several Senate and House seats in the last 6 years, and almost the Presidency twice.

If they go by my views, I vote libertarian, sadly though, few share enough of my views so I end up having to vote Republican. I have very messed up views of the world.

Kedz, you never really answered my question. How do you personally feel about this as a conservative? Do you no longer believe he should be a candidate for the presidency b/c of this ? Are you embarrassed by conservatives bringing this up?

HuskieFan84 Wrote:Kedz, you never really answered my question. How do you personally feel about this as a conservative? Do you no longer believe he should be a candidate for the presidency b/c of this ? Are you embarrassed by conservatives bringing this up?

Sorry for not responding to this earlier. I wasn't avoiding the question, I just did not think I had time to address it - now I do...

As a Christian, I view the world through that lense. It is a Christian worldview. There are a lot of grey area issues in a secular society that are very black and white to me. For example, I think abortion is a bad idea. I think sexual promiscuity is a bad idea (regardless whether it be heterosexual or homosexual - the issue is first rooted in purity, for me). I believe in the absolute Holiness of God. I believe in the sinfulness of mankind. That chasm between holiness and sinfulness is insurmountable. Only the Holy one can create a way for the sinful one to be redeemed. The sinful one cannot say, "I will do this or that to overcome my sinfulness and win God's favor". That is illogical. Therefore I embrace Christ as God's provision to redeem me to himself. I do not deserve God's grace, it is a gift, and I am thankful for the gift of Christ's substitutionary death in my stead. Since age 25, that has been my new world view. Everything else comes in 2nd place.

Politics come in 2nd place, and are, naturally, influenced by my Christian worldview. This new wrinkle with Obama being raised by Muslims and sent to seminary school at an Islamic Madrassa has no effect on my Christian believe system at all. It is a non-issue. As I've said in earlier posts, I don't believe Obama is a Muslim. I don't even believe what he may have learned in those Madrassas influences his political or personal decision-making (although many posters on this board seem to skim over my comments and then make foolish indictments toward me. Not sure if they are not good readers, or they just have it out for me...)

My feelings toward Obama are #1 that he has too little experience. #2 that there are better candidates in the Democratic party (namely Edwards) and #3 that Obama has a very liberal voting record. Let me back up #3 with a fact. There is a very liberal, pro-abortion organization known as NARAL (National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws). When they agree with me, you know the issue is radical. Well, NARAL voted to support funding for medical help for surviving fetus' who have survived botched abortions. NARAL voted for helping the fetus, Obama voted against it.

Not wanting to help a partially chopped up - yet still breathing baby who survived a late term abortion is a hard position to defend in a national election. Obama is for partial birth abortion. If you are not familiar with the practice, that is where a doctor delivers the head of the baby only (the torso and legs are still in the mother's vaginal canal). With the head of the baby out, the doctor jams a pair of forcepts into the base of the baby's skull and scrambles its brains - thus killing a perfectly viable baby at full term. Once the baby is dead, they fully deliver the baby and can count is as an abortion, not murder. That practice is legal in this country today.

We have been fighting a global war on terror since the Carter administrations in the late 1970's. Our nation and people have suffered thousands of deaths at the hands of militant, Islamic fundamentalists. I do not believe Obama is one of them. My preference, however, is to have a president (Democrat or Republican) who is tough on terrorism. I don't want to risk having the leader of our country who may be soft or sympathetic on terrorism. When news of his education in Islamic Madrassas comes out into the mainstream media, I think it will be a negative association he will not be able to shake. Mit Romney of Massachusetts risks the same fate for being a Mormon. This is not fair, but many don't have the stomach for it. Those are not my feelings (though some would assert so, wrongly). For me, Obama is too inexperienced, too liberal and not the best candidate.

I don't think any of us will have the opportunity to vote for him. He won't make the cut. You can thank the racist Democrat union members who wont want to see a woman or a black man serve in the highest elected position in this country. Hillary and Obama will not win the nomination.

Kedzman Wrote:

HuskieFan84 Wrote:Kedz, you never really answered my question. How do you personally feel about this as a conservative? Do you no longer believe he should be a candidate for the presidency b/c of this ? Are you embarrassed by conservatives bringing this up?

Sorry for not responding to this earlier. I wasn't avoiding the question, I just did not think I had time to address it - now I do...

As a Christian, I view the world through that lense. It is a Christian worldview. There are a lot of grey area issues in a secular society that are very black and white to me. For example, I think abortion is a bad idea. I think sexual promiscuity is a bad idea (regardless whether it be heterosexual or homosexual - the issue is first rooted in purity, for me). I believe in the absolute Holiness of God. I believe in the sinfulness of mankind. That chasm between holiness and sinfulness is insurmountable. Only the Holy one can create a way for the sinful one to be redeemed. The sinful one cannot say, "I will do this or that to overcome my sinfulness and win God's favor". That is illogical. Therefore I embrace Christ as God's provision to redeem me to himself. I do not deserve God's grace, it is a gift, and I am thankful for the gift of Christ's substitutionary death in my stead. Since age 25, that has been my new world view. Everything else comes in 2nd place.

Politics come in 2nd place, and are, naturally, influenced by my Christian worldview. This new wrinkle with Obama being raised by Muslims and sent to seminary school at an Islamic Madrassa has no effect on my Christian believe system at all. It is a non-issue. As I've said in earlier posts, I don't believe Obama is a Muslim. I don't even believe what he may have learned in those Madrassas influences his political or personal decision-making (although many posters on this board seem to skim over my comments and then make foolish indictments toward me. Not sure if they are not good readers, or they just have it out for me...)

My feelings toward Obama are #1 that he has too little experience. #2 that there are better candidates in the Democratic party (namely Edwards) and #3 that Obama has a very liberal voting record. Let me back up #3 with a fact. There is a very liberal, pro-abortion organization known as NARAL (National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws). When they agree with me, you know the issue is radical. Well, NARAL voted to support funding for medical help for surviving fetus' who have survived botched abortions. NARAL voted for helping the fetus, Obama voted against it.

Not wanting to help a partially chopped up - yet still breathing baby who survived a late term abortion is a hard position to defend in a national election. Obama is for partial birth abortion. If you are not familiar with the practice, that is where a doctor delivers the head of the baby only (the torso and legs are still in the mother's vaginal canal). With the head of the baby out, the doctor jams a pair of forcepts into the base of the baby's skull and scrambles its brains - thus killing a perfectly viable baby at full term. Once the baby is dead, they fully deliver the baby and can count is as an abortion, not murder. That practice is legal in this country today.

We have been fighting a global war on terror since the Carter administrations in the late 1970's. Our nation and people have suffered thousands of deaths at the hands of militant, Islamic fundamentalists. I do not believe Obama is one of them. My preference, however, is to have a president (Democrat or Republican) who is tough on terrorism. I don't want to risk having the leader of our country who may be soft or sympathetic on terrorism. When news of his education in Islamic Madrassas comes out into the mainstream media, I think it will be a negative association he will not be able to shake. Mit Romney of Massachusetts risks the same fate for being a Mormon. This is not fair, but many don't have the stomach for it. Those are not my feelings (though some would assert so, wrongly). For me, Obama is too inexperienced, too liberal and not the best candidate.

I don't think any of us will have the opportunity to vote for him. He won't make the cut. You can thank the racist Democrat union members who wont want to see a woman or a black man serve in the highest elected position in this country. Hillary and Obama will not win the nomination.

+1 on everything about Obama.

Kedz would you not vote for someone if they were muslim ?
Muslims.. besides extremists (same for Christians.. something you would have to admit if you are an honest man) also believe in the things you mentioned :For example, I think abortion is a bad idea. I think sexual promiscuity is a bad idea
Regardless of Obama's political views, expierence, etc.. just.. if someone you felt qualified and was a conservative and republican. But happened to be Muslim, would you vote for them? Or are you too close minded to accept anyone else's beliefs?

Kedz, pick UR poison it will be either Obama or Hillary because their isn't a Repub candidate with a snowballs chance in hell of winning in 08. Especially since McCain shot holes through whatever credibility he had by supporting the escalation of the Iraq war. This country will still be at war in Iraq in 2008. the Dems picked up 7 senate seats and 29-29 house seats in the last election. There are 21 Republican senators up for reelection in 08, a number of them are running as far away from Bush as they can in hopes of holding onto their seats (Hagel, Collins, Coleman, Voinivich, Snowe). The Dems will pickup at least as many Senate seats in 08 as they did in 06 with at least 15-20 more house seats.

If Hillary wins I could see her picking Edwards as her VP, Obama's VP choice would be interesting if he won. Either way there will be a Dem pres in 08 with the possibility of a fillibuster proof (60)Dem majority in the Senate.

onlinepole Wrote:Kedz, pick UR poison it will be either Obama or Hillary because their isn't a Repub candidate with a snowballs chance in hell of winning in 08. Especially since McCain shot holes through whatever credibility he had by supporting the escalation of the Iraq war. This country will still be at war in Iraq in 2008. the Dems picked up 7 senate seats and 29-29 house seats in the last election. There are 21 Republican senators up for reelection in 08, a number of them are running as far away from Bush as they can in hopes of holding onto their seats (Hagel, Collins, Coleman, Voinivich, Snowe). The Dems will pickup at least as many Senate seats in 08 as they did in 06 with at least 15-20 more house seats.

If Hillary wins I could see her picking Edwards as her VP, Obama's VP choice would be interesting if he won. Either way there will be a Dem pres in 08 with the possibility of a fillibuster proof (60)Dem majority in the Senate.

It's pretty easy. Obama's VP would be Oprah. He and the Sun-Times would have it no other way.

HuskieFan84 Wrote:Kedz would you not vote for someone if they were muslim ?
Muslims.. besides extremists (same for Christians.. something you would have to admit if you are an honest man) also believe in the things you mentioned :For example, I think abortion is a bad idea. I think sexual promiscuity is a bad idea
Regardless of Obama's political views, expierence, etc.. just.. if someone you felt qualified and was a conservative and republican. But happened to be Muslim, would you vote for them? Or are you too close minded to accept anyone else's beliefs?

I would not discriminate against a candidate for being Muslim if they were consistent with my values.

The problem, unfortunately, is that moderate Muslims are unlikely to speak out against hard-liner Muslims that support Sharia Law. I assume they fear retribution from the Muslim community, as they should. Hard core Muslims impose their will by weilding fear, intimidation, bloodshed and violence. A moderate Muslim is an "infadel" in the eyes of the hard-liners. The Koran calls for the death of infadels. The Bible calls Christians to love thine enemy as thyself. Big difference in values. Big difference in living out your religious faith.

When a conservative Christian leader disagrees with secular policy, they make arguements, speak out, boycot etc. When a Muslim hard-liner disagrees, peoples heads get cut off and building are burned down.

For these reasons, I am much more comfortable with a qualified conservative (religious or secular) than I am with a qualified Muslim.

seriously, what is the point of this thread? kedz will vote for the republican candidate and all others will vote for their person. No one is going to change their mind over this thread. thats the way politics is and always will be. A bunch of arguing with no one changing their mind in the end. send this thread to the spin room.

onlinepole Wrote:Kedz, pick UR poison it will be either Obama or Hillary because their isn't a Repub candidate with a snowballs chance in hell of winning in 08. Especially since McCain shot holes through whatever credibility he had by supporting the escalation of the Iraq war. This country will still be at war in Iraq in 2008. the Dems picked up 7 senate seats and 29-29 house seats in the last election. There are 21 Republican senators up for reelection in 08, a number of them are running as far away from Bush as they can in hopes of holding onto their seats (Hagel, Collins, Coleman, Voinivich, Snowe). The Dems will pickup at least as many Senate seats in 08 as they did in 06 with at least 15-20 more house seats.

If Hillary wins I could see her picking Edwards as her VP, Obama's VP choice would be interesting if he won. Either way there will be a Dem pres in 08 with the possibility of a fillibuster proof (60)Dem majority in the Senate.

Very intelligent post. I agree with much of what you are saying, but don't necessarily agree with your logical outcomes.

Clinton wont win because half of the country (polling data supports this) has said they "definately won't" vote for her. The only way she can win is if there is a 3rd party candidate a la Ross Perot did in 1992 that waters down conservative and swing voters for the Republicans. That is how her husband got elected. The numbers just dont jive for Hillary without a 3rd party candidate. She is too polarizing and does not have enough broad appeal.

As for the war, I believe Americans want out, but they want out with a win. The majority (albeit a thin majority) dont want to leave Iraq/Afghanistan with our tail between our legs. The burden is on the Republicans to show real results over the next 18 months to prove that the escalation of the war was the right call. It is a very emotional arguement (liberals and democrats live in a world of emotional arguements) to want to pull our troops out of harms way. It is more logical, however, to build troop strength, crush the insurgency and train the locals to protect their new democracy. The only way to beat Muslim fundamentalists is to crush them so badly that they view fighting as hopeless. Their spirit must be crushed. That is how we fought and won over Japan.

A politically correct war cannot be won. As a conservative, I am discouraged by this reality. I don't think it will happen. Bush does not have the balls to go all out in Baghdad. The liberals have hamstrung the operation by sniping every move the adminisration makes for political gain. The enemy knows this, and that is their hope for victory and an American troop withdrawl. Unfortunately, this will cement in the minds of our global terror enemy network that the West can be defeated if you leverage our political dis-unity against us. If you tap into the fears of Liberal handwringers, you can win everytime.

I don't think Americans will elect a person who has a "get out of Iraq" only message. They will, however, elect a person with a "get out of Iraq ASAP with win" message. The only way to win in Iraq is to increase troop levels and crush the insurgency. It is not a popular message, but it is necessary if we want a win. McCain will with with this message.

Kedzman Wrote:

onlinepole Wrote:Kedz, pick UR poison it will be either Obama or Hillary because their isn't a Repub candidate with a snowballs chance in hell of winning in 08. Especially since McCain shot holes through whatever credibility he had by supporting the escalation of the Iraq war. This country will still be at war in Iraq in 2008. the Dems picked up 7 senate seats and 29-29 house seats in the last election. There are 21 Republican senators up for reelection in 08, a number of them are running as far away from Bush as they can in hopes of holding onto their seats (Hagel, Collins, Coleman, Voinivich, Snowe). The Dems will pickup at least as many Senate seats in 08 as they did in 06 with at least 15-20 more house seats.

If Hillary wins I could see her picking Edwards as her VP, Obama's VP choice would be interesting if he won. Either way there will be a Dem pres in 08 with the possibility of a fillibuster proof (60)Dem majority in the Senate.

Very intelligent post. I agree with much of what you are saying, but don't necessarily agree with your logical outcomes.

Clinton wont win because half of the country (polling data supports this) has said they "definately won't" vote for her. The only way she can win is if there is a 3rd party candidate a la Ross Perot did in 1992 that waters down conservative and swing voters for the Republicans. That is how her husband got elected. The numbers just dont jive for Hillary without a 3rd party candidate. She is too polarizing and does not have enough broad appeal.

As for the war, I believe Americans want out, but they want out with a win. The majority (albeit a thin majority) dont want to leave Iraq/Afghanistan with our tail between our legs. The burden is on the Republicans to show real results over the next 18 months to prove that the escalation of the war was the right call. It is a very emotional arguement (liberals and democrats live in a world of emotional arguements) to want to pull our troops out of harms way. It is more logical, however, to build troop strength, crush the insurgency and train the locals to protect their new democracy. The only way to beat Muslim fundamentalists is to crush them so badly that they view fighting as hopeless. Their spirit must be crushed. That is how we fought and won over Japan.

A politically correct war cannot be won. As a conservative, I am discouraged by this reality. I don't think it will happen. Bush does not have the balls to go all out in Baghdad. The liberals have hamstrung the operation by sniping every move the adminisration makes for political gain. The enemy knows this, and that is their hope for victory and an American troop withdrawl. Unfortunately, this will cement in the minds of our global terror enemy network that the West can be defeated if you leverage our political dis-unity against us. If you tap into the fears of Liberal handwringers, you can win everytime.

I don't think Americans will elect a person who has a "get out of Iraq" only message. They will, however, elect a person with a "get out of Iraq ASAP with win" message. The only way to win in Iraq is to increase troop levels and crush the insurgency. It is not a popular message, but it is necessary if we want a win. McCain will with with this message.

How do you feel about Guliani?

Kedz, don't let your opinion overlook the facts of the last election (35-36 Rep. members of Congress voted out)and what the American people have said they wanted in polls. Bush's approval rating is down to 32%. That's down to Nixon numbers before he resigned, I don't believe Carter was ever that low. In the last election voters did not vote for "stay the course" or "escalate the war". THey voted for negotiations, training Iraq's forces to fight for themselves(if they really want that which IMO they don't) and for the US to get out as fast as possible. If US forces are in Iraq by Nov 08 (which I would bet any amount of $ that they will), the Republicans will get spanked again and possibly worse than in 06.

Guiliani has almost no chance of getting the Republican nomination, he's pro choice, pro civil unions and pro stem cell research; too many facists and hard conservatives in the Rep party will not vote for him. But with McCain's endorsement of the war's escalation, he's shot his chance at winning the 08 general election IMO.

BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:[quote="Kedzman"][quote="HuskieFan84"]

My feelings toward Obama are #1 that he has too little experience.

I bet you voted for George W even though he had little experience. He was elected governor and spent his entire time campaigning for president. Experience will be thrown out their by republicans but really, their last candidate for the presidency had very little also.

garyindiana Wrote:

BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:[quote="Kedzman"][quote="HuskieFan84"]

My feelings toward Obama are #1 that he has too little experience.

I bet you voted for George W even though he had little experience. He was elected governor and spent his entire time campaigning for president. Experience will be thrown out their by republicans but really, their last candidate for the presidency had very little also.

Experience? At what, being corrupt, inefficient and full of hot air?

I've never voted for a Dem in my life, but even now the Repubs are laughable - and I used to work for them!

My single vote will go to the candidate who promises/shows/has a plan to contiune and win the Global War on Terror. If that is Obama, Hilary, McCain, Badnerik etc then so be it. Little else matters on the domestic front at this point in world history.