I am hopeful that four years from now we will all be in better shape than we are today? Seven years under Republicians and Bush has been a @#$ken disaster

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03...87%0A

It sounds like he did a pretty good job with it. I've been watching for post poll results to see how well he did do and I haven't found any. Pennsylvania should be a little telling.

Yes, he is a terrific speaker...but so was Hitler. I don't think he's the right guy to lead our country.

joe603 wrote:Yes, he is a terrific speaker...but so was Hitler. I don't think he's the right guy to lead our country.

Hey Joe

I don't think trying to compare Barack Obama to Hitler is a good comparison.Hitler blamed the Jews for Germany's economic problems following WWlObama is trying to appeal to all races as well as Blacks and whites and bring everyone together

Bush hasn't exactly been a stellular leader & we are in such a mess that we need a new one.Whether its Hillary or Barack we need a change in Washington?

McCain would just be more of what we have now.

A Mess!

An unpopular war, uncontrolled debt, tax cuts for the wealthest, lack of education and healthcare. has Bush done over the past seven years?

I agree that Obama's message is for a united country, and represents a desire for a new and better nation. I'm a little afraid that he will take a similar "save the world" approach that Bush took, the only difference being that Obama wants to send money instead of troops. I'm not for complete isolationism, but a sensible line needs to be drawn. One we can afford and also reduces the disdain the world currently holds for the US.

Democrats in office have not been good leaders either.

As far as the speach, Obama is a good speaker. As far as content, I don't necessarily disagree with most of what was said. It still left questions as to why he did not discuss the issue with his mentor if he disagreed with it. I also do not like that he lied about it as well since he said in an interview that he was NOT present during any of these speaches when he said yesterday that he was.

While I do not like any of the choices, Obama is lowest on my list.

rn79870 wrote:I agree that Obama's message is for a united country, and represents a desire for a new and better nation. I'm a little afraid that he will take a similar "save the world" approach that Bush took, the only difference being that Obama wants to send money instead of troops. I'm not for complete isolationism, but a sensible line needs to be drawn. One we can afford and also reduces the disdain the world currently holds for the US.

How much are 4000 American lives and hundreds of thousands of wounded worth?

"This week marks the fifth anniversary of the war in Iraq, but you might not have seen much about it on TV recently. Just 3% of the news in February was dedicated to the war and fewer than one in three Americans know how many American troops have died in Iraq. Believe it or not, a study just released by the Pew Research Center shows that press coverage of the war is at the lowest point since the war began.

Please take a minute now to sign an open letter to the media and demand that major networks increase their coverage of the Iraq war.

The economy and the presidential campaigns are both important stories, but news of the ongoing wars shouldn't fall by the wayside. The media must demonstrate that they can walk and chew gum at the same time. Over 80% of Americans are aware that Oprah Winfrey endorsed Senator Barack Obama for president, while just 28% know how many troops have died in Iraq- even though we are rapidly approaching 4,000 casualties.An unprecedented detachment between the American public and the men and women at war makes the media's coverage of the conflicts more vital than ever. Just because the coverage has waned doesn't mean our troops aren't facing daily dangers or major issues once they return home.

Men and women continue to serve in Iraq, though you might not realize that just from watching the news. Please sign this open letter and honor the sacrifice of those who have served in the past five years by making sure they remain in the public eye."

IAVA

Sincerely, Paul RieckhoffIraq VeteranExecutive DirectorIraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America

rn79870 wrote:I agree that Obama's message is for a united country, and represents a desire for a new and better nation. I'm a little afraid that he will take a similar "save the world" approach that Bush took, the only difference being that Obama wants to send money instead of troops. I'm not for complete isolationism, but a sensible line needs to be drawn. One we can afford and also reduces the disdain the world currently holds for the US.

He's already pressing for a bundle to be sent to the UN for global poverty and if you look at his website it is full of Gov't funded projects and civil rights directives. Not to mention he is the one that has tried to get the most ear marks as compared to Hillary and McCain. His concern seems to be the minority instead of the US as a whole.

telcoman wrote:Please take a minute now to sign an open letter to the media and demand that major networks increase their coverage of the Iraq war.

More media coverage of death and dismemberment of the Iraq war or shoud the media actually start covering everything being done over there including the good that is rarely reported?

telcoman wrote:
Hey Joe

I don't think trying to compare Barack Obama to Hitler is a good comparison.Hitler blamed the Jews for Germany's economic problems following WWlObama is trying to appeal to all races as well as Blacks and whites and bring everyone together

Bush hasn't exactly been a stellular leader & we are in such a mess that we need a new one.Whether its Hillary or Barack we need a change in Washington?

McCain would just be more of what we have now.

A Mess!

An unpopular war, uncontrolled debt, tax cuts for the wealthest, lack of education and healthcare. has Bush done over the past seven years?

I was just trying to point out that a good speaker isn't necessarily the answer to our nations problems. The DEMS had a chance for "change" with control of the house. I have yet to see Nancy do anything worthwhile. The only negative I see for McCain is the fact that the guy might die in his second term...his running mate will need to be good!

telcoman wrote:
Hey Joe

I don't think trying to compare Barack Obama to Hitler is a good comparison.Hitler blamed the Jews for Germany's economic problems following WWlObama is trying to appeal to all races as well as Blacks and whites and bring everyone together

Obama and Clinton basically blame rich corporations for making a profit and keep the rest of us poor. Yeah there is NO comparison. Whether you blame the jews or rich people, its still shifting the blame on other group. Its called Class Warfare and I am sick of it. But let's not kid ourselves, Obama isnt insidious as Hitler was.

Quote »An unpopular war, uncontrolled debt, tax cuts for the wealthest, lack of education and healthcare. has Bush done over the past seven years?[/quote]My question is, what are MCCain, Clinton and Obama gonna do that is any different. The conservatives have been decrying the fact that Republicans and Democrats have been acting the same. I would be willing expect we get 4 more years of the same things you listed above, unfortunately. Back in Nov 2006 people swept out the House and the Senate because they wanted change. They got nothing but more of the same with Pelosi and Reid running the Congress. We are still in Iraq, the Congress's approval rating is worse than the Presidents, we have uncontrolled debt, lack of spending for education and health INSURANCE and we just gave out an economic stimulus package to almost everyone in the country. What makes you think Obama, Clinton or McCain will do anything different?

PS, we have very good healthcare in this country. We have problems with the health insurance system in this country. The two are very different things.

Not everyone gets a stimulus package......Hell, I lose a deduction this year as well.

IMO, the speech had decent content but answered nothing. Mostly deflection.

telcoman wrote:
How much are 4000 American lives and hundreds of thousands of wounded worth?

Just to put things into perspective. We have been in Iraq now longer than we were in WWII. We have lost about 1,096,000 less soldiers than we did in WWII. I think this is a testament to the technology, the training and the doctrine of how we fight our wars today. We have been fighting longer in a campaign and have loss less lives.

I hope that you are not trying to make the Americans that have died in Iraq look like victims. What ever your feelings about the War in Iraq, everyone that signs up the Miltary, the National Guard and the Reserves should know exactly what they are getting themsleves into. You will be called up to serve your country in a foreign land and yes, to potential give your life for Freedom. Regardless of what you think of the policies of the United States of America.

audtatious wrote:Not everyone gets a stimulus package......Hell, I lose a deduction this year as well.

IMO, the speech had decent content but answered nothing. Mostly deflection.

As Laura Ingraham said today, "He threw his living grandmother under the bus when it was politically expedient to do so." Why we needed to know that his White Grandmother had said some private racists things I will never know. Personally, I really couldn't care what the Rev. Jeremiah Wright said in the pulpit and when Obama did/didnot hear it. The Rev. is systemic of a larger problem in American Churches, Social Gospel and Liberation Theology. I know the rules of this subforum so I will not go into detail.

Cold_Zero wrote:
Just to put things into perspective. We have been in Iraq now longer than we were in WWII.

Yet in WWII, we were willing to win the war, in Iraq, we merely hope to win it.

rn79870 wrote:
Yet in WWII, we were willing to win the war, in Iraq, we merely hope to win it.

I am not so sure of that..I wonder sometimes.

rn79870 wrote:Yet in WWII, we were willing to win the war, in Iraq, we merely hope to win it.

Realize that during WWII the media was behind the war and losing was never an option. In Iraq, the media is not behind the war and primarily posts the negative-only news without posting any of the good. IMO, a large number of the Democratic party are for failure in order to boost their ranks as well. Throw the Republicans under the bus regardless of what it does to the US as a whole.

Politicians have screwed up every war since WWII. Send the military and let them do what they do best without constant restraints and political positioning.

Another thing to put into perspective about WWII is that it is absolutely the most heavily debated war that the US has ever gotten into. Yes I said it, even more so than Vietnam. Its true. Here is how Americans look at war. We fight with a chip on our shoulder. If someone comes and knocks that chip off, we go to war. Case in point--WWII, Afghanistan. Before the Japanese bombed PH, the country was so divided on the war, so much that there are conspiracies that FDR allowed PH to happen. But we forget that part because not everyone was taught that about WWII and due to the created memory of war by our nation. Afghanistan--I don't think I need to say anything about that and why we got involved there besides that the chip was knocked off. But why does everyone focus on Iraq and not include Afghanistan? With Iraq, I think a lot of people are against it because they see it as pointless because Iraq isn't seen as knocking off the chip on our shoulder (I'm not going to argue that they did or didn't, just offering perspective).

Cold_Zero wrote:We have lost about 1,096,000 less soldiers than we did in WWII.

I think we only lost 416,000 US soldiers in WWII

I was specifically talking about post-Pearl Harbor. I didn't bring up Afganistan as for the most part there is not a big political issue about us being there.

Per wiki: US Battle deaths were 292,131, Army 234,874, Navy 36,950, Marine Corps 19,733, Coast Guard 574 (tho even these numbers are debated and I have seen it listed upwards of 500k)

I wonder what Pastor Manning would think of Obama's speach...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khuu-RhOBDU

EDIT: May not be something to open at work -audtatious

smockers83 wrote:I think we only lost 416,000 US soldiers in WWII

For some reason I had 1.1 total casualties in WWII. Not sure if that included civilians and merchant marines in the total count. I hit up infoplease and 400-500K is about right for the Military losses of WWII. So to revise my previous post we have lost 412,000 less soldiers in Iraq than we did in WWII.

confedup wrote:I wonder what Pastor Manning would think of Obama's speach...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khuu-RhOBDU

Is it bad that I laughed?