Comments on: Obama: But I Want To Talk To Terrorists

By: semieka

semieka — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 04:03:05 +0000

How is it not important to any American that Obama refuses to salute the American Flag or pledge allegiance to America? NO reason is good enough. This is NOT American. How is this not a big deal? How can the American President refuse? How can you try to be the president of a country that you won’t pledge your allegiance to? So what’s the real reason why he wants to lift the ban on communicating with terrorist leaders?
It’s a known fact that the terrorist plan to take over America from the inside. Suddenly, here comes this president who hasn’t fought for America in any kind of war, with the least amount of experience, who won’t support the American flag, and wants to lift the ban on communicating with terrorist leaders. How convenient!!!!!! DOES THIS NOT RAISE ANY RED FLAGS!!!!!!!!!
So you have an anti- American American presidential candidate whose wife is obviously extremely racist. Who tries to make anyone who does not vote Obama seem racist. A woman who refers to votes not as people but as colors. And has previously promised to use all of her then and future resources to elevate the black community.
The way things seem to me, with Michelle having such strong views, having more education than her husband, that it would be Michelle running the show behind the curtain. Either way the country would still be an Obamanation. These are very important issues that no one seems to be questioning.
(Now, I’m half black and half white, so I have the right to both sides. I don’t want any one to be the leader of my country who is once again going to make race an issue. We need to be done with that. Who’s to say whose white or black? Some where down the line we’re all “mixed” with something.)
Honestly, I just want the right man for the job. I’m sick of large amounts of my money going to the gas. I’m sick of our economic struggle. I agree, we need change. But what kind of change are we talking

By: A Pot Full Of Obama |

A Pot Full Of Obama | — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 23:27:45 +0000

[...] a political platform that twists and turns dependent on the wind, a personal determination to negotiate with terrorists, (to whom the only correct response being two in the body, one in the head~ you never negotiate [...]

By: Kurt

Kurt — Fri, 16 May 2008 18:26:44 +0000

First,

For those liberals who think the Israelis were somehow offended by President Bush’s comments, did you here the applause after these comments?

Second, who said Bush was refering to Obama? Little boy Barack being a little defensive here?

Third, nomatter what Obama says, he was endorsed by Hamas. PERIOD END OF DISCUSSION. He may not like to admit it but the enemies of America, foreign and domestic, support him

Warning flags are everywhere folks. This guy is no good

By: phnx

phnx — Fri, 16 May 2008 08:38:07 +0000

JAT,

Is English your second language or have you been hitting the sauce tonight? Go back and read the post again and try to focus if you are going to respond. Rambling makes you look like a fool or a drunk or both.

By: Just Another Taxpayer

Just Another Taxpayer — Fri, 16 May 2008 08:02:04 +0000

Phnx,
You should remember that just because you and Bush share the same mental defeciencies, you cannot assume the same for everyone else.
Remember Reagans famous injunction “Trust, but verify.”
Has anyone walked in and taken the bombs and radioactive material already built there? Kim, no doubt, is a man of his word. And if the North Koreans start soemthing, what are we gonna do? Build more weapons financed by the Chinese cause we’re to cheap to build them ourselves? Oh, yeah, Kims shaking in his shoes at the prospect of dealing with someone with your intellectual might.
Then, you went off on some tangent about Bush doing just what Clinton did.
So what? It didn’t work for Clinton, it’s supposed to work better for Bush because …he’s …smarter?
Let’s assume that all the problems are Clintons fault at the time that Bush enters office: So what does Bush do about Bin Laden before 9/11?
Nothing. In 2005, the special unit set up to track Bin Laden closes down.
He’s hiding next to Pakistans nukes, and the election process seems to be breaking down between rival factions. Musharraf maybe back in power, and democracy suffered another setback. Bin Laden still has his safe haven.
Why are our troops chasing rag-tag remains of Bush reputation around the Iraqi desert while Kim remains free to do as he pleases, and Bin Laden sits next to nukes while Bush stands by helplessly?
Your citing Lybia and North Korea as examples of Bush successfully keeping arms from terrorists is as lame a Bush citing intelligence reports after the invasion to excuse his incompetence.
Irononicly, the very examples you cite mean that you believe that engaging people works, even if you are trying to kill them and vice versa.
What exactly are you trying to say here?
With people like you supporting McCain, no doubt, the Iranians will be too frightened to do anything but what they damn well please.
Whose going to stop them from doing otherwise.

By: Willem van Oranje

Willem van Oranje — Fri, 16 May 2008 03:55:11 +0000

Deleted - off topic.

By: Tom Thumb

Tom Thumb — Fri, 16 May 2008 03:21:33 +0000

Deleted - off topic.

By: William Teach

William Teach — Fri, 16 May 2008 02:11:31 +0000

Sorry, Sidetrack, but NCLB was Kennedy’s brainchild. I know facts are difficult for liberals to understand, but, give it a shot.

BTW, I appreciate being called a little swift boater, because that means I was telling the truth.

BTW, I cannot believe these leftards are actually trying to play this 9/11 blame game again. Freaking unbelievable.

By: neocon

neocon — Fri, 16 May 2008 02:08:47 +0000

(supported by Cindy McCain?); - Willem

Just a question. Did you put your pinky on your bottom lip when you typed that?

By: neocon

neocon — Fri, 16 May 2008 02:00:40 +0000

You might want to read George Tenet’s book