Angry anti-Obama taunts grip McCain, Palin events

Myron wrote:

<quoted text> I read news a lot and watch T.V. news, and I NEVER heard this. So forgive me if I don't just take your word for it. No matter how many times or ways you say it or state "i can't believe you haven't heard this". All too often people repeat junk they hear or think they hear and continue to repeat t as if that will make it true. Since no one has come to your defense and you have offered no proof I will continue to belief this is nothing but B.S. I know this is a minor point but I hate letting garbage go unanswered. SWIFTBOATING, never again.

not ok wrote:

<quoted text>
Spoken like a true republican (not that that's anything to be proud of, mind you).
Yes, we need a military.
No, we don't need to invade other countries for the sole purpose of OIL, resulting in our countries highest national debt, EVER.(not to mention many lives lost, un-neccesarily). Oops...that's already been done, thank you President Bush & his admin.
Do you know how much America is looked down on, now, since Bush came in office 8 years ago? I'm expecting a typical "who cares what they think?" from someone on here with an "America is #1" mentality, but as a country we SHOULD care. If the key allies that we have (countries, that is) turn against us and decide to no longer support us in the decisions we make, it doesn't matter HOW big our military is, our enemies will find a way to defeat us. And then where will we get our money from, to fund anything? At that point we'll have no one left to borrow from.

not ok wrote:

<quoted text>
No, we don't need to invade other countries for the sole purpose of OIL, resulting in our countries highest national debt, EVER.(not to mention many lives lost, un-neccesarily). Oops...that's already been done, thank you President Bush & his admin.

Brooke 831 wrote:

<quoted text>
The original post said nothing about invading another country for oil. Why add that in?

Brooke 831 wrote:

<quoted text>
The original post said nothing about invading another country for oil. Why add that in?

H L Bowman wrote:

<quoted text>
Iraq was not invaded for it's oil. It was however invaded to take out Saadim Hussein and the WMD which were not found (they were there) no matter what the media may tell you. If Congress would have left us take care of business in 1991 we may not be in the boat we are in today or Clinton would have listened to the intell and his advisors he would have been blamed for The Iraq War and we may have gotten the WMD's in the process. I guess no one has told you but we are the World's police force and we are expected to keep a strong military, we have bases all over the world to not only protect us but those we have sworn to protect in the past, this comes under our NATO agreement.
As for countries not liking us check around the world and see how close they are watching this election and who they want in the White House.
As for being a true republican, who is to say I am an American who has been serve both Dem. and Rep. since 1968. I also am a Japanese resident and have lived on every Continent in the world. I believe in fighting for our freedoms and against those who are a threat to those freedoms. I like John McCain took an oath in the military to fight for God and Country and that I will uphold till the day I die, even as a civilian.

parlo wrote:

<quoted text>Here we go again! Another wingnut still trying to blame Iraq for September 11.

not ok wrote:

<quoted text>
Does it bother you that it's the truth? I'm not sure why you should even care that I put that in?

H L Bowman wrote:

<quoted text>
Look again it is below 70 and are predicting it could go as low as 50. All of a sudden we have an excess in reserve (GIVE ME A BREAK) How long are we going to let the Democrats in congress lie to us.

Brooke 831 wrote:

<quoted text>
I just think it's ironic that you are posting something as "fact" when it's speculation, unless there is some type of special panel finding, congressional finding, Supreme Court ruling on this that I missed. If so, I apologize ahead of time.

not ok wrote:

<quoted text>
Whether you want to believe it or not, the war we are in now WAS started b/c of oil. That was the main reason behind it. The Bush admin. covered it up by saying that it was b/c of the "weapons of mass destruction". Ask either McCain or Bush--both have admitted that there NEVER were any WMD.
Yes, America is the "world's police". I agree that a military is neccessary, and a strong one at that, but it's not needed to invade countries under false accusations; merely for the reason of personal gain. As far as I'm aware, that is not the point of our military's existanse.
If you believe that by invading Iraq, etc., is in the "best intrest" of our ally countries, why is it that NONE of them (save GB) agree with what we've been doing, and have strongly disagreed with it and made their opinions known, but Bush just ignored all of them??
Yes, I'll agree that many around the world are closely watching this election. They're VERY happy to know that our "good ole boy" prez. is about to leave office, and a new one will take his place. Those who follow are hoping Obama will become the next president. Why? Because he has a level head on his shoulders, and is hoping to negotiate and discuss before just barging ahead and doing whatever he feels like doing, b/c it's in his best intrest (a la Bush, during his years). They know Obama's the change we need--not McSame, I mean, McCain. The whole world has been laughing at us these past 8 years, thanks to our wonderful president.
McCain is not a war hero. He served, yes, for 3-4 months, and then was captured. I'm saying nothing against the fact that he was a POW, I have respect for him in that sense, but just because he served a couple months means NOTHING to me--it doesn't make him any more qualified for the presidential position, and it sure doesn't mean that he has the American citizens best intrests at heart any more than Obama does.

H L Bowman wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry I've been in and out of there so many times in the past 30 years I should be a resident. At the time we were protecting the oil fields in Kuwait. We had Hussein then and the place where the WMD'S were, but we could not go in after either. Now you can argue all you want and there is nothing to prove either unless you can find the guy who's picture is on I believe it was Time Mag. fighting the oil fires in Kuwait back then..

not ok wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry; I have the utmost respect for our military and the fact that they risk their lives for us as a country, but I don't believe anything about reasons as to "why we're at war" that comes out of their mouths, even though they're the ones fighting. Our wonderful government brainwashes our military with what they want them to believe, as soon as training begins, and that includes the reasons why we go to war, etc.
So as far as reasons why we go to war, and why we continue to fight this war, a military personel knows no more than a civilian.

Judged:

1

1

1

not ok wrote:

<quoted text>
McCain's even admitted to it. Bush has admitted that there really never were any weapons of mass destruction, either. What do you think the "real" reason is that we went to war in the first place?

Judged:

1

1

Myron wrote:

<quoted text> I'm sorry that is not enough. I want to a specific some link where Obama stated that he wouldn't wear a flag pin. Produce or shut-up; I simply don't believe it ever happened.

facts wrote:

<quoted text>You idiot, the Republicans are still running it! Obama didnt win yet! The price is coming down because the Dem's are getting ready to expose the truth! The Republics are scared and their watching what they do.. Thank godness because now I can fill up at the pump. I call it Fleecing of America. Watch out America... The best is yet to come!
Clear choice for me... Obama/Biden

Just Info wrote:

<quoted text>
You can find it but you refuse to look for it. I will not do your work for you. If you are too lazy to do some research on your own don't expect me to do it for you. I have done the research and found the statements, and associations. In reality I don't beleive it would make any difference if you did see the proof, I figure you would refuse to beleive it and totaly ignore it if it was not favorable for Obama.
So just go along in your daze and don't get confused by the facts.